Anarchism's conception of the State (and Switzerland)
- Thread starter ska invita
- Start date
Athos
Well-Known Member
ska invita said:
I don't see the big problem with the following position: Our aim is to further the interests of the working class; in order to achieve that aim, our objective is the end of the state and capitalism; we try to live in a way consistent with that objective now; but we can't afford to fetishise the objective over the aim - we recognise that there are parts of the state which ameliorate some of the harm which is implicit in the existence of the state. To dismantle those parts first, whilst the existence of capitalism prevents us putting a suitable alternative in place would be suicide. But we remain mindful of that compromise, and do not allow ourselves to see the state as anything more than a necessary evil in the immediate term; we certainly don't consider it a vehicle for ultimately achieving our aim.
That is pretty much what I was trying to say but well written and with flashes of insight.
ska invita
back on the other side
Id like to talk a little about what is happening in Southern Europe...
Different opportunities but im not sure it is so different in terms of activity. History shows that nothing lasts for ever and crises always come along. The trick is to be ready to take the opportunity to move and gain when the happens. That time is always now. There is a huge amount of foundational work that could be done now in preparation, particularly with whats on the horizon
I think it is right to say the state is dissolving in different ways in different Southern European countries.
If the definition of the state that anarchists often used based on taxes and monopoly of violence is correct then the financial crisis is dissolving the state. Tax revenues are falling, in certain places not being paid or chased, and in greece the introduction of alternative currency and 'barter' networks is taking place http://shiftfrequency.com/tag/local-alternative-units/
Military and police are another matter of course
no links from me, but im sure others are more clued up on this. I can only give some general thoughts to this -
in terms of what the future holds for southern europe I think its a fascinating moment - though painful for those going through it of course. Im also very curious to see what will happen in the States over the next 20 years - from what I can see theres a lot more crisis to hit there too. And what about when the CCP lose power in China - that has to happen in the next...20 years perhaps. I think neoliberalism really will collapse of its own accord in our lifetime - aporticularly as it fails to provide the welfare system it needs to appease its victims - and the question of how to interact with the state as the crisis unfolds is a real one, not just theoretical.
So far what has happened in Greece and Italy is the moving of power away from the (insufficient from an anarchist perspective) democracy it had, to control from supra-national entities like the IMF (technocrat Monti in Italy being perhaps the most visible example of that) and EU. This is really interesting - as the state fails it gets taken over not by the people from below, but by powers above it. But that power vacuum is still there, even if its been plugged with the likes of the IMF and EU directors. What happens when the crisis deepens and no one is there to prop states up? Its a house of cards waiting to fall.
even without that if the state cant pay its public service workers how will those public service workers (continue to) react? The thing is that the state-created infrastructure is there now and the state grip over it is weakening and the opportunity for a worker-led takeover of it is presenting itself. If the crisis deepens the IMF and EU cant manage all these failed/failing states.
I guess what frustrates me is the thought of an old unreformed left being the only alternative interested in picking up the reigns - i just wish that an organised anarchist-inspired left would have a go, and not shirk from getting its hands dirty on the state levers and switches that its presented with, and steering the ship of state (or some of its lifeboats) towards its vision. The alternative is to keep hands clean and let the state including its welfare components crash against the rocks, which is the anarchist equivalent of Naomi Kleins Shock Doctrine in reverse
I mentioned Chavez and Latin America earlier - I think what I like about this model is that it as an attempt at fusing some aspects of anarchism to more traditional socialist state-craft. There's a lot pragmatism and realpolitik going on which may disgust purists but i respect from the view of getting something achieved. Likewise Switzerland - the structure may not satisfy anarchist purists, but i would love to see that kind of setup in the UK over the shite we have now.
I guess what ive been trying to understand here is What is Anarchisms understanding of the State, why does it theorise it the way it does, and how much room is there for putting ideological purity aside to achieve broader goals. I think I agree with all of Athos's tidy summary, apart from the very last half a line: " we certainly don't consider it a vehicle for ultimately achieving our aim." I think there's an element of joyriding on that vehicle that can and should be done.
Different opportunities but im not sure it is so different in terms of activity. History shows that nothing lasts for ever and crises always come along. The trick is to be ready to take the opportunity to move and gain when the happens. That time is always now. There is a huge amount of foundational work that could be done now in preparation, particularly with whats on the horizon
I think it is right to say the state is dissolving in different ways in different Southern European countries.
