portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article portland metro

labor | political theory

Anarchism is not an ideal nor a utopia

A dicussion carried on from other posts below about the possibility of anarchism being put into practice. I argue that anarchism is an ongoing drive and that its theory is fundamentally different from utopian or "ideal society" theories like commununism.
Some anarchists view anarchism as the end state of communism without the interim of a totalitarian regime. Basically that means a governmentless society in peace and harmony with brother man in equity and cooperation. Whatever the faluts or virtues of such a theory there is reason to stop at the very first step, the notion of an ideal society.

Why should we ever be in the business of an ideal society at all? The problems such theories are trying to address are not ideal but rather practical. Why not offer solutions from the perspective of the problems themselves. Namely if I do X, Y will be solved, and that moves me to Z. The ideal society say in such and such conditions Y will not exist because of such and such social structures. Now there is some validity to this move in so far as a theorist wishes to justify their practical solutions. For example someone wants to change the produce in their grocery store to all organic. So they say "I want to change apples to organic, oranges, beets....." Someone might ask why. One answer might be "The store will reach a broader audience and further the health of its customers". The answer uses an ideal, that of the future ideal store with healthy products, more customers, diversity, etc., to explain the changes sought. It is another thing all together to begin with an idealized society and attempt to derive one's current practical reforms in accordance with such. I believe this is why many leftists tend to believe revolution is the only vehicle of change. For it is inconceivable that the current society could ever adjust to the ideal by anything short of total revolution. Even with the various revolutions we have seen there has been great difficulty changing the social institutions to fit the ideals of say communism. Much of these difficulties are due to issues in the structure of the theory itself and couldn't be worked out until people were able to test it.

So those are some reasons to worry about appeal to ideal or utopian societies generally. There are other like the fact that utopia sounds fairly boring or frightening but I will set those aside. My claim is that anarchism need not be a utopian theory.

Begin with the thesis: Whenever possible and to the greatest degree possible, breakdown hierarchical state structures and construct participatory and equitable social institutions. My reasons for finding such a view appealing are that in a society which must retain its hierarchies, the best, brightest, and wisest will be kept down by inferior superiors attempting to keep their thrones. Thus anarchism ought to strive to allow all its members to developp their abilities and intellect as far as they will to go. One might also cite love of justice, quality of life under a society in which the majority is used as a means to the ends of unintelligent, and base leaders.

From this thesis one can see how anarchism might work. Whereever you are and hierarchy is unjustified, one ought to replace it with a democratic participatory structure. There are justified hierarchies and authority (that is why the term anarchism is annoying). For instance moral authority might be justified, familial authority or authority over those who cannot take care of themselves is justified, etc. The structures I have in mind are somewhat like City Bikes, the IWW, RED & Black Cafe, etc. That is groups of people who manage themselves autonomously and take on the tasks and profits as a group. A larger structure would be a freely organized federation of such groups who come together to organize and develop some greater service. Say a steel production syndicate establishes a federation with worker self-managed miners, truck drivers, plants that produce steel based materials, etc. They might band together and utilize group profits to develop the poorer plants, develop production technologies, etc. On the larger level things get slightly more complicated and I would want to bring in Participatory Economics and more ideas about industrial unionism and federations. Nevertheless there are current examples in effect on the small scale in portland, and at the municipal level in Brazil, and Spain. Not to mention historical examples.... Tell me if you want me to continue.
Utopianism breeds totalitarianism 15.Oct.2002 12:09

David B

Well, maybe not inevitably but there is a strong tendency for it to. Why? Because human society is too complex for anyone to comprehend it completely. Yet that's exactly what utopians do when they draw up blueprints for a future world.

If the utopians in question achieve power, the inevitable mistakes in the blueprint become obvious. The temptation then arises to use force to compel those of aspects of human behavior which are throwing monkey wrenches into the plan to change, because if only those few troublesome patterns can be reined in, this wonderful tremendous improvement will become reality.

