> A lot of anarchists/greens, and Michael Albert, don't like
> hierarchies of any kind. Many don't like representative
> structures - people like Murray Bookchin want no units
> so large that face-to-face meetings become impractical.
> I'm all for democratic management, but it's going to
> require the delegation of authority - i.e., something
> like parliamentary and executive structures.
I think Michael Albert and David Graeber have discussed your objections.
Michael Albert: "It shouldn't be necessary to even discuss the above addressed 'bad trajectory' of anarchism and its anti political, anti-institutional, anti-technology, and anti-reform confusions. It is perfectly natural and understandable for folks first becoming sensitized to the ills of political forms, or institutions, or technologies, or first encountering reform struggles to momentarily go awry and blame the entire category of each for the ills of the worst instances of each. But if this confusion were to thereafter be addressed naturally, it would be a very temporary one. After all, without political structures, without institutions per se, and/or without technology, not to mention without progressive reforms, humanity would barely survive much less prosper and fulfill its many capacities. But, of course media and elites will take any negative trajectory of anarchism and will prop it up, portraying it as the whole of anarchism, elevating the confused and unworthy to crowd out the valuable and discredit the whole." http://www.zmag.org/anarchism.htm
David Graeber: "Still, anarchism as a whole has tended to advance what liberals like to call 'negative freedoms,' 'freedoms from,' rather than substantive 'freedoms to.' Often it has celebrated this very commitment as evidence of anarchism's pluralism, ideological tolerance, or creativity. But as a result, there has been a reluctance to go beyond developing small-scale forms of organization, and a faith that larger, more complicated structures can be improvised later in the same spirit."
(He then went on to discuss anarchists who bucked this tendency in order to come up with a large-scale vision, starting with Proudhon.) http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=4796
Maybe anarchists naturally haven't been discussing large-scale organization as much as a liberal who sees history in terms of "good governance" and "failures of leadership". Or they discuss consensus a lot because everyone confuses "democracy" with occasional voting. But anarchism is a really broad category, and just because a Zerzan thinks numbers are harmful for society, it doesn't mean Chomsky holds the same views.
Tayssir