The nature of anarchism (Lefty Despair etc.)

[Gordon Fitch]

Gordon Fitch wrote:
>  >Nothing is going to be imposed by anarchists; unlike democracy,
> >so-called, anarchy can't be imposed.

billbartlett at dodo.com.au:
> How would you see society formally making such a decision then? 
> If it isn't going to be imposed, then some kind of ballot on the 
> question would be necessary, yes?

In a liberal society, where the liberals actually play by
their own rules, it is materially possible for anarchists to
set up alternate, anarchistic relations, institutions and
practices into which people can migrate, withdrawing their
labor from the capitalist system.  Any sort of commune,
cooperative or labor union can become the focus of this
sort of activity.  Eventually the capitalist shell would
be abandoned, or perhaps would be continued as a kind of 
sport.

Of course, liberals seldom play by their own rules except
when they're winning.  So various other strategies might be
required.  Sometimes it might suffice to hire a smart lawyer;
this would probably have saved the Dukhobors, at least for
awhile.  Sometimes things might get a bit rough.  If the
movement were able to lie low until it became widespread,
attempted repression could be met with boycotts, a general
strike, sabotage -- there are many strategies.

I don't know what the right approach to opposing an overtly
authoritarian regime would be.  One might have to cooperate
with liberals to overthrow the fascists or whatever, and then
proceed from there.  If the authoritarians had socialist
pretensions, one might be able to subvert them by tricking
them into believing and performing what they professed.

In any case, I don't think a sudden transition to anarchy 
is likely to work; about the best you can get with sudden
transitions would be something like the hippie movement, where
people enact certain aspects of anarchism without understanding
what they're doing or being able to preserve and extend their
culture or organize a serious economic basis.  Instead, I
envision the new society growing up "in the shell of the old"
by gaining voluntary adherents, working from the ground up.
As I've said before, if people don't want to do it, it isn't
going to happen; if they do, they don't need the State.

-- Gordon