I stumbled upon an interesting phrase today:
buddhist anarchism. I like the definition, but not one of the supporting
examples from Gary Snyder, which I thought missed the point. (And also, is best read by following the cut rather than going to the site; the colors are terrible.) To be fair, it was written in the 1960s; but the sentiments seem to
(
Read more... )
I don't see how the current government structure permits the existence of functional local anarchies. So from that standpoint anyone foolish enough to propose a nationwide state of anarchy would have to postulate the overthrow of the government before this would be possible.
This doesn't seem like a viable (or desirable) state of affairs, though. I've seen 300 anarchists trying to reach a decision by consensus and it ain't a pretty sight. I wouldn't even want to try to scale that up to a nation's worth.
I think one can subscribe to an anarchist set of ideals without proposing it as a viable structure for the country as a whole, in which case with nothing better to propose at that scale there's no call to overthrow the government. This does not imply a recognition of that government's authority, however. Nor an acceptance of it when it interferes with right action.
Reply
Leave a comment