Instead, the force makes people resentful and they end up expressing this resent by not going along even more. Which of course leads to more force being used (it's worth it after all, the end is so wonderful that we can tolerate some less-than-nice means right now temporarily). And so the vicious force-resentment-more force cycle begins.

The only way I can see around this is to keep the utopian vision (_some_ vision is necessary to act as a guide for where one wants to go) necessarily vague and specified only in very broad general terms, and to approach it by incremental experimentation, fully expecting that many such experiments won't work and will have to be dropped.

Portland, OR

Anarchy Rules, in Theory 15.Oct.2002 15:29

android9 android9@hotmail.com (subject: agitprop)

I like much of what t has to say, and has previously said, but some of it is also somewhat confused, or confusing, I think...

I tend to agree that it may never be "utopia", in the sense of everything being "perfect"...no matter how good things may get there are likely to be new problems that will arise, and some of the same old problems may also be likely to keep raising their ugly heads.

It seems to me that when discussing social organization, like anything else, you are talking more about process, and issues of relative, not necessarily absolute resolution, as t seems to be saying.

"Governmentless society in peace and harmony with brother man in equity and cooperation" does not necessarily mean there would be no need for any social organization whatsoever, nor that peace, harmony, equity and cooperation would be automatic, absolute and without any kind of difficulties or challenges. I think life will always be interesting and challenging, no matter how good things get.

There is a really important distinction that must be made.

A governor is something external, applied to a native power source, that mediates and controls that power for some external purpose.

"Governmentless" means the population is not "governed" by elites, as an external force, but that decisions are made democratically, as an internal self-discipline, socially (...ie: NOT individually, as some kind of bourgeois ultra-individualist fantasy of "freedom", as some notion of privileged license to run amok, which is really what the whole notion of government by elites derives from in the first place).

Freedom, like anything else, can only be relative, not absolute.

Too many people confuse the notion of an external force, dictating elite whims unjustly to the population, and the revolutionary notion of a democratic mandate, to justly and reasonably demand genuinely assiduous pursuit of the universally desired social goals of peace, cooperation, etc.

Chaos freaks tend to want to equate the two, and say that even a genuine democratic mandate is "oppressive", and no different really from an elitist mandate. They will tend to argue that as long as one person (and their like-minded clique, such as pdx imc edcom, for example) doesn't get to do whatever the fuck they want, then there is "no freedom" Of course, they are full of shit.

The historic problem has not been "oppression by the majority", but the manipulation of social "norms" by elites, in a dictatorship of elitist chaos. (if you look at a fractal image, you will see that for all of it's seeming particular diversity, it is actually the most rigidly structured formation imaginable, merely repeating the same forms, over and over, virtually infinitely)

Anarchy may not be absolute or "ideal", in any absurd sense of everyone being able to do whatever the fuck they want. But at least whatever constraints may be necessary or appropriate would be imposed democratically, instead of by some elite bastards just looking to rip us off and fuck us over for their own capricious whims.

I think the alphabetic reference to apples and oranges is a bit confusing. There is nothing all that complicated or particularly difficult about a popular democratic mandate for clean, healthy, natural food, instead of poisoned, unhealthy, poor-tasting food. The only thing standing in the way of organice produce, or any other such obvious and reasonable decision, is the lack of genuinely rational democratic control over what kind of food gets produced and distributed, and manipulation of "popular demand" by various machiavellian means, like advertising and price controls.

As long as markets are manipulated by elitist capitalism, we are fucked. A main problem with "Communism" with a capital C, is that it is not really democratic, but retains the notion of an elite Party, instead of allowing for genuine democracy, right now, instead of some day, maybe.

There have been some significant improvements in equity, in the Communist countries, despite this critical flaw, as compared to capitalism. You certainly can't believe everything you see in the bourgeois media, about how totally fucked everything about Communism has always been. They have had serious problems, it cannot be denied, but most of those have been more of a direct result of profound outside pressures imposed by capitalism, which does everything in it's considerable power to make sure communism cannot succeed, no matter how hard the Party may try...in the face of that real politik, the Party tends to become demoralized and to degenerate, into more and more elitist constructs, which serves only the interests of the bourgeoisie, ultimately.

