> I just read this in a piece on the European Social Forum by Linden Farrer:
>>Instead, the ESF and WSF should see
>>themselves as an embryonic form of direct, grassroots
>>democracy, capable of forging ahead in gaining power through
>>undermining the legitimacy of existing structures of power,
>>distributing this power as widely and diffusely as possible.
>[...]
>>For the anti-capitalist movement to achieve real change it
>>will have to do so through a confrontational approach to
>>liberal democracy. This could involve the setting up of
>>social forums throughout Europe, at local levels, creating
>>direct links with local communities in struggle. These,
>>organised in a federal structure - but respecting local
>>autonomy - would undermine and ultimately make obsolete the
>>earth-destroying, authoritarian and oppressive governmental
>>structures that currently control the planet.
>Do you (or any other anarchists around) agree with this?
Yes
> [...] can people just opt out and build around?
Yes
> Instead of engaging with the state and other institutions of power [?]
No if by engage you mean it's M-W definition "to enter into contest with". The state does and would obviously see grassroots organizations that empower workers as a threat. One need only look at the host of anti-labor laws to see this. One would also look at anti-labor laws that were proposed but not (yet) passed, to see where the future thinking lies. Unions are not allowed to control pension funds by law, secondary strikes are illegal, Taft-Hartley allows the government to call off a strike for a certain period and so on and so forth. Thus grassroots, rank-and-file anarchosyndicalist unions could be ordered back to work while striking by Taft-Hartley, forbidden to enter a secondary strike in solidarity with other workers, have their own pension fund, and a host of other laws I am forgetting. Plus who knows what more labor laws will be passed? Thomas Geoghegan, who is a prominent labor lawyer, says it's more or less impossible to revive the labor movement if one follo
ws the current laws.
Although anarchism is different than Maoism, there is a similarity in that Maoists build alternative structures, usually in rural areas, including taxing people, forming alternative courts and so forth, which builds up a strong, ever-growing base where they hope to eventually bump out the existing government. They're doing it in Nepal right now, and the US is sending lots of money to prop up the monarchy, and India also has had an eye on intervening. Of course there is quite a difference between Maoism and anarchism, but there is to an extent a similarity in terms of building alternative institutions which eventually confront the government. One major difference being the Maoists construct an alternative state which confronts the existing state.
__________________________________________________________________ The NEW Netscape 7.0 browser is now available. Upgrade now! http://channels.netscape.com/ns/browsers/download.jsp
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/