Sorry, I am going to break the law again...please don't send me to email
jail...

. But
> the whole point is that the State IS a collection of individuals. This
> collection of individuals is the ruling class.

Not necessarily true. What I am trying to point out is not that the State
IS the ruling class...rather, that the State ACTS ON BEHALF OF the ruling
class. E.G., Hitler was not the ruling class in Germany - he merely
represented the ambitions of German industrialists who were locked out of
world markets by the ruling classes of WW I victors. His value to the
ruling class was that the nationalism of his ideology gave political life
to the material needs of Germany's industrial elite...expanded markets, the
rationalisation of the economy by national cartel, the expropriation of
many upper-middle class petty- and finance-capitalists, the suppression of
vibrant Social Democrat and Communist trade unions, scapegoating of Jews
and Gypsies to deflect the blame for the economic ruin of the country away
from German capitalism and it's adventurism in WW I, etc.
> The question is not one of organization but one of whether there exists a
monopoly of force.
> Anarchists merely seek VOLUNTARY forms of organization and there is
> NOTHING wrong with that. The State has historically proven its
> malevolence with war ,genocide, censorship and other atrocities that far
> out weigh any alleged benefits to any individuals but to those who rule.
> That is why Chomsky is an anarchist and why I am one. Like most
> anarchists , Chomsky and I are for organization. We simply reject a
> monopoly of force over a geographic area called the
> State.
>        Anarcho-syndicalists like Chomsky and myself are a persuasive and
> pervasive presence in the anarchist movement and we argue for free
> association of workers without the State. I have read all the statist
> literature in Political Science. One more read-through is not going to
> convince me to tolerate the the evils of statism. For anyone who wants to
> understand anarchism from a naturalistic perspective I would suggest the
> works of Petr A. Kropotkin, particularly MUTUAL AID: A Factor in
> Evolution.
>
>         I am sure Chomsky would have sympathy for any non-anarchist's
> concern about social organization (as do I). But statists always try to
> force us to choose a monopoly of force or chaos. That is not the only
> choice. In fact, it could well be argued that statists are responsible
> for most of the Chaos around us.

I don't think that the State was, or is, responsible for the anarchy of
production in a free-market capiitalism, yet, such anarchy has, and will,
always accompany such economies.

>         The assertion that we need "Central" Organization is not correct.
> Central organization lends itself almost exclusively to exploitation
> because group selection models are implicitly used to justify a ruler or
> ruling class. Methodological individualism , to which you seem to
> ascribe, rejects group selection.
>
>         Workers can organize voluntarily to take back what the State and
> ruling class have usurped and prevent the re-establishment of any
> monopoly of force or state. That is Chomsky's position and that of all
> anarcho-syndicalists.

I would appreciate someone telling me where I can research, and actually
discover, the difference between these voluntary organizations and the
Worker's Councils ("Soviets") that existed in pre-revolutionary Russia.
Note - I have researched it somewhat extensively, yet I have yet to really
discover the essential difference(s).

- Don DeBar