Add new comment

So much truly dubious work gets done with this notion of unavoidable "group decisions." Like the notion of an inescapable "society," it either needs to be unpacked or abandoned as essentially meaningless and probably deceptive. If there were truly "no alternative" to "collective" action, then the collectivists would either need to find a new word for the specific thing that they propose or they would have to acknowledge that all of the tough talk against "individualism" is really aimed at something that they believe is not even possible. You can quibble about "democracy" and "rule" as much as you like, but once you start making claims about what is inescapable, you either have to make the rest of your argument conform to that presumed certainty.

Anarchists—assuming the term means anything—have to assume that people are capable of "grouping" differently than they have in governmental societies, where there is always a subordination of the individual human being to some polity (governmental body, capitalistic firm, patriarchal family, etc.) If collectivity is indeed inevitable—and there are arguments from the early anarchists that certainly seem to support some version of the claim—it is not because political organization is inevitable, with its insistence on "rule" of one sort or another. (And, seriously, isn't "self-rule" the most humiliating capitulation to governmentalism of them all?) We can acknowledge collectivity as a result or product of the process association among individuals without then putting the car before the horse and making that product the most important thing in our social analysis and subordinating the producers to it.

One more effort, comrades, if you're going to have an analysis of anarchy and democracy that makes any damn sense...