> In the case of anarchism
> (and its concomitant social and economic arrangements) we are
> talking about a fundamentally different way of life from that
> which is given under capitalism, and it is obviously difficult
> for many people to grasp, much less believe in. (One need
> only read this leftist (!) list to observe that.) Therefore,
> it is all the more important that its theory be related to
> practice, to daily life, as much as possible. Furthermore,
> in the realm of proselytization, it is far more effective to
> show people something rather than tell them about it.
>
> It seems to me that the formation of communes or cooperatives
> on a specifically anarchist basis could be one technique which
> meets the requirements I have outlined or mentioned elsewhere:
> non-violence, autonomy, _satyagraha_, material experience.
> I don't think of it as the only possible route. I know this
> will disappoint those who are eager to construe anarchism
> as forcing all to eat _The_Whole_Earth_Catalog_ in granola
> form at breakfast.
>
> Another good thing about communes and cooperatives is that
> some people can start working on them immediately (assuming
> their backs are not absolutely to the wall -- and most Americans'
> are not). I think this is greatly preferable to waiting for
> the great day, "pre-revolutionary conditions", or other
> _dei_ex_machina_ to arrive; and when and if such conditions
> _do_ arrive, it's obvious that having a substantial basis
> community already organized would greatly assist in the
> revolutionary exploitation of the opportunity.
OK, fair enough. Part of what I've been trying to say is that if anarchists or anyone else think that human beings can live in radically different ways, just go ahead and do it. Show dense people like me the way. That's what Fourier and Owen thought--so did the Shakers and the other 19th century communalists. They thought that their way of life was so attractive that if they could only realize it in a small-scale form, everyone else would follow.
A lot of so-called "anarchists" of my acquaintance talk about doing away with the state and permanent institutions, seem hostile to technology, and seem to have in mind some sort of "back-to-the-land" idea. Back-to-the-land is in any case implicit in doing away with the state and big institutions. (I don't know you, so maybe you're different. I'm afraid I just don't buy the "self-organizing" idea). Anyway, so far as "back-to-the-land" goes, I say, OK, fine. If you really want to go back to the land, there's still enough room in this society for you to do so. My sense is that for most of the people who talk like that, it's just that--a lot of talk. They want to pluck chickens or chop wood or dig post holes about as much as Doug or I do.
Actually, on a purely personal level, I find a lot of the "back-to-the-land" stuff kind of attractive. I actually LIKE to chop wood and split rails and dig post holes (within reason). To me, though, that's an idiosyncratic personal taste, not the basis for a social philosophy, and I still prefer to live in town.
I'm not waiting for the revolution. I'm a democratic socialist (my sort-of political hero is Michael Harrington), into incremental reformism and messy, compromising politics. Those who wish for a wholesale social transformation so sweeping that it will bring about a society totally different from what we know today, and who believe that this will come about through something called a "revolution," which will happen without a trace of "coercion" are chiliasts. They have basically religious demands which masquerade as a politics. So it seems to me, anyway.
Jacob Conrad