> I think there are many people who call themselves anarchist who actually
> are small d democrats. That is they believe in laws, majority rule, even
> police to enforce those laws. But they insist that this democracy have a
> very flat structure with delegates, representatives, polices and so
> forth having very little more power than ordinary citizens.
You obviously don't know any anarchists, because anarchists are against majority rules and they hate laws.
Chomskys
> variation is I think to have no professional politicians or government
> officials - - all government functions are by citizen volunteers either
> unpaid, or taking a few years of paid leave from normal works to take
> their turn as government functions. I tend more towards the first than
> the second, because I think the functions of politity require a great
> deal of expertise - I just think there are a lot of ways to use the
> services of experts without giving them overwhelming amounts of power.
Chomsky's anarchism is much more radical than it looks on the surface. He often makes arguments that sound liberal, because he is trying to explain stuff without resorting to political jargon.
> What I don't understand is why this is called anarchism. I tend to think
> that once you allow a polity with coercive power, it is not anarchy. I
> guess a democracy with a very flat power structure is in line with the
> spirit of the old time anarchists, but I honestly don't think it is
> anrachism; this is one reason I don't call myself an anarchist, even
> though people with a very similar viewpoint apply this term to themselves.
You would need to define what you mean by "democracy." Most anarchists are opposed to "democracy" in most of the ways it is currently defined. If you are talking about small "d" participatory democracy, without any government or state, then that gets close to what anarchists advocate.
Chuck0