This is not indicative of some inherent flaw of communism, so much as the fact that capitalism cannot let it succeed in any genuine sense of true popular democratic equity, because that would mean the death of capitalism and all elitism.

Communism with a small c, the notion of communal decision making by all of the people, will lead to more reasonable and equitable systems of organization for the production and distribution of goods and services, better than Communist elitism can ever provide, but it cannot do so as long as capitalism is stabbing it in the back, undermining, sabotaging and attacking it on all sides.

That's why the notion of total revolution is so obviously necessary. Until actual real democracy is actually established, we are fucked, and no amount of "reform" will ever be able to really actually resolve the inevitable inequities and irrational contradictions of elitism of all kinds.

But revolution does not just happen. It develops in a more or less cyclical manner, like anything else, and has stages and levels that can be directly effected by the players on the stage of history. I believe it is possible that we can precipitate an aufsgehovan, at some point, and it better be pretty soon, I think, if we are going to save the planet, where the demand for genuine democracy will suddently start to boil up, and sweep the world, with mass general strikes, to paralyze capitalism and bring it to it's knees, such that the people can assert once and for all their legitimate power. This has already begun to happen, elsewhere, but it must happen here, I think, to really take it over the top.

Of course that could be a disaster, or merely a temporary phenomenon, reverting back to capitalism, fascism or even feudalism, if we are not prepared to struggle now, and then, to build the apparatus for coordinating the production of goods and services democratically. I am not interested in seeing the collapse of all civilization, and a return to the stone age, personally, or merely fucking up capitalism so an even worse paradigm can supplant it.

More effort needs to be put into those practical programs t mentions, for sure, such as "if we aren't going to let them cut down all the trees and kill all the fish anymore, then how, exactly, are we going to ensure a just and dignified transition to more sustainable paradigms for survival, for those loggers, log truck drivers, millworkers, ranchers, farmers, and their peripheral communities and families,etc?
Even the Settlers have fundamental human rights, as much as do the Native peoples, third world workers, etc, etc.

At some points, t seems to go off on a tangent, perhaps due to not having explored these concepts adequately...hence notions of some need for hierarchical moral, familial or medical "authority", which he seems to pose as some kind of necessary evil, or compromise of principle, when in fact, such needs of the society should be met socially, democratically, not as an hierarchical or elitist imposition, but as part of the whole big social picture. How any of this makes the term anarchy "annoying", escapes me.

Anarchy means without some overarching authority, as in the power coming from the people themselves, not from some external elite that dictates.

Then there's the line about "One might also cite love of justice, quality of life under a society in which the majority is used as a means to the ends of unintelligent, and base leaders", again confusing the contrived, bogus construct of "majority will", with what is really elitist manipulation. ...an altogether poorly put and confused remark with no real meaning or context.

I don't mean to sound overly critical. I too tend along syndicalist lines, and agree that workplace organizing is an absolutely critical arena of revolutionary work that must be expanded and improved upon, urgently. Time is running out, to save the planet. The loggers et al must be convinced to lay down their tools and go into the streets with us, to stop the death culture machine, and meanwhile, and we must all work together, to rebuild our society such that everyone has a fair and equal chance to thrive and prosper, reasonably, rationally, democractically. This will not be easy to pull off, and will take higher levels of solidarity and mutual aid and cooperation than may presently seem feasible. But it's the only way, so we must do it, or die trying.

I think David B makes one of the most fundamental errors now prevelent in the "anarchist" movement, of attributing all kinds of negative connotations to coercion, as some kind of automatically problematic, even counter-revolutionary impetus. Anarchy is not about freedom to run amok! The bourgeoisie will scream bloody murder, and fight to the death, over their freedom to elite privilege, but fuck them! They must be ruthlessly suppressed. None of this is about being mean, unjust, or becoming "just like them", unless you are thinking in delusional elitist terms of having to avoid the "oppressive majority" paradigm of bourgeois 'democracy".

