> The liberal vision centers on the efficiency of the social
> machine; therefore, while liberty is good in its place (so
> that the wheels can turn) it must be liberty under Law. When
> necessary to the well-being of the Great Machine, that Law
> may order war, slavery and imperialism -- that is, call out
> the cops -- so that the Machine can go forward. This is the
> very coercion whose specifics I have been asking about and
> which we see all around us.
>
> The anarchist, interested (I would think) in Minute Particulars
> rather than the greatness of the Great Machine, might suggest
> that if we need to shoot people to get airplanes, maybe we
> don't really want airplanes. After all, there are things more
> important (to this anarchist) than the Great Machine's maximal
> performance. (Of course, there's also the possibility that
> we don't have to shoot people to get airplanes, but nobody's
> interested in it.)
I think we really ought to resist polarizing our own political tendencies, and thus those of others, in the course of debate. It seems like the author, above, makes binaries out of "anarchism" and "non-anarchism."
The fundamental view from a revolutionary socialist perspective is the same as that of anarchism: All states are coercive vehicles of class power, period. The question is HOW to get to the post-revolutionary (or advanced communist) society.
I have never gotten an anarchist to answer this question, beyond the usual vague emotionalisms on "freedom," "liberty," etc.
-- David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20020818/70e1593e/attachment.htm>