> I think the implication is that anarchism has a
> tremendous difficulty responding to the complexities
> of the existing social order. The mere possibility of
> workers' councils (or whatever form and name they
> take) voting away a major portion of society's
> transportation infrastructure is too absurd to digest,
> and is fairly off-track as far as expropriating the
> expropriators is concerned.
Do B-52s count as part of the transportation infrastructure?
I should think so. But isn't the whole point of anarchism in particular and the left in general that there be no B-52s?
Or take cars. What is a car? A means of transportation? Well, yes, but mainly it is a means of making you consume (and work!) before you buy anything: on your way to the shop. There is _nothing_ innocent about cars. When you want cars, you get GW Bush.
The concept of interstate highways was invented by the Nazis, by the way ("A highway (Autobahn) from Munich to the Krim!")
Hello list, hi Gordon.