Re: [WDDM] Comments of an anarchist on our dicussion

[Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it>]

Hi

Let me add some comments inline.

M. Kolar ha scritto:
> Comments of an anarchist on our discussion as posted at
> http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/forum/read.php?5,511
> (the link given below leads to really interesting reading, e.g. on a
> plan for viable mixed economy):
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: Linking your web site
> Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 02:47:00 +0000
> From: larry gambone
>
>
> Hi Miroslav,
>
> I am always amazed  by otherwise intelligent and well-read people, who
> when
> it comes to the subject of anarchism, reiterate “received wisdom” and
> mass
> media cliches. Furthermore, in the age of the Internet, there is no
> excuse
> fort such behavior as thousands of pages of information are ready at a
> click
> away.
>
> Some thoughts on the debate:
>
> Anarchism is not a “thing” but a never-ending process. We will most
> likely
> never eliminate coercive authority, but the task is to minimize it.
I totally agree with this point of view about "Anarchism".
Unfortunately, I've met with some self-claiming anarchists
who say that A. means NO authority at all.  Which sounds
slightly different than "minimizing the coercitive authority".

I found this concept relevant, because I realized that common
people usually do not analyze the concept of hierarchy within
common "communication", so that they cannot even control
what they ignore or negate. Most of all the Anarchists, who
claim: "We are Anarchists, there is no hierarchy here!"


> Direct democracy has always been part of anarchism, yet
> anarchism is not reducible to direct democracy alone.
Please explain why.
> Furthermore, direct democratic
> movements are not in and of themselves anarchist.
> Rather direct democracy is a common aspect that is shared.
>
> My goal is not so much to make everyone anarchists, even
> if it was possible, but to show the convergence of ideas that
> has been developing among all people who are dissatisfied
> with the undemocratic and authoritarian nature of our present
> economic and  political system.
>
> Any movement to change this situation will be larger than any
> single ideology and will encompass a number of differing — yet
> at a fundamental level — similar  views. Anarchists have
> important things to say about power, ...

Ah.
I just started in this esteemed list a thread questioning about
what "Power in Democracy" is meant to be.  I am looking
forwards to seeing some Anarchist to say some important
things about this seemingly relevant topic for Democracy.

(Btw, the existence of "power", if any, implies the very
existence of hierarchy itself, too)
> ... organization, the work place, etc and ought to be part
> of that process.
>
> Anarchism is applicable to the large scale or universal.
> Federalism is the answer to uniting great masses of people
> without engaging in top-down centralization. As but one
> example, 40 million French people belong to Mutual Aid
> health care systems. Much of this system was developed by
> mutualist and syndicalist anarchists in the past and exists
> not as a top-down corporation or state bureaucracy but a
> decentralized federation.
Here you look like using two terms -- Anarchism and Federalism --
for one same meaning.  One only term, wouldn't it be sufficient?
> There is even a non-statist form of nationalization that was
> developed by anarcho-syndicalists after WW1 See “A
> Neo-Proudhonist Program” in
> http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/worldwidemovements/reform.html
>
> Thus "public good" could be dealt with in an anarchistic way.

Why not, in a federalist way?  Please explain the difference.
> Cheers, Larry
>
> ---------
>
> Larry's blog: http://porkupineblog.blogspot.com/
ciao,

Antonio