Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 13:23:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Shawn P. Wilbur" <swilbur-AT-wcnet.org>
Subject: Re: [postanarchism] anarchobasics


Don,

My intention was indeed to at least start talking in very broad and
general terms. My sense is that the differences that have dogged my
exchange with Andrew are fairly general ones. It's not an article of faith
that we are never fully unconstrained. Observation seems to confirm it.

In any event, nit pick away. I'm really just fishing for dialogue here. I
think these very basic questions are not ones we necessarily pursue very
seriously or very often.

-shawn

On Wed, 6 Oct 2004, Don Anderson wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>