| I'm sorry if I was a bit unspecific. I haven't really formed a clear opinion yet so it's hard to articulate what I don't understand. Also that was written while I shoveled down my lunch. About the obvious small group thing, it thought the following quotes: > "if people were more involved in their society"
> "the aim is to build a society that people want to defend by themselves" meant that you'd prefer that people get involved directly rather than elect people to "defend" or rule their society for them. It seems I misunderstood that part though. However now I'm now confused by you clarification. If there's any kind of voting and representation, no matter how revocable, isn't that a form of government? If these persons are elected by the majority (I don't see any other option) they will sooner or later make choices for you? I was under the impression that anarchism is about getting rid of any kind of government? in most governments today representatives' statuses can be revoked. It might be more or less difficult and opaque - I'm the first one to admit that most current governments are broken - but that does not necessary mean that governments are inherently bad. --- My thoughts about efficiency and organization was based on the assumption that large scale organization can't happen without a governing body. I realize now that might be were my major misassumption and possible our disagreement lies. You say that > A highly organised society - from the bottom up - is not a government I would argue that in any highly organized society the top unit is the government. Assuming of course that the top unit has some actual increase responsibility and/or accountability compared to the rest of the organization (otherwise they're not really on the top). I'd also argue that all governments was at one point formed from the bottom up. I'm not sure if it's very productive to reason this way though, but governments are not a separate unit from the rest of human society. They are created by humans and are upheld because most people agree enough to not try to abolish them. A counter-argument here might be that people are sheep and irrational and that the governments have evolved into something so complicated and convoluted that they're not able to change to the people's will anymore, but I don't see how that changes anything. If the current governments occurred as a result of earlier (eventually) anarchisticish societies, what will prevent them from regressing? |
No, just as any kind of organisation would not be called a government, the kind of organisation I promote wouldn't be. For example, you wouldn't call your local union or workplace a government.
Let's not pretend that current representatives are revocable, it not in the hands of the voters. For another society, it wouldn't even be a part time occupation for a worker among other workers.
Anyways, I would like to hear why authority needs to exist, rather than explain why it doesn't.