💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › politics › SPUNK › sp000214.txt captured on 2022-03-01 at 16:14:31.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Review by Jeff Stein of three tracts by the Australian anarchist Graham Purchase (_Libertarian_Labor_Review_ 14 [Winter 1992-93]): "In _Anarchist_Organisation_, Purchase makes an even more emphatic case for the addition of 'economic regionalism' as a component of any future society. While suggesting that there would still be a possibility for communities and workplaces to federate for cultural and economic reasons, Purchase insists that 'political space' should also be demarcated by 'Changes in (a) species distribution, (b) climate, (c) drainage and rainfall and (d) physiography [and] the empirical data needed to produce a more or less scientifically arrived at picture of natural or bio-regional boundary.' (p. 20) "'Bio-regionalism' has a nice ring to it. It implies not only decentralism, but a concern for the ecology of an area as well. Yet, contrary to Purchase, one suspects that 'bio-regionalism' would deliver neither in practice. To divide up human society into political units basedupon the prevailing flora and fauna in the area makes no more sense and is just as arbitrary as politicians drawing straight lines on a map. It is a contradiction of the anarchist principles of voluntary association and self-management, since it would take away the right of people to federate according to their self-perceived common interests and instead force them into boundaries dictated by so-called 'environmental scientists.' "Nor is there any reason to suppose that once forced to live in these 'scientifically' contrived bio-regions, people would acquire any more concern for the surrounding ecology than they had before. Worse yet, bio-regional politics might even produce the opposite effect: an anti-environmentalist backlash against what people would see as a paternalistic attitude by the bio-regionalists. "Undoubtedly in some cases, communities do have strong ecological reasons for federating. All the communities in a river valley ringed by mountains, for example, would have a common interest in coordinating their industries to control air and water pollution and soil erosion. On the other hand, a multitude of communities spread out over the Russian steppes or the plains of the midwestern United States, not sharing the same water resources and having less of an air quality problem, would not have as great a degree of common ecological concerns, even though they were all part of the same 'bio-region.' Rather than dictate to people what political units they must live in, it would be better to allow communities to decide these things for themselves. Where common ecological interests are important, we can assume they will federate without needing to be told to do so."