Add new comment

It's also okay to acknowledge that you simply don't understand an opposing position, Wayne. Calling people names and blustering about other peoples' positions does not constitute a response—and you are presumably very keen that people at least try to respond.

Anyway, I addressed the issue several responses back, just before you tried to bow out with "read my essays." Here are my principles, laid out as a bare sketch of anarchist strategy for "getting together, talking it out and coming to joint decisions," without, in the process, instituting new polities, establishing social hierarchies or naturalizing political rule as an inescapable reality:

"That means not only no "state," but no reification of any given association into a vehicle for political rule, no similar elevation of the firm in the economic realm or of structures like the patriarchal family in more intimate relations. Groups exist as a function of that "free use of social intelligence," rather than as a fixed constraint on it. And then the rest of anarchic "society" is built, maintained, abandoned, altered, etc. on that very real foundation and with care not to compromise it. Anything else would seem to be that "governmentalism" that anarchists initially opposed—archy. "

It is indeed a bare sketch, but it is also the thing that you are presumably rejecting if you reject my principles. You have yet to show in what way treating groups solely as as expressions of concerted effort and present agreement—which simply do not exist when those constituting qualities are not present—"cannot work." Nor have you shown how that arrangement of relations would oblige the participating individuals to take turns imposing their political will on one another.

If it is a question of building roads, then an anarchist society has a number of problems to face before it gets to the question of who gets pushes around by whom. We can hope, for a variety of reasons, that there will be more debates, moving forward, about depaving than about where we send the bulldozers. Our ecological situation is such, even at comparatively small scales, that perhaps "a new road" should be treated as a project demanding not just universal support, but considerable research and perhaps ultimately a willingness to alter other aspects of our social and economic lives in order to avoid. Perhaps a consistent anarchy is a lot more less utopian if we don't imagine the work of society to involve the building of monumental, or even particularly durable, structures and institutions. That's not, by the way, a call for primitivism—and might be a call for some kind of ecological futurism. The important thing is that anarchists must be prepared to live with the consequences of anarchistic principles—or they probably should, for the sake of their own projects, reorganize around different principles.

To dress up your own form of libertarian minarchism as the only alternative to "some conception of statist reformism" (with or without gratuitous references to other people's supposed fantasies) seems to me an indication of either a quite active will to misrepresent opponents or evidence of a deep, deep lack of political understanding and imagination. It doesn't really matter to me at this point which it is, since both should be opposed in the defense of meaningfully anarchistic principles and practices.