If the definition of the state that anarchists often used based on taxes and monopoly of violence is correct then the financial crisis is dissolving the state. Tax revenues are falling, in certain places not being paid or chased, and in greece the introduction of alternative currency and 'barter' networks is taking place http://shiftfrequency.com/tag/local-alternative-units/
Military and police are another matter of course
no links from me, but im sure others are more clued up on this. I can only give some general thoughts to this -
in terms of what the future holds for southern europe I think its a fascinating moment - though painful for those going through it of course. Im also very curious to see what will happen in the States over the next 20 years - from what I can see theres a lot more crisis to hit there too. And what about when the CCP lose power in China - that has to happen in the next...20 years perhaps. I think neoliberalism really will collapse of its own accord in our lifetime - aporticularly as it fails to provide the welfare system it needs to appease its victims - and the question of how to interact with the state as the crisis unfolds is a real one, not just theoretical.
So far what has happened in Greece and Italy is the moving of power away from the (insufficient from an anarchist perspective) democracy it had, to control from supra-national entities like the IMF (technocrat Monti in Italy being perhaps the most visible example of that) and EU. This is really interesting - as the state fails it gets taken over not by the people from below, but by powers above it. But that power vacuum is still there, even if its been plugged with the likes of the IMF and EU directors. What happens when the crisis deepens and no one is there to prop states up? Its a house of cards waiting to fall.
even without that if the state cant pay its public service workers how will those public service workers (continue to) react? The thing is that the state-created infrastructure is there now and the state grip over it is weakening and the opportunity for a worker-led takeover of it is presenting itself. If the crisis deepens the IMF and EU cant manage all these failed/failing states.
I guess what frustrates me is the thought of an old unreformed left being the only alternative interested in picking up the reigns - i just wish that an organised anarchist-inspired left would have a go, and not shirk from getting its hands dirty on the state levers and switches that its presented with, and steering the ship of state (or some of its lifeboats) towards its vision. The alternative is to keep hands clean and let the state including its welfare components crash against the rocks, which is the anarchist equivalent of Naomi Kleins Shock Doctrine in reverse
I mentioned Chavez and Latin America earlier - I think what I like about this model is that it as an attempt at fusing some aspects of anarchism to more traditional socialist state-craft. There's a lot pragmatism and realpolitik going on which may disgust purists but i respect from the view of getting something achieved. Likewise Switzerland - the structure may not satisfy anarchist purists, but i would love to see that kind of setup in the UK over the shite we have now.
I guess what ive been trying to understand here is What is Anarchisms understanding of the State, why does it theorise it the way it does, and how much room is there for putting ideological purity aside to achieve broader goals. I think I agree with all of Athos's tidy summary, apart from the very last half a line: " we certainly don't consider it a vehicle for ultimately achieving our aim." I think there's an element of joyriding on that vehicle that can and should be done.
Athos
Well-Known Member
That half a line is the whole of the thing, though. Who drives? Will they ever willingly go back to walking?
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
Rather than the state "dissolving" in southern Europe, I'd say what's happening is that there's a serious crisis for the state, which leads to the state throwing out more and more of the welfare provision that it has taken on, and instead cutting back to the essentials, the parts that are the most important to holding onto power. So we see emergency powers used against strikers, and an increasing use of the police to directly control the population. When things get tough the social safety net gets shredded - because it only exists in the first place due to old compromises with the labour movement.
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
I think the examples you chose speak for themselves. All three movements were formed with the aim of taking state power, and they were/are ready to repress people from their "own" movements in order to carry out their own goals. In that sense they were already acting like mini-states, carrying out social control even while still in "rebellion".
But while I think there are serious problems in engaging with the state, and becoming like a mini state or political party, I think that some limited aims can be achieved by doing things like standing in elections. That's why I was a supporter of the IWCA and took part in a couple of election campaigns. But if you're challenging the power of the rich then "democratic" (state) methods often turn out to be a dead end, or end up warping social movements until they start to resemble the system they're fighting.
ska invita
back on the other side
im brewing up another post in response to some of the spiteful posts above, but really agree with Ian Bone this morning when he posts:
ska invita
back on the other side
i think its less a question of organisation, more a problem of theory. The left in the UK (maybe in the rest of Europe I dont know) feels unreformed to me - they havent had their Socialism for the 21st Century moment that Venezuela has in part (or if they have they havent expressed it - I havent noticed it).