We are talking about democracy here, for real, which does not mean some bunch of local rednecks can "take a vote" to revert to Jim Crow, enslave their women, or cut down all the trees and kill all the fish. This is not 1776, or 1917.

We have to think in international terms, and completely transcend all previous mental paradigms, if we are to succeed in the revolutionary project. This requires faith in the masses, and recognition that people can and will do the right thing, if a clear means to accomplish it presents itself.

That's our job, is to facilitate, not even to make, the revolution.

ALL POWER TO THE PEOPLE!

eg:

TAKE BACK THE MOST POWERFUL REVOLUTIONARY WEAPON WE HAVE, AND PURGE THE ELITIST EDCOM CLIQUE FROM PDX IMC, BEFORE THEY DESTROY IT, JUST LIKE EUGENE "IMC" WAS DESTROYED!

Swamp pdx imc with revolutionary fighters, and reconvene the General Collective, with representatives from all progressive venues of media activism!

Require strict membership criteria, specifying adherance in theory and practice to Global IMC principles and documentation, including genuine democractic control by the entire pdx imc community, not just by the hand-picked clique of chaos freaks now asserting hegemony in edcom!

The thin end of the wedge of totalitarianism 15.Oct.2002 20:29

David B.

I think David B makes one of the most fundamental errors now prevelent in the "anarchist" movement, of attributing all kinds of negative connotations to coercion, as some kind of automatically problematic, even counter-revolutionary impetus. Anarchy is not about freedom to run amok! The bourgeoisie will scream bloody murder, and fight to the death, over their freedom to elite privilege, but fuck them! They must be ruthlessly suppressed. None of this is about being mean, unjust, or becoming "just like them", unless you are thinking in delusional elitist terms of having to avoid the "oppressive majority" paradigm of bourgeois 'democracy".

Well, I'm so sure about being an anarchist; I'm uncertain if modern society can survive with _no_ state (or other such body whose functions look and act so much like a state that it's just a rose by another name and, sorry, I'm not interested reverting to a tribalist past).

Probably the one theorist who comes closest to my views is Bertrand Russel in his writings "Political Ideals" and "Proposed Roads to Freedom". Basically, concentrate on promoting worker ownership and control over businesses in the short term and use anarchism as a guiding ideal. If the ideal is achievable, we'll get there; if not, we'll get as close as possible.

Regarding the bourgeoisie, just who/what is the "bourgeoisie"? Who decides? How does someone appeal a decision that one is a member of the "bourgeoisie" or "counter-revolutionary"? What actions get taken against such individuals?

Your vision of society sounds to me suspiciously like Stalin's or Pol Pot's. Even if it were more benign, it would at best be like a permanent version of the USA in the McCarthy era, when people were being denounced as "communist".


Portland, OR

hrmm... 15.Oct.2002 21:20

sacred chao

for android9: How does what you describe differ from democracy? At least in principle- I know how it differs from the current system we call democracy here and now.... Are you sure you're not taking some good traditional American ideas and giving them the trappings of modern radicalism?

for t: well, what about those larger levels? It's easy to think about how we might organize 50 people working on the same basic tasks, but it always seems to fall apart when the group gets too big or the relationship between tasks too complex. If we get into a system of electing representatives, I'd have to pose the same question as I did to our metallic friend above. And the only alternatives I can even think of to that is to let the market make the decisions, which hardly sounds like what you're after.

Has anarchism just become a hip code-word for democracy?

mu

More horseshit from the Left 16.Oct.2002 02:11

chris

"You certainly can't believe everything you see in the bourgeois media, about how totally fucked everything about Communism has always been."

Um, no, I don't, but I believe Soviet dissident writers like Alexander Solzhenitsyn.

Perhaps you should read people like him, who lived in Soviet prison camps and saw people dying from hunger and overwork, before spouting your bullshit about "bourgeois media".

