Add new comment

I don't get the feeling that most of my opponents are actually reading my remarks before writing their sparkling refutations. For example, "democracy, from its ancient origins through its modern formative years up till today, is undeniably a form of statecraft." This is asserted, ex cathedra, from the writer's bellybutton. Their is no response to my point that for tens of thousands of years humans have organized themselves in face-to-face self-government (that is, direct democracy) without states (defined as a oppressive institution over the rest of society).

There are repeated rejections of my assertion that human society is, after all, a society, and that in many areas under anarchism collective decisions will still have to be made. Must I spell it out for you? Can you deny it? How would you make collective decisions, such as how to lay out the streets in a commune, what schedule to keep for our shoemaking guild, how to deal with antisocial individuals, how to coordinate the commune's planting and reaping work, what mandate to give to our delegate to the regional council, etc.? If not decided by group discussion and decision-making (direct democracy) then what? A dictator perhaps?

" seriously, Wayne, if you haven't thought about this stuff," says one ignoramus. The writer does not know that I have written quite a number of essays on the topic of anarchism and democracy over the years. Look it up.

However, the Anonymous writer of "The Crisis of the US" seems to actually get the point of my essay. I completely agree with their remarks.