They cling to old Marxist/Trotskyist/Leninist positions and it appeals to very few. I think theres a generational problem there - this generation, who came of age from lets say the 90s onwards, seem to presume a level of horizontalism and are influenced by anarchism, even unconsciously. indignados, Occupy, Tahrir etc area all expressions of that to some extent. UK left parties are generally populated and run by old men, with the next generation having stayed clear and left these parties fossilised in time.
Anarchism on the other hand is so averse to the state that party politics/elections are barely considered. Which anarchists if any have written about anarchism and elections? I'd really like to read that if any have. Ian Bone is the only person Ive ever read who proposes it.
And its not just the organised right who can take advantage of the chasm - Iceland showed that (Italy less so, but to a point also does). We're five years into the financial crisis here in the UK....
The driver is the designated driver delegate, chosen from a party formed and organised on anarchist lines and recalled on those lines also. As I said before, if anarchism is a theory of organisation then it can be acted out in microcosm in a small anarchist party. The delegate wouldn't be taking part in an ideal anarchist direct democracy, but such is life! I'm sure there is plenty of scope to put theory into practice and enact anarchist principles.
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
I don't see how Chavez's movement can be said to have very advanced theory. It's rhetoric is all about 19th century liberals like Bolivar, and it's practical programme is all about classical state socialism, redistributing resources in a limited way. The difference is that the movements round Chavez have managed to organise and seize the momemt to put these 19/20th century policies into practise.
I agree that the leftists in the UK have problem with their theory, but I think it's much more important to see this as an issue based on organising and in their relationship to the working class. Otherwise it sounds like we just need to put together better theory and then roll it out to succeed. The left in places like the UK is out of touch, and can't develop better theory until it actually has better contact with working class people and their needs and their ideas for how to organise in the here and now.
ska invita
back on the other side
I read a good text laid out by one of the key thinkers behind Socialism for the 21st Century, a female author, I forget her name, will try and dig it out later. By drawing a clear line between Bolshevik socialism and their socialist program (of which democracy and workers power were key planks, leading to endless elections and varying degress of workers control and co-operatisation of re-nationalised assets) they could start again, and have been hugely successful. There's a lesson there. The theory & strategy worked for them.
In regard to being in contact with normal communities, selling an anarchist post-state vision is always going to be near impossible, but one way to get people engaged is through local elections where you can spell out key ideas, argue on the platform and show some Anarchy in Action. You supported it as a strategy with the IWCA right?
And I do think theory plays a huge role - its has the power to enable and stop so much action.
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
That's why I don't think any group should be out there trying to sell an anarchist post-state vision, apart from people who like writing theoretical pamphlets. Mass anarchist organising has to be all about concrete struggles using anarchist methods. And taking part in elections is not that; it embodies no anarchist principles.
I was involved in the IWCA as an individual because I agreed with their strategy of forming community unions; they were far and away the best group around while I was in Oxford, and I took part in their election campaign also as an individual. The idea of anarchist groups standing as anarchists is ludicrous to me, and only works for people like Ian Bone who's politics is a lot about staging outrageous stunts for the sheer publicity value.
Athos
Well-Known Member
ska invita said:
To continue this tortured metaphor: What happens if the driver likes diving so much (because it benefits him personally - pay, comfort etc) that he won't give it up? In the anarchists' coach party you describe, I presume the passangers would yank him from the driver's seat. And that's where the metaphor parts company with the situation it attempts to describe. You can't take the power back from elected representatives in a bourgeois democracy, because the laws made by that class protect their position of privilege.
Whilst I can see some ways in which standing for election can appear to be consistent with anarchists' aims to further the interests of the working class, it will only take you so far; ultimately, it is - sticking with the road-based metaphors - a dead end. The problem is, having been so well used (relatively speaking), it appears established, and so is easy to follow. By comparison, anarchism is a poorly defined dirt track; and no doubt those who take that route will stray at times.
Nevertheless, I believe taking that path together is the only way to get where we want to be. And, more importantly, I belive that we shouldn't be obsessing about the nature of paths, or never set off because we're still looking for a map, or put all our faith in self-appointed navigators; instead, we should take care of practical essentials e.g. make sure everyone has shoes, and then crack on to beat our own path!
ska invita
back on the other side
hiya, i will come back to this thread next week when i have a bit more energy - i find talking politics online really exhausting and im feeling a bit run down atm.
