> I guess that most of us on this
> list are profoundly discouraged by the election results, however I
> don't think that our system of electoral politics is the problem--it
> merely reflects the problem, which is a fractured electorate without
> a common ground of values. Each of us (as individual and/or groups)
> thinks that we know best what the country needs, some of us are
> passionately persuaded of it, and some--no-one on this list of course
> : ) --are prepared to *force* others to accept their P.O.V.
>
Actually, anyone on this list who voted IS prepared to force others
to accept their POV--that's the ideological basis of the whole system:
you vote for an official who (supposedly) will sponsor legislation
representing your views, then that law is violently imposed on
EVERYONE through the police/prison system backed by the military.
> I have a question for Brian and all
> you other folks who look forward optimistically to the time when our
> political system self-destructs: Do you really want an ideological
> (as opposed to an ethnic) Bosnia-type civil war on our hands ? That
> would seem to be the end result of the sort of plan of action you are
> advocating.
>
A hierarchical structure of violence (the military and the
police/prison system) allows a minority (generally the rich) to
terroristically impose their ideology on the majority. In the
absence of such hierarchical violence (i.e., in an anarchy) no
minority has the MEANS to terroristically impose themselves on the
rest. So then we must find other, nonviolent means of reaching
agreements, compromises, etc., between differing groups. So to call
the result of eliminating the state an ideological civil "war" is
extremely misleading, in fact it's just the opposite of war.
Brian
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Nov 10 16:59:03 MST 1994
Thu, 10 Nov 94 19:01:29 GMT-5
From: "Brian A. Luke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: University of Dayton
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 1994 19:01:03 EST
Subject: Re: Anarchism, briefly
> As a general rule, let's remember that anarchists
> come in all shapes, sizes, colors, etc. and have widely differing views
> on how to librate people (or more broadly, nature) from hierarchical,
> oppressive institutions. For example, I consider myself anarchist, but
> I voted yesterday. So I am not sure statements which equate anarchism
> with non-voting are accurate.
>
Yes, thanks for clarifying that. Anarchism is opposition to
hierarchical violence, not opposition to voting per se. (for
example, voting might be one form of decision-making adopted within
an anarchist community--it's just that the outcome of the vote would
not be enforced through hierarchical violence or threats of violence.)
But of course, voting and elections in the US are about deciding who
gets to share control over the state apparatus of violence, so it's
hard to see how voting in that context is consistent with anarchism.
> To tie this into ecofeminism, my sense is that ecofeminism
> naturally aligns with anarchism in the sense that both value-systems
> consider liberation of central importance and both see hierarchy (whether
> the State, your boss, or the Dean of the University) as a source of
> injustice.
I also see radical feminism, ecofeminism and anarchism as closely
aligned politically, all very much opposed to hierarchical power of
all sorts. Radical feminists of the 60s and 70s were probably more
anarchistic than the anarchists, since they clearly included
patriarchy as a form (the central form) of hierarchical violence that
needs to be abolished, whereas not all anarchists have so
definitively opposed patriarchy. And of course, there are strong
links between ecofeminism and radical feminism, though I imagine
that some ecofeminists today are not quite so self-consciously
opposed to all hierarchy including the state. There is some evidence
of this on this list the last few days ...
Brian