Communism = genocide. Period. Fuck off with your moral equivalency.

chris

yall think you're diligent do you??????? 16.Oct.2002 06:51

piet

try this: 2.654K !!! document: UNTITLED - on Free Banking & Monetary FreedomSomething
Authoritarian anarchism vs. voluntary anarchism. ---- Atheist anarchisms vs. christian or other religious anarchism. ---- Back-to-basics anarchism vs. hyphenated forms of anarchism. (The attempts to find common ground, principles or characteristics, like voluntarism or non-domination over dissenters. Some anarchists are as afraid of diversity or "fragmentation" or disunity as are territorial politicians.) ----- Back to nature anarchism vs. forward with nature anarchism. -


whoopsie, scuezme 16.Oct.2002 07:01

piet

the anarchy file (sampled above but mixed up with another ((linked one)) is bigger that the one you are looking at now but not quite as big as that banking one (ps: for the dirt on soilbanking building and saving you might come see stuff via my site:  http://poetpiet.tripod.com).

Here is the (52K) one chockablock with slogans and aphorisms called A SURVEY OF HYPHENATED ANARCHIST TYPES AND THEIR OPPOSITES :


Anarchy is Real Democracy 16.Oct.2002 12:18

android9

I think having formally organized social structures is a natural, necessary, and desirable human phenomenon. To me the whole concept of whether you call it a "state" with all of the negative connotations, is based on is whether it's controlled by elites, or genuinely democratic. A state of being, of mind, of social organization, where coordination of production and distribution of goods and services is genuinely democratic, would be a lot different from what we have today, not just "a rose by another name", like pdx imc edcom.

We definitely have to transcend the notion of a competitive "nation" or tribal state, or "true revolutionary" elitist clique, and look more to local, bioregional, and super-regional mutual aid and cooperation, extending worldwide.

How to make that genuinely democratic is the big issue, all the way. The bigger and further afield it gets, of course, the more representative it must be, which definitely compounds the difficulties. To whatever extent some aspects of the representation are less democratic than others, profound contradictions arise.

Real democracy may be hard work, but it is no harder than being a wage slave, ultimately, in real terms, if you figure in all of the costs, long term. And the potential benefits are huge

Transcendence of these difficulties and contradictions requires more democracy, which is the historically unprecedented, revolutionary, evolutionary concept. Bourgeois death culture so absolutely contradicts this tendency that reversion to elitism often results, out of desperation, as a short-term tactical ploy that ultimately proves disastrous.

Bertrand Russell is way cool, a great study. He was adamant about the need for global "government" that could transcend national chauvinisms over parochial interests, to offer rational, just, truly democratic resolution of conflict, and prevent wars. He posed this not as the imposition of some "external" global tyranny, as a mere combination of local tyrannies, but as a function of genuinely democratic global cooperation, reason, objective justice. It is that concept which capitalism, fascism and religious fundamentalism hate and fear most about the UN and "One World Government". They do not want justice, because they are so guilty, and would surely be held to account for their crimes against humanity.

I know some of my rhetoric sounds harsh, and it is not unusual for people to equate my call for ruthless suppression of the bourgeoisie to Stalin, or Pol Pot, or the Jacobins. But to obssess on the extremes of those figures obscures the much more horrific, longstanding, and profound extremes of the bourgeoisie, to which they were attempting to respond.

Their fundamental error was elitism, an emulation of the same problem they were trying to eliminate, which of course presents huge contradictions. I think they did the best they knew how, considering what they had to work with, including profoundly ignorant and illiterate populations, with virtually no effective non-bourgeois dominated mass media. It took a year or more for communications of any kind to get from one side of their jurisdiction to the other. This is not then, or there.

Those with roots in, or identification with bourgeois culture naturally blanche at the prospect of being held fully accountable for the heinous criminal treasons against humanity perpetuated by their class interest. "Ruthless" suppression does imply an overly harsh attitude, with no mercy, a lack of consideration for rational justice. Actually the term revolutionary justice is more appropriate. Mercy, where it is appropriate, is appropriate.

But how rational and merciful is it to allow the torture and slaughter of hundreds of millions of people to continue, or to reassert itself, and ultimately defeat a long and bitter struggle for liberation? Do you wish to cut slack for the bourgeoisie and their "running dogs", in the name of protecting the "rights" and "freedoms" asserted by their arbitrary and capricious, torturous, murderous, absolutely merciless criminal whims? Where to cut slack, and where to draw the line, can only be determined justly by actual real democracy.

