JCWisc at aol.com:
> >> An excellent question.
> >>
> >> Doug asked another excellent question on this list some time ago:
> >> What is the
> >> anarchist utopia of the future going to be like anyway? Will there be
> >> restaurants? Airplanes? I can't remember if anyone answered.
> >> ...
Gordon Fitch wrote:
> >How would anarchists know? Unless we're fake, right-wing
> >"anarchists" who are actually fundamentalist liberals in
> >disguise, we specifically abjure sacred texts as well as
> >princes and popes.
Doug Henwood:
> That's not about sacred text - it's about modes of organization. How
> do you propose to organize production on a large scale without large
> hierarchical organizations?
There's a lot of writing here and there on the Net about self-organizing systems which have more of a network than a hierarchical form. There's also some question, I think, as to whether large-scale production would be as universally desirable in a non-capitalist system as it is in a capitalist one. Take for example the generation of electric power -- one may find solar cells, fuel cells, local wind power and so on more desirable where a money return on investment isn't what's being maximized.
However, the point of anarchism isn't to specify the form of world of the future, merely certain of its characteristics. If some people just happen to want to gather voluntarily in large hierarchical organizations, while leaving other people alone to do as they please, they should certainly be free to do so; it would be most unanarchistic to do more than make fun of them.
"Gordon Fitch" <gcf at panix.com>:
> >In regard to unions, which seems to be a related matter, I
> >think they're great and I think anarchists who disparage them
> >out of hand are falling prey to petit-bourgeois sensibilities
> >(heh). But one should not forget that they are _liberal_
> >institutions, groups of persons with something to trade who
> >combine their efforts to advance their interests, and not
> >expect too much of them -- success will almost certainly
> >lead to bourgeoisification, as we observe.
Nathan Newman:
> If success inevitably leads a group to bourgoisification, then
> bourgeosification is the inevitable destiny of society. Only successful
> movements can change society and this view means that success is fatal.
>
> But then, this isn't that odd a statement. There is a whole wing of the
> left that prefers the purity of failure, since it avoids the actual
> strategic choices required by any moderately successful movement for social
> change. There is a perpetual utopianism allowed by failure.
The successs of a _union_ leads to bourgeoisification, because the values, understandings and relations with which a union is organized are liberal -- as I said, they're groups of persons who are combining to advance their collective and private interests, very much like people forming a corporation, partnership, or cooperative. When and if they succeed, there will be a difference between them and the people who haven't succeeded, and they will be motivated to attempt to conserve their advantages, that is, enter into a class relation with the rest of the community. Isn't this what we generally observe in history? But liberalism is not the only possible route of political development and activity.
-- Gordon