o_195qg5dto17o4rbc85q1ge61i84a.pdf
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
118<br />
anarchism: a beginner’s guide<br />
parent-controlled day-care centres; free schools, printing co-ops;<br />
alternative radio groups, and so on. 54<br />
Recently anarchist anti-globalizers have associated community<br />
networking with the emergence of alternative economies. They<br />
point to the emergence of gift economies, living economies and local<br />
currency systems, to land reclamation projects undertaken by<br />
groups like Brazil’s Landless Workers’ Movement and programmes<br />
for sustainable and bio-diverse agriculture – for example, EcoVilla in<br />
Ecuador, to show how local experiments can provide a real alternative<br />
to corporate capitalism. 55 The enthusiasm with which European<br />
anarchists have greeted these experiments is often informed by<br />
an appreciation of their diversity and by a willingness to avoid automatically<br />
slotting them into frameworks of anarchist politics. In<br />
other cases, however, anarchists draw back to the anthropological<br />
arguments advanced by anarchists like Kropotkin and through the<br />
medium of ‘natural anarchy’ treat these experiments as examples of<br />
anarchy in action. The disagreement parallels the difference between<br />
those who understand the rhizome to describe a principle of organization<br />
and those who see it as a particular kind of eco-activity. Either<br />
way, there is a tendency within both positions to read anarchy into<br />
any network – to prioritize the movement over the goal.<br />
Whereas intentional communities seek to develop anarchy in<br />
isolation from wider society, networks aim to extend anarchist<br />
practices in all areas of social life – in rural and urban, industrial<br />
environments. The problem posed by networking is not, as Taylor<br />
suggests, how to develop inter-communal relations, but to show that<br />
the networks themselves are anarchist in any significant sense. Some<br />
anarchists have detected a potential fuzziness in networking theory.<br />
Only a year after embracing ‘refusal’ as a form of anarchist protest,<br />
Kingsley Widmer wrote in Anarchy:<br />
Our sympathy for countering culture should remain this side of the<br />
populist murkiness of the protesting young and its unpromising<br />
wooziness and passivity. Any critical effort suggests that we won’t get<br />
a ‘political end’ without some sort of ‘political means’. Certainly we<br />
need a radical change in sensibility, but if it does not include social<br />
and political effectiveness it will not end as a change at all. 56<br />
The difficulty to which Widmer points, has manifested itself in<br />
political as well as cultural spheres of action. In particular, debates<br />
between anarcha-feminists suggest that networking can blunt<br />
anarchist ideas rather than extend them. In the late 1960s and ’70s