But i just want to throw this in from Richard Seymour's take on the Chavez PSUV project, written at the end of 2012, in order to flag aspects regarding participatory reforms of the state which are particularity appealing to me (despite the structural failures noted in the article) . Its worth reading in full as it seems insightful, http://www.leninology.com/2012/10/venezuela-in-21st-century.html
and beyond the quote below includes other bits about workers control as enacted by government at the controls of the state
Chavez has been electorally successful in the face of incredible opposition.
Being deselected by your party or even expelled from it isnt such a biggie is it? If a Tory got caught sleeping with the gardener in a duck moat and was asked to stand down and didn't it would be no different would it? You stand as part of a party, and you are answerable to your party. I guess you could go rogue but at best you'd last till the next election.
Lets say this ' Mass anarchist organising ' work is as successful as it could possibly be. At one point you are going to come to a critical mass of power from below against that held by the elite sitting tight in the ship of state. Would this community movement seek to take power of the state or not? I still cant get my head around this. I can only see 2 options:
1. Either you walk away from the state and try to create an alternative network outside it
2. You seize control of the state institutions and apply anarchist principles as best you can
This isnt pamphleteering science fiction utopian future thinking, this situation could be reached in a year if the financial crisis blows a hole in UK PLC. At some point anarchist activists would have to face the problem of what their relationship is to the infrastructure of the state as it is found now, and explain the position & plan to the less knowledgeable workers (in which i include myself) that they had helped organise up till this point. So please explain it to me now if you can... get some practice in
But i just want to throw this in from Richard Seymour's take on the Chavez PSUV project, written at the end of 2012, in order to flag aspects regarding participatory reforms of the state which are particularity appealing to me (despite the structural failures noted in the article) . Its worth reading in full as it seems insightful, http://www.leninology.com/2012/10/venezuela-in-21st-century.html
and beyond the quote below includes other bits about workers control as enacted by government at the controls of the state
Chavez has been electorally successful in the face of incredible opposition.
Being deselected by your party or even expelled from it isnt such a biggie is it? If a Tory got caught sleeping with the gardener in a duck moat and was asked to stand down and didn't it would be no different would it? You stand as part of a party, and you are answerable to your party. I guess you could go rogue but at best you'd last till the next election.
Lets say this ' Mass anarchist organising ' work is as successful as it could possibly be. At one point you are going to come to a critical mass of power from below against that held by the elite sitting tight in the ship of state. Would this community movement seek to take power of the state or not? I still cant get my head around this. I can only see 2 options:
1. Either you walk away from the state and try to create an alternative network outside it
2. You seize control of the state institutions and apply anarchist principles as best you can
This isnt pamphleteering science fiction utopian future thinking, this situation could be reached in a year if the financial crisis blows a hole in UK PLC. At some point anarchist activists would have to face the problem of what their relationship is to the infrastructure of the state as it is found now, and explain the position & plan to the less knowledgeable workers (in which i include myself) that they had helped organise up till this point. So please explain it to me now if you can... get some practice in
Athos
Well-Known Member
Sorry you're run down. Hope you feel better soon.
I will read the stuff you linked. And post a response.
Meantime, is your answer to my question about who benefits and by what measure really: 'Chavez by the measure of electoral success'? !
Also, I don't buy your point about being deselected by your party if you betray those who elected you. See the Lib Dems.
I'm sure Random will address the point you addressed to him, but you've obviously missed a third possibility: dismantling the state and organising on another basis.
I will read the stuff you linked. And post a response.
Meantime, is your answer to my question about who benefits and by what measure really: 'Chavez by the measure of electoral success'? !
Also, I don't buy your point about being deselected by your party if you betray those who elected you. See the Lib Dems.
I'm sure Random will address the point you addressed to him, but you've obviously missed a third possibility: dismantling the state and organising on another basis.
ska invita
back on the other side
Thanks for that - im okay but ready for spring now...
in regards your comment about who benefits and what success i think i see what you're driving at (no more driving metaphor intended!), though you didnt spell it out so a little confused. Here I bow to Richard Seymour's analysis of the limitations of the success of what has happened in Venezuela under the PSUV. From my armchair in london i think it has been a positive and successful political project, electorally and in terms of changing some of the state structures into more bottom up ones.
