Anarchism is not the abolition of community; it is the abolition of the state.





Well-supplied consumption depends upon abundant production. If we produce all that
we need, then we will be free to consume and utilize all that we need.

I am not advocating an excessive and unreasonable consumption, just as I do not
advocate immoderate and inordinate production. I do not advocate wasteful production,
but I do believe that we can produce enough to satisfy all that we need/want for a full
and abundant life. I believe that we have the industrial capacity, the agricultural
knowledge, the medical technology, etc. to produce and provide enough goods and
services that we can escape habitual poverty and chronic shortages, and still be able
to warehouse enough supplies for any natural disaster, or emergency situation. This
can happen if we cooperate in, and coordinate, both our production and distribution
of goods and services, if we constitute for ourselves a truly cooperative form of
political-economy, a socially-owned, collectively-controlled, and democratically-
coordinated model of political-economy.





"Though the suspicion that ideas are fundamentally social in nature is becoming a
virtual assumption in our approaches to a wide range of issues and topics, the effort
to elaborate and clarify this assumption and to ground it in a cogent and acceptable
theoretical framework has not yet been successful. Efforts to elaborate the insight
and to achieve the necessary grounding are many and diverse. Indeed, few if any of
the major figures in the development of sociology from Auguste Comte to Talcott
Parsons or from Karl Marx to Jürgen Habermas have not attacked this question. The
reason for this is obvious: sociology is rooted in the assumption that persons are
social beings, and the elaboration of this general assumption forces one to attend
to the nature of the relationship between man's thought and the social context of
his consciousness. However, in response to these efforts, a highly unified and very
definite critique has developed which ultimately denies the theoretical and empirical
possibility of a sociology of knowledge in any but the most limited sense."
-- Tom W. Goff




"The belief that knowledge and social context are integrally related seems to carry an
epistemological implication which is simply not acceptable in the mainstream of
Western thought: the implication that all thought is relative, and thus that truth is an
impossibility. In response to the critique, sociology has on the whole retreated from
the radical implications of the insight (i.e., the insight that has inspired the
development of sociologies of knowledge, namely, the idea that thought and social
context are integrally related). The sociology of knowledge remains a weak area
within the discipline and generally accepts an extremely limited character."
-- Tom W. Goff, Marx and Mead: Contributions to a Sociology of Knowledge, 1980