[lbo-talk] choices [was: trash talking the lumpenproletariat]

[Chuck]

B. wrote:
> Chuck, I wouldn't mind seeing some of the (anarchist)
> discussion on this you have handy. 
> 
> I'm familiar with a lot of the anarchist takes on the
> matter, not all of which agree (but any vibrant
> tradition doesn't have 100% agreement, anyway).
> There's anarcho-syndicalist Sam Dolgoff's sentiment,
> "I do not want the man who presses my pants to also
> prescribe me my medicine"-type stuff (that is,
> 'authority' in a particular practice/field would
> obviously be respected from anyone wishing to use that
> service, and there's nothing "authoritarian" about
> this sort of stuff).
> 
> Micro-level situations, like the "authority" of a
> construction crew team leader telling who to put what
> tool where, is related to this, I guess. It seems like
> it'd be up to the group to decide who might have the
> executive or facilitating authority in some matter
> like constructing a bridge. And that authority would
> be for that job, for that purpose, only -- recallable,
> accountable, etc. And if the group doesn't decide the
> team leader for that task, who does? A council of Ten
> Wise Men? A deity? The people will have to, somehow,
> anyway. They already do: they let property-owners and
> the wealthy decide.
> 
> Personally, these micro-level kinds of arguments on
> authority I find less interesting than the macro-level
> anti-authoritarian analyses on naton-states,
> capitalism, militarism, tc. -- but, yeah, this all has
> to be dealt with, too.

Right. Excellent points B.

I'm currently doing a survey of recent anarchist writing as part of my 
work on the anarchism anthology that I'm putting together with Jason 
McQuinn of Anarchy magazine. So I've run across more than a few essays 
that are critical of authority and experts on the micro-level. 
Anarchists are pretty hostile to the idea of experts, at least the 
self-appointed variety and the ones who make a big deal out of their 
academic qualifications and certifications. Obviously, some people know 
more about a subject than other people. That's a natural phenomenon.

I think that the anarchist critique of authority on the micro-level is 
also related to the anarchist critique of leadership. What kinds of 
natural leaders are acceptable? Is it okay to have a leader for the 
duration of a project, if other people freely consent? Is an acceptable 
natural leader one where they lead by example or argument, but don't 
have any authority to tell people what to do? What about people who are 
leaders because they are the people who put lots of work into a project, 

  or because they have the skills that are needed at a particular moment?

Chuck
--------------------------
Bread and Roses Web Design
serving small businesses, non-profits, artists and activists
http://www.breadandrosesweb.com/