I’m writing a new post to reply to your question since it’s not quite on-topic for this post.

Ignacio,

Your definitely right that power tends to accrue whenever and wherever it is vested in a body or individual over the long term. I think the key thing that maybe wasn’t clear enough is that in an anarchist system committees of delegates don’t have decision making power, they have the power to make proposals, which then get sent back to the large group for a decision by popular vote. so decision making power actually remains vested in the community itself – not in representatives or committees. That’s huge. It’s not a model you find in much anarchist writing, most writers (unlike myself) have traditionally been more interested in philosophy then structure, but it is a system that has been successfully used by the IWW for the better part of a century and it has worked very well for them.

also, keep in mind the difference between policy decisions (where the town is going to make investments, water policy, environmental policy, etc) and laws that restrict individuals. an anarchist system has no problem with policy law, but criminal law would be kept to an absolute minimum and would only ever encompass a single community.

To use a real-world example, there’s no way within an anarchist framework to stop a strongly conservative Christian community (such as Salt Lake City, Utah to use a random example) from banning abortion in their community if the population there overwhelmingly opposes it, but there’s nothing to say that the the next town over won’t make it free and legal, and nothing to stop people from who disagree with their community’s decision and want/need an abortion from taking a train to the next city over. It’s not a perfect system, but the practical restrictions on size help moderate the imperfections.

The goal is local control and autonomy – political, economic, and cultural self determination at the local level. In practical terms that means that different local communities will probably end up going in very different directions, based on local values. Because the system doesn’t require different communities to agree on abortion laws or all speak the same “national” language or anything like that in order to work together and participate in syndicates together, it allows a much higher level of diversity without the risk of balkanization.

cheers,
lynx

If you had to choose one of the three mainstream candidates, who would it be and why? Or, rather, which candidate do you hate the least?

Just someone interested in political theory, that’s all.

I also appreciate the points you make, and while I certainly agree local community control and action is preferable to dictates from on high, sort of speak, I still don’t see how one avoids hierarchical organization as soon as any power is vested in a group of individuals for any ongoing purpose – somewhere along the line the decisions of the committee or whatever, need to have teeth or their decisions are meaningless. Even where consensus exists, consensus doesn’t mean 100% acquiescence – some citizens will no doubt need to be coerced into abiding by the majority decision, just as it is so in the most liberal democracy one might imagine.

However, let me read your material – and other books on the matter I’ve recently found – they may contain some answers for me.

Stay frosty, (be cool)
Ignacio