> Did I say anything about a "plan"? No, I didn't.
No, you certainly didn't state anything about a plan; you tossed out an edict without explaining how society should reconfigure itself to come into accord with it. When people ask you how it should happen, you don't answer. When they speculate how such a thing as, say, dispersing populations, or avoiding institutions, is supposed to come about,you can criticize them as being off-target - because you haven't explained it, either, and don't seem intent on it. Will the things you describe just kind of "happen" with no human agency making them reality?
I was reading Paul Avrich's "Anarchist Voices" and found this passage interesting:
"They were mostly Greenwich Village bohemian types, 'ox-cart anarchists' who opposed organization and wanted to return to a simpler life. Luigi Fabbri once called this type 'bourgeois anarchists,' as opposed to his own 'classical anarchism.' ....I am sick and tired of these half-assed artists and poets who object to organization and want only to play with their belly buttons." - Sam Dolgoff, p. 229
What's the plan, Chuck0?
> As Tom alluded to in a post several days ago, people are already engaged
> in a process of decentralization. This trend should accelerate as cities
> become more unlivable (like DC after 9 Code Red days this summer).
Fabianism enjoyed a fairly popular run as the theory that, through its own machinations, capitalism would come to peacefully produce its own successor. There would be no need for radical activism or revolution because things were 'naturally' working themselves out towards socialism anyway. (Oh yeah, this was a "Leftist" theory, too.)
If people "are already engaged in a process of decentralization" because of socio-economic pressures outside of active organizing, why actively organize? Looks like the social pressures caused by capitalism are already doing the work for you, according to you.
> I'm not advocating a "plan"
That's the problem.
Brian