Yes, but not in a constituted (thanks BA!) way. The response/s would be linked to the issue in question, and while the same procedure/s might (probably would) be used, there wouldn't be a 'law' that said 'when X&Y happen, you must do this to resolve the situation'.
'Good habits, good habitus' might be a way to describe it - people would become used to the practicalities of resolving these issues on their own, without having to refer up to some authority for philosophical or other kind of approval, or refer back to a text for guidance.
So structure, yes, but less a collection of girders, and more a re-assemble-able toolkit of tubes & joints.
No, that makes absolute sense. It's common sense that, along with the changes in the material base, the changes in the ideological superstructure, over enough time, would virtually make the need for any 'state like' structures of compulsion obsolete. It would just be the way.
Just say you did have a manager, an architect, who was controlling the work process........ Ooooooooh er, bad choice of word. Just say you did have a manager, an architect, who was directing the work process of many workers. He wouldn't need any compulsion to stand down, if that's what enough people wanted, he would just do it.
However, in the time of transition, workers autonomous zones etc there would need to be substructures wouldn't there? In this period, the ideological superstructure of everybody, would not have changed. The working class, may have en masse change their ideological superstructure, as the process of revolution would revolutionise also the way they thought about world, but wouldn't they have to impose their will on and remaining capitalists, fascists, whatever?
Anarchism is a process, and an end. It is endlessly 'becoming' something, but never being fixed in a specific shape.
Nope, that's not plain English, that's hippy.
Most anarchists would probably argue against that. Anarchism is a process: the means and ends being indivisible.
you see, this is part of the problem for me/others. When you talk about anarchism, anarchism is 1. What you do here in the present. 2. What you do in the period of transition. 3. The future form of society, stateless classless etc. 4. And possibly even something beyond that. Now I do have an inkling about the underpinning philosophical/organisational/truism reasons for that, but I it's confusing to know which one 1, 2, 3, or 4 you are talking about. This is an important distinction, because each period, as you acknowledge yourself, will need different practices.
I think for clarity, I might slip into the usage of now anarchism, transition anarchism, stateless anarchism, when looking at specific periods of the process.
Out of the two above, I think I prefer the hippy one. The invisible but it still makes no sense to me. I would still really like people to put this into their own words. It does sound very dialectical to me, and I know you will reject that.
I think also, there is a bit of pedantacism. for while the questioning of my 'end objective is a stateles classes society' may have made a point, in the context of my original use of the sentence, stateless classless society is the end objective of this generation of anarchists, because we can have no terms of reference as to what any society beyond that may be. Plus, it was clearly how I intended the sentence to be understood. If I am forced to reword it, I think I would say, there is clearly an intermediate destination/obejective anarchism has in its crossfires, a stateless classless society. Would people object to that?
