File spoon-archives/postanarchism.archive/postanarchism_2004/postanarchism.0410, message 7


From: "Don Anderson" <simmers-AT-mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: [postanarchism] anarchobasics
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 23:44:06 -0700



----- Original Message -----
From: Shawn P. Wilbur <swilbur-AT-wcnet.org

> There are generally, however, lots of constraints on the
> sorts of associations we make. It's not clear that we're ever going to be
> *unconstrained* entirely. We can almost certainly build associations which
> limit the force of material constraints, and we can eliminate or
> substantially alter many that are social or cultural. The tide can
> probably be turned away from the sorts of constraints associated with
> the state, capitalism, patriarchy, etc.
>


Is it useful to class every sort of potential barrier or impediment to free
association -- whether material or physical, or "social or cultural" -- as
"constraints"?  (And correct me if this is not your intention...)  It seems
to me these should be kept separate, not only because dealing with
authoritarianism is more than simply a practical matter.  Conflicts today
over resources, for instance, are hardly matters merely of material
shortage, but revolve also around patterns of organization which inhibit
these free associations.  To call these all "constraints", it seems, clouds
the issue and makes it harder to look at the way these things actually work
out in context -- especially if we presume from the getgo that we can never
be unconstrained entirely.

A nitpicking point, perhaps, when I know your intention was to be very broad
and basic.


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005