I don't believe that a country like Venezuela or the UK for that matter, with its range of classes and interests across the population could move to a more mature socialism in as short a space of time as has passed under Chavez's run (RIP). What was recognised early on by the party and its theorists was that a transition would have to be democratic at every turn (lessons of Bolshevism were learnt and dictatorship of the proletariat was out), and that the way forward would be to try and bring as many people with you, teaching and demonstrating the benefits and above all creating participation as you go. They got into power and did just what they wet out to and even that is a huge success in my book.
This may not be revolutionary enough for some but it seems like a pragmatic and workable approach to me and i support it on principle. It has been effective - it has had a real effect. Another twenty years of it would have even more effect. And the majority of the population supported it.
The thing is I am hungry for political change here in the UK, and my concern is not with growing old and holding tightly to theoretical purity, but what can work and what has a chance of flying now. Short and mid term strategy. Instead of being active I sit on the sidelines because there isn't any political grouping that I feel I can support that has a chance of succeeding on lines i can get behind. I'm yet to be convinced by the effectiveness of anarchism other than remaining on the periphery 'organising' (as spelt out in post above). The SWP debacle shows up much of what I think of other socialist parties. I don't have the optimism to believe Labour can do anything beyond what they're doing now. But a PSUV-style project, were there one in the UK, would appeal to me for some of the reasons mentioned above, particularly the way in which the state devolves power in a controlled and transitionary (made up word) way.
For the sake of this thread i think its best to stay away from analysing the PSUV too much, other than in the context of The State and what can be done with it from the inside and what can be achieved from without.
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
At some point anarchist activists would have to face the problem of what their relationship is to the infrastructure of the state as it is found now, and explain the position & plan to the less knowledgeable workers (in which i include myself) that they had helped organise up till this point. So please explain it to me now if you can... get some practice in
Yes, currently a great deal of our society's infrastructure is controlled by the state. What we need to do is to distinguish between socially useful tasks that just happen to be carried out by the state, and the real function of the state. Anarchist opposition to the state doesn't mean opposition to rubbish collection, education and street lamps. I think you're getting a bit bogged down with this idea that anarchists oppose "the state" and therefore privatisation must in some way be compatible with anarchism...
The current socially useful activities that the state carries out can be taken over by democratic collectives. It might be as simple as a workplace/land/community occupation leading to a workers'/residents' committee that takes over and brings in workers'/residents' control. Then these democratic collectives can join up in a broader democratic alliance in order to coordinate activities that need them to work together.
So the state is neither ignored nor seized (as a state). Rather the good things the state has achieved are taken over and made better. And the current work of winning gains in the workplace and the community are all part of building up the confidence and the organisation that can, given the chance, step in and take over.
ska invita
back on the other side
Ive been meaning to come back to this thread...since March Ive read Kropotkins The State Its Historic Role (though it was a while ago now) which overall I found a disappointing but readable read. Disappointed because his vision for stateless society boils down to a view of the medieval free city which existed around the 10th/11th Century as the model. Maybe in 1897 this may have seemed like a model within reach, but it doesn't feel that way now.
Im not knowledgeable enough on medieval history to know how these free cities differ from city states or how city states are not states - broadly speaking free cities had broadly democratic formations like guilds and other collectives playing their parts, including in the cities defence. The historically short lived existence of the 'free' city tells a lot of its vulnerability as a model. Anyhow, my impression is that despite not providing a usefull model for a modern stateless future model he does a good job of laying out some anti-state principles, and points towards direct democratic local organisation - he even gives a nod to Switzerland as a positive example of these principles in action!
Overall i think its important but outdated in its final conclusion...
Does anyone know about Bookchin's Libertarian municipalism? Seems to me this a lot like the kind of thing i would like to see, and perhaps you too (going by your last post?). I only just heard about Libertarian municipalism a couple of days ago so wikipedia is about as far as i have got to reading about it:
Libertarian municipalism
Main article: libertarian municipalism
Starting in the 1970s, Bookchin argued that the arena for libertarian social change should be the municipal level. In a 2001 interview he summarized his views this way: "The overriding problem is to change the structure of society so that people gain power. The best arena to do that is the municipality — the city, town, and village — where we have an opportunity to create a face-to-face democracy." In 1980 Bookchin used the term "libertarian municipalism", to describe a system in which libertarian institutions of directly democratic assemblies would oppose and replace the state with a confederation of free municipalities. Libertarian municipalism intends to create a situation in which the two powers — the municipal confederations and the nation-state — cannot coexist. Communalists hold that this is a method to achieve a liberated society.