You might have to wait in the hall, all day and all night, over and over, to access a hospital emergency ward for relief from serious injuries or illness, and watch the huge crowd of people around you, perhaps including yourself, suffering and dying, just because you don't have enough money. You might have to spend a few years in prison, and see first hand the absolutely vicious dehumanizing brutality deliberately, purposefully, inherent to that system. You might have to get rousted and get your face ground into the pavement, with a gun to your head, beat up and insulted to the core of your being, over and over, for nothing, repeatedly. It's hard to fully comprehend the injustice, until you have personally suffered it, directly, over and over, for a long time, with no prospect, no hope whatsoever, for justice.

Why is it so horrible to contemplate turning the tables against such a tiny elite minority of humanity, to protect the interests of the vast majority of peoples, perhaps even to save the entire planet, at this stage? I think it should be done justly, democratically, reasonably, rationally, objectively, not out of subjective malice. I think that's what most people in the world would vote for, given the opportunity. Only elites go to such extemes as just wanting to cut off all their heads, and those of all their children and friends, like the Jacobins, etc. The general population has never wanted these measures, anywhere, except to the extent they were deliberately forced, manipulated and tricked into such a position.

I propose that all US Republicans must be arrested, and their assets seized, to even begin to seriously, effectively rectify present conditions. Do you have some other proposal?

I am not advocating that they should be dragged out into the street and shot by vigilante mob action, in some kind of "cultural revolution", or "fascist" roundup They should get a fair trial, first. But seriously, each case should be rationally and objectively (from a working class, not a craven bourgeois perspective) adjudicated, democratically, in the best interests of humanity. Justice cannot be meted out by elites. That entire notion is a huge contradiction of terms. I would define "counter-revolutionary" as anti-democratic elitism, including what pdx edcom has been practicing in their kangaroo court practices.

Like I said before, this is not about being mean, or becoming "the same as them". It's not about revenge, or humiliation. I think the paradigm I describe would be much kinder and gentler than anything they have ever subjected us to. It's not about just knocking them on the head and throwing them in a cage, like they do to us. I see offering actual re-education and rehabilitation, to the fullest extent they are willing and able to accept and pursue it.

Only the most intransigent, recalcitrant and criminal elements would have to be put to work in prison Nike factories until we need to harvest their organs. Of course those who resist the revolution militarily may have to be suppressed militarily.

Of course, those with bourgeois sympathies do not tend to appreciate my humor.

But I definitely tend to inquire closely into any potential associate's political affiliations and tendencies. "Are you now, or have you ever been a Republican?" Or a Primitivist chaoticist GA COINTELPRO pig bait? You bet I ask, and sound them out on their views.
I have lived to regret it, whenever I failed to pay attention to such things.

Does that make me "the same as" McCarthy? I don't think so. He was acting on behalf of those forces that slaughter labor leaders, human rights advocates, popular democratic representatives and revolutionaries with no mercy, world wide, by the milliions, to "defend" elitist profit and privilege. I merely seek to avoid backstabbing sabotage of the revolution by latent pigs. Of course, only ones' practice, certainly not what they say, actually proves anything, but you can often get a lot of clues by asking people up front where they are coming from, and then dealing with them accordingly.

I find "Libertarian" Republicans particularly offensive. Like, despite often being a gay pothead, person of color, woman, or whatever, being treated like absolute shit by the pig death culture Republicans, they still quite substantially identify with their oppressors, which to me is a uniquely monstrous perversion.

To equate denunciation of communism, McCarthy style, with a just, legitimate and necessary democratic suppression of counter-revolutionary treason against humanity, betrays a profound confusion, or a very biased perspective on the issue, I think.

It simply is not acceptable to cut down all the trees and kill all the fish, period. Exploiting sweatshop labor must not be allowed. Racism and sexism must not be "tolerated" in the name of "diversity". Suppression, by coercion, of such tendencies and practices is not some draconian unjust imposition on bourgeois "freedom" or "human rights", especially if it is done democratically. Let's get real here!

