So, right off the bat, there is never simply a knocking down of the state first to get at capitalism. That would simply be reversing vulgar economic determinism. From this leftist anarchist view, the argument is that the problem with marxism was the economic determinism, so you need to rectify that by fighting two enemies: capitalism and the state. And, as far as I know, the anarcha-feminist are *also* rejecting an anarchism bereft of a feminist analysis, where their kinda anarchists were men who sought to fight both capitalism *and* the statem. (yes, there are pro capitalist anarchists but I have never met one. and, if those are the ones you are meeting, LBO isn't exactly the place to find a defense!)
Anarcha-feminism (one vulgar version of which is radical/cultural feminism which I've criticized here and elsewhere at length.) here, the emphasis isn't on the state, but on _hierarchy_ which pervades the state and, to use Robin's formulation civil society - which he sees as encompassing both the market and institutions such as the family, religion, civic and voluntary organizations, etc. (since he invokes Tocqueville and has a critique of the idealization of civil society in his book, I'm assuming he includes religion, civic associations, etc.)
Anarcha-feminism draws on analyses of the operations of power emerging primarily out of the control of women as the primary contradiction as they used to say. It was control over women's reproductive capacity that was the original form of hiearchical social control: men over women. Individual men being their own individual goon squad over individual women, and the early formation of hierarchical organizations and religion as the public manifestation of the goon squad.
Thus, even prior to such manifestations of the nation-state or large-scale economies, there was hiearchy - and that is what they are on about. In which case, you can't simply knock down the state and be rid of capitalism. You'd have, in the vernacular, welcome, meet the new boss; same as the old boss.
As I pointed out on the blog, this partly explains some of the why behind the process in various Occupies.
In which case, clearly the entire approach to consensus democracy as well as to running the daily operations of OWS stands in sharp contrast to this perception that OWSers (whoever Robin is referring to. I'm still not clear) don't understand that power operates in many other ways than just through the state.
In other words, the progressive stack is a recognition that, here and now, we are living in a society that reinforces the power of owners by making us live it out in our daily lives. Normally, a stack would be something we'd run "equitably" by simply taking whoever shot their hands up first.
But a progressive stacks seeks to right inequities. I'm thinking here of Deborah Stones essay on equity. In some case, a progressive stack might simply operate by assertively or affirmatively ensuring that the people in the room who tend to be quiet are made to feel comfortable and welcome, so they speak. We have all been in that meeting where there are people clearly comfortable with public speaking, arguing, etc. and others who are not. Or, a progressive stack might operate the way it did when Angela Davis spoke at OWS. The people on the stack first were women of color first. When a guy who apparently speaks up a lot was finally on stack, the facilitator stopped to make sure that other voices were affirmatively sought out (affirmative as in affirmative action) before he was called.
The stack is but one example. Rotating people through assignments is intended to ensure that people don't get on power trips. Etc. Similarly, they
<> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> <> wrote: <> <>> [Corey writes...] <>> <>> I've been kind of following a bit the debate on your lbo list re my <>> article and the larger questions that come out of it. One thing <>> keeps <>> coming up that I wanted to ask you about: the anarchists -- and they <>> all <>> say this -- insist that capital and its various powers could not <>> exist <>> without the state. And I get, and agree, with the basic <>> descriptive/analytical point. But there seems to an implication they <>> draw <>> from this that I don't get. And that is: <>> <>> If the state did not exist, capital would not have any means of <>> violence <>> at its disposal to defend itself. Therefore capital wouldn't exist. <>> Now <>> if they mean all the sophisticated modern instruments of <>> derivatives, <>> central banking, and all the rest, fine. But if we think of this in <>> a much <>> more primitive sense of control over material resources, why do they <>> think <>> that? Why wouldn't the situation be one in which someone or some <>> group has <>> a set of resources -- minerals, food, whatever -- and a goon squad <>> to <>> defend it? Why do these people, in other words, assume that without <>> a <>> state, capital -- or the controller of resources -- wouldn't have <>> other <>> means at his/her/their disposal to protect those resources? It's <>> almost as <>> if the anarchist presumes that without the state, capital would be <>> much <>> more vulnerable to the organized cry and violence (or maybe <>> non-violence0 <>> of the masses, where I would assume just the opposite (and <>> everything we <>> know about societies where the state c! <>> rumbles tells me I'm right): you'd have a situation of warlords in <>> which <>> people would be even more vulnerable. <>> <>> Your thoughts?
[1] The principles of much early anarcha-feminist analysis in the U.S., one which retains the original anarchist critique of capital and the state, tends to have been subsumed into socialist feminism which has, largely, shrugged off the notion that it must given primary privilege to class as the primary contradiction. Carol Ehrlich documents this early division where radical feminism as an anarcha-feminism is opposed to both cultural feminism (criticized by Echols) and socialist feminism (which is today usually understood as Marxist feminism)