Libertarian municipalism is seen not merely as an effort to “take over” city and municipal councils to construct a more “environmentally friendly” government, but rather an effort to transform and democratize these structures, to root them in popular assemblies and to knit them together along confederal lines to appropriate a regional economy. Bookchin summarized this process in the saying "democratize the republic, then radicalize the democracy".
It is a dual power that contests the legitimacy of the existing state power. Communalists hold that such a movement should be expected to begin slowly, perhaps sporadically, in communities here and there that initially may demand only the ability to alter the structuring of society before enough interlinked confederations exist to demand the outright institutional power to replace the centralized state. The growing tension created by the emergence of municipal confederations would represent a confrontation between the state and the political realms. It is believed this confrontation can be resolved only after Communalism forms the new politics of a popular movement and ultimately captures the imagination of society at large.
^^^sounds good to me
Im not knowledgeable enough on medieval history to know how these free cities differ from city states or how city states are not states - broadly speaking free cities had broadly democratic formations like guilds and other collectives playing their parts, including in the cities defence. The historically short lived existence of the 'free' city tells a lot of its vulnerability as a model. Anyhow, my impression is that despite not providing a usefull model for a modern stateless future model he does a good job of laying out some anti-state principles, and points towards direct democratic local organisation - he even gives a nod to Switzerland as a positive example of these principles in action!
Overall i think its important but outdated in its final conclusion...
Does anyone know about Bookchin's Libertarian municipalism? Seems to me this a lot like the kind of thing i would like to see, and perhaps you too (going by your last post?). I only just heard about Libertarian municipalism a couple of days ago so wikipedia is about as far as i have got to reading about it:
Libertarian municipalism
Main article: libertarian municipalism
Starting in the 1970s, Bookchin argued that the arena for libertarian social change should be the municipal level. In a 2001 interview he summarized his views this way: "The overriding problem is to change the structure of society so that people gain power. The best arena to do that is the municipality — the city, town, and village — where we have an opportunity to create a face-to-face democracy." In 1980 Bookchin used the term "libertarian municipalism", to describe a system in which libertarian institutions of directly democratic assemblies would oppose and replace the state with a confederation of free municipalities. Libertarian municipalism intends to create a situation in which the two powers — the municipal confederations and the nation-state — cannot coexist. Communalists hold that this is a method to achieve a liberated society.
Libertarian municipalism is seen not merely as an effort to “take over” city and municipal councils to construct a more “environmentally friendly” government, but rather an effort to transform and democratize these structures, to root them in popular assemblies and to knit them together along confederal lines to appropriate a regional economy. Bookchin summarized this process in the saying "democratize the republic, then radicalize the democracy".
It is a dual power that contests the legitimacy of the existing state power. Communalists hold that such a movement should be expected to begin slowly, perhaps sporadically, in communities here and there that initially may demand only the ability to alter the structuring of society before enough interlinked confederations exist to demand the outright institutional power to replace the centralized state. The growing tension created by the emergence of municipal confederations would represent a confrontation between the state and the political realms. It is believed this confrontation can be resolved only after Communalism forms the new politics of a popular movement and ultimately captures the imagination of society at large.
^^^sounds good to me
Athos
Well-Known Member
ska invita said:
I'm not especially knowledgeable about libertarian municipalism. But I think there's a lot to like about it e.g. bottom-up decision making through confederations of recallable delegates etc.
I especially like the convergence of means and ends, and the fact that, in practical terms, it can begin locally and immediately i.e. need not be postponed until revolution. Also, it doesn't require us to seize control of the state (as a state); nor is it simply an attempt to operate outside the state (in the sense of ignoring the state) - it is a positive project to build something to oust the state.
However, it does strike me as having some problems. I'm just not sure that communities are as defined by geography as they once were. Librarian municipalism's focus upon the municipality as the vehicle for change seems to overlook the fact people group together on many other bases. The most obvious example of this is the insufficient weight that this theory attaches to economic matters: an apparent failure to recognise the role of workers in their work.
But this is very 'off-the-cuff'. I need to think around it some more (and maybe re-read Harvey's 'Rebel Cities').
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
For what?
Health and efficiency.
Similar threads