This is not about hip code words, mu. Only those who have become misanthropic cynics hate and fear democracy. To define democracy as the existential bogus bourgeois construct of "democracy" implies that you are hung up on their semantics, and unable to imagine alternative paradigms. It would seem from your name and mu-ness that you seek a more comfortable reversion to familiar throwback elitist conceptions, like "sacredness", perhaps the most significant and prevalent apology for atrocity ever, anywhere.
.
Representation does not automatically imply a breakdown in justice. Marx proposed that delegates and representatives should be paid no more than an average well-paid worker, have limited terms, and must be easily and immediately recallable, if they misrepresent.

And this is not then. Mass communication is a critical element.

The perhaps uniquely American concept of democracy, in terms of what most people actually think it should be, ideally, in terms of one person, one vote, and not controlled by corporate money, racism, etc, is really fascinating to me. This perception is far beyond anything the "founding fathers" ever desired or intended to see in their lifetimes. It is a theoretical concept projected in their documentation, hypocritically you might well say, but it has actually been embraced by the general population to a degree unprecedented anywhere on earth, ever. People may be cynical and pissed off, and even boycott elections because it's not what they think it should be, but to even think it should that way is an awesome, historic breakthrough for humanity that gives me some hope for the future.

Again I say the historic failures of attempts at true communism are less an indication of any inherent flaw in the revolutionary concept than a function of the profound and unavoidable negative influence and attack on all sides, including from within, by absolute bourgeoisie death culture anti-democratic hegemony. If, and only if, that stranglehold can be broken, we can begin to struggle with putting those contradictions behind us, as has occurred somewhat, in a precious few instances, until it was crushed by anti-democratic forces of Right and Left.

I will always prefer the larger motivations of saving the planet, and serving the best interests of humanity, over any enterprenteurial basis for decisions or action. "The Market", any way you look at it, is a bourgeois construct, contrived and manipulated for the profit of their class, at the direct expense of the working class.

My views do not preclude legitmate equitable exchange of goods and services, in mutual aid and cooperation, by whatever means prove most efficient, but I would not call it "commerce", or "the market", for the same semantic reasons you seem so wary of democracy, perhaps. Call me prejudiced, but capitalism sucks, and it should die.

Chris - Alexander Sozhenitsyn advocated nuking Russia, and that's when I put his book down. You are obviously blinded by your prejudices, which you don't fully identify. I never have advocated Stalinism or elitist capital C communism, or denied that it was fucked up.

harumph 16.Oct.2002 19:11

sacred chao

OK, 'droid, I guess you can define the state however you want, but I still think you're describing a democratic state. At that, it's a state that will somehow mirror all of your beliefs and ruthlessly suppress those who don't go along with the program, which is hard to reconcile with democracy.

I know, I know, in your plan, the people will democratically support you. But what will you do if they don't?

You talk about transcending national identities, ending elitism, suppressing the bourgeois, etc. But aren't all the tendencies of the left a product of western culture to begin with? To overcome nationalism on the basis that everyone will assume the west's way of thinking is just the same old story. And many of these tendencies have been nurtured, in many times and places, more among the bourgeois than the working class.

I'm really not preaching "sacredness" or anything of the sort, anymore than you are advocating that we all become cyborgs because you reference androids in your name. All I'm advocating is some deeper thought about what we believe.

Also, let me suggest you read over your posts more carefully before sending them. In one paragraph, you manage to accuse me of being hung up on semantics, lacking imagination, and of being a throwback elitist. And all based on one simple question.

Watch your tongue, son. It doesn't help your argument one bit.

mu

Only the strong survive 18.Oct.2002 01:56

Nancy

If there were true anarchy, only the strong will survive. The first to get blown away would would be all the indesirable little miscreants with no reprecussion.
Rape, pillage and conquer would be the norm and the spindly little black hoods would be the first to get wiped out.
Be careful what you wish for.
It could be bad for your health.
I hope it never happens.