The nature of anarchism

joanna bujes joanna.bujes at ebay.sun.com
Sat Sep 28 21:57:18 PDT 2002


At 02:04 PM 09/28/2002 -0400, Doug wrote:
>And what's so "simple" about "disagreements and misunderstandings"?
>That's why I said the anarchist utopia is a fantasy of perfect
>transparency and harmony - there are no competing interests, no
>cultural or temperamental gulfs in ideology or preferences - none,
>that is, beyond minor ones that can be cleared up with conversation.
>It dispenses with coercion and conflict by imagining a world where
>all important differences disappear. Call me stunted and brutalized
>by the world we live in, but that seems impossible and undesirable
>even. It would require a pretty static world too, since change would
>have to inspire conflict. Don't you see anything productive about
>conflict, Gordon?

I don't see how anything Gordon wrote implies that an anarchist/free world would be a static world with no conflicts. etc. Our culture places great emphasis upon the ideal of the "individual," and finds it profitable to break every social connection that could exist; the result is a narcissistic, paranoid, and ultimately homogeneous society -- both static AND regressive in terms of anything that matters. If you are born and raised in such a world, you cannot even comprehend how things could be otherwise. Yes, we are all stunted and brutalized by this world.

Therefore I have to laugh when people worry that anarchism will impose some kind of corecive, antlike, pacifying existence....I mean, that's where we are now. As for the holy individual, I have met very, very few real individuals in my life...and I am not likely to meet many more. I'm not talking about the "individual" capitalist ideologues rave about -- that impoverished, helpless, frightened creature who shops his way into a personality and life style. There's legions of those.

Joanna



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list