GarAlperovitz

There are, of course, many varieties of anarchist thought... My own early work was heavily influenced by Paul (and Percival) Goodman, on the one hand, and Martin Buber, on the other. I have found the emerging discussion that David Harvey has been having related to Murray Bookchin's work most interesting. Ultimately some forms of organization are important; many anarchist formulations begin with community as key principle and then "confederation" between communities for larger industry and coordination of many larger functions (Buber did this in his model.) Harvey argues that in practice higher order coordination begins to look like some form of democratic state, responsive to communities. I think that theme: higher order structures responsive to communities is critical. Harvey also suggests that in practice this looks like what a "state does" (as he puts it: "if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck...etc:"). Much anarchist work is not really about these fundamental questions yet [but I think it ultimately will have to deal with them] Currently, it is about the equally necessary work of opening new thought, new practices, new political moves, new stances for the long haul.. (See David Graeber--> David Graeber's article http://www.thebaffler.com/past/practical_utopians_guide )

Good question! See my very first answer above for broader discussion. However, ultimately many national corporations must become public, either at national level or regional. There are several obvious reasons: [1] they have far too much political power; a truly democratic society must pay special attention to institutional power. [2] they are impossible to regulate effectively (see the arguments for nationaliztion here even of the conservative Chicago School of Economics!) 93) They must grow to satisfy Wall St requirements--contrary to need to limit growth in new era. See the extended argument in Nation:

http://www.thenation.com/article/168026/beyond-corporate-capitalism-not-so-wild-dream

Very good question: I am a strong supporter of cooperatives. However, they are not the be-all and end-all. And indeed, in a large economy worker-owned co-ops, for instance, often must develop many traditional "capitalist" behavior patterns: If someone is selling something cheaper, they must either compete or go out of business. If someone else is cutting down on the cost of environmentally decent behavior and polluting the community, they must do so too or go out of business. Nor are they particularly eqalitarian: Worker co-ops that own the oil industry would not be the same as the co-ops in the garbage industry. So... In many areas small co-ops are not subject to these kind of "macro" pressures; so no problem. But in larger forms, we need to begin to think of larger structures that can both build on the co-op idea, but do so within the larger framework of community. Take models like those emerging in Cleveland where a community-wide non-profit is the basic community representing structure, and worker-owned co-ops are part of this, subordinated in several ways to the larger community. Also supported by purchasing power of large non profits with taxpayer money part of THEIR basic stance (e.g. hospitals and universities).. Here we begin to subordinate the problems you raise to a structural solution or partial solution representing larger community interests. I have spelled some of this out in the AFTERWORD to my book WHAT THEN MUST WE DO?

The truth is for some reason the ideal of "community" was something I was thinking about way back in high school. I didn't know anything much about theory, just some sense that there was something here of importance. (I was brought up in a medium size mid-Western city, Racine Wisconsin, which had some feel of at least partial community; my parents were involved in things like the Cancer Society, the local Jewish temple, etc.) I certainly didnt know what to do with these impulses... I also once visited an Israeli kibbutz (but only for a day); and was thoroughly impressed...And at college I was impressed with the work of historian William Appleman Williams, with whom I studied. What really forced me up against the issue, however, was writing a book about the bombing of Hiroshima--and thinking pretty deeply about the sources of American imperial stance in the world that led to it in my view. And then further to HOW WOULD WE STRUCTUE A SYSTEM THAT DID NOT HAVE TO EXPAND as capitalist systems do (and then become interventionist or imperialist, at great and massive loss of life)

So THAT was really the big, big question that bugged me. And it forced me to begin thinking about alternative systemic designs, especially given that the Soviet and other so-called socialist experience of the era was so degrading..

All of the above in and out of my thoughts even as I was able to work for very very liberal members of Congress...

And then, of course, came the 60s.. Civil Rights, Anti war (I was very active in the latter; some in the former, but a different generation..) etc. All this had an impact

Key question, however, was: Is anything different really possible? For a while in the late 60s and even some of the 70s it seemed that liberalism (social democracy) might actually achieve its goals, rendering alternatives unlikely... Took me several years to conclude that this was NOT going to happen..

And then a time of choice: Either there is another path, or there may be no path. I simply dropped all my so-called high level careers cold... went to the attic with my wife's support and rethought what I thought had to be done... picking up on all the old and new threads..

Not sure that helps, but if there is any lesson perhaps it is to keep sorting it out through the hard places until it makes some kind of sense personally...

Good question: I always start at the ground-level, following the principle of "subsidiarity"--Namely, only go to a higher level if absolutely necessary. In general, the other principles are democratic ownership of wealth (for equity reasons, and to prevent the political power that comes with concentrated ownership); ecological sustainability; and community, both in the sense of local community, and in the sense of how do we build a larger culture of community ("we're all in this together")..

So locally co-ops, neighborhood corporations, CDC's, land trusts, and also small independent businesses, etc. Citywide: municipal enterprise on currents lines and beyond (electricity, land development, hotels [there are hundreds cityowned], internet services, hospitals, etc. [and more in future as appropriate, since many cities even now have ownership in significant business); state level health, banks, bz ownership (again 27 states do some already); etc. In a very very large country like our own (you can tuck Germany into Montana!) regions are likely to be important: there were some very interesting proposals for highly democratic versions of the Tennessee Valley Authority in the 1930s, which were also ecologically oriented (how to conserve the river etc.) We need to revive and extend these. And then, of course, as necessary national ownership were important: big banks, maybe transportation (making high speed rail, subway systems etc--targetting jobs to communities; maybe structure public corporations jointly with worker and community ownership; public planning. (Large private corporations that go to Wall Street, unless made public, must grow; public do not have to. Very important ecologically...All throughrout the principle of community critical, starting with how do we structure any and every local community so that the principle 'we are all in it together' is a matter of experience; and so that ecologically serious development is everyday ordinary and thus central to the themes that guide development upward throughout the system...