Anarchy 103/Observations on Anarchy 99 and 100
ANARCHY 103 (Vol 9 No 9) SEPTEMBER 1969
OBSERVATIONS ON ANARCHY 99 AND 100
BUREAUCRACY
I have frequently disagreed with or been irritated by articles in anarchy, but Nicolas Walter’s review of the Cohn-Bendit book leaves me bewildered, or rather the last part of it does. My Oxford Dictionary tells me what I have always assumed to be so, that bureaucracy means Government from offices. It seems rather strange that a writer in anarchy should tell us that Government is inevitable in any group which is too large to meet in a room. “We need leaders—but they should be followed only as long as they lead in the right direction.” What is the right direction and who decides it? If the individual followers decide for themselves, why do they need a leader? If they don’t, who does and how do we know he’s right? I find it impossible to sort my way through this Platonic maze. I would rather say what I have always said, “I don’t need any leaders.”
As for Cohn-Bendit introducing dogma—this from a man who says, “bureaucracy is inevitable”. You can hardly be more dogmatic than that. In fact I found that one of the agreeable aspects of the Cohn-Bendit book was that it was refreshingly free from dogma. Fortunately I read it before reading the reviews. Whatever faults the book may have, it was a reasonably clear exposition (thank you, Gabriel) of the writers’ opinions, which is in happy contrast to most advice that readers of anarchy could be given is to read the book and ignore the reviews.
INDIVIDUALISM
