File spoon-archives/postanarchism.archive/postanarchism_2003/postanarchism.0306, message 68


From: BabblePreacher-AT-aol.com
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 00:18:45 EDT
Subject: Re: Clarifying Essentialism's Relation to Anarchism


In a message dated 6/7/2003 9:47:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time, JessEcoh-AT-cs.com 
writes:

> and that means that some sort 
> of decentralized federation, a "commune of communes," is going to be the 
> sort 
> of structure most compatible with human freedom, because that alone will 
> allow 
> the maximum degree of real participation in decision-making by everyone 

I recently had a conversation that fell, at one point, into this idea of a 
"decentralized federation", which a friend pondered as something similar to the 
US if every state were to break off into self-governance (a rather comical 
example, but let's toy with it, anyway). We wondered if this would be possible or 
if, instead, a slew of micro-wars would break out, in which each "commune" 
was pining for the land, resources, flora, fauna, weather patterns, etc. of 
another "commune". My apologies for treading so close to an essentialist 
perspective here, but, is decentralization "actually" possible? or do (collective)we 
yearn for a more populous unity? or, if we scrap the latter, how does 
decentralization take up the problems of geography and cultural dispersion (how is the 
center fractured, without creating dissonant "nodes")? how, in a word, do we 
handle the problem of plurality once it is actually acheived? do all that feel 
as "type A" feels shuffle into "node 1", all that feel as "type B" into "node 
2", and so on? or would the antagonism of the extremes evaporate along with the 
abolition of the center? 

It almost seems as if the lack of any "universal tendency" requires us to 
posit one as the backdrop upon which to fashion a method of succesful 
decentralization, so that it may be expected. On the other hand, this lack also warrants 
an experimentation in the creative -- in the biblical sense -- faculties of 
chaos. But what of those who crave order? 

Can we polish up any of these conundrums?


> in this sense, we want forms of social organization (undoubtedly many such 
> kinds are possible) which are compatible with the "laws" of our nature and 
> which 
> help us to realize the best that we are capable of in terms of pleasure, 
> creativity, excitement, tranquility, diversity, and all the other kinds of 
> happiness there are.
> 
> 
>     --jesse.


So this would be our concern, I believe: 1) Define the "laws". 2) List as 
many of these forms of social organization that we find possible, so that, 3) We 
can use this list to discover our limitations, and 4) Go beyond them, since it 
seems that only the un-thinkable, at this point, is going to survive our 
"desire" for self-destruction. 

Or, something entirely different.

       -phil.

"To happiness the same applies as to truth: one does not have it, but is in 
it."
                -t. adorno.


--- StripMime Warning --  MIME attachments removed --- 
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.

Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.

--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- 
multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/html
---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005