Anarchy in the SP

Every day I become a little more of a democratic anarchist.

Maybe it’s because I never hung out with people on Welfare in the U.S., but coming from a lefty big government crowd, I assumed that welfare was a great thing. Tax the rich and provide for the poor, it’s the best way to keep the ravages of capitalism in check.

But I do hang out with people in Brazilian slums, the recent recipients of billions of dollars worth of upgrading projects. Not welfare exactly, but still a big government scheme to, ostensibly, improve people’s lives. If only it were that simple. Here is what appears to happen in practice: the money goes to government employees and private companies who draw up plans for big construction projects. Hundreds of families get evicted to make way, and when lucky, they are sardine-ed into overpriced soviet-style public housing that, unlike their old homes, is not built to flexibly fit the needs of residents. Participation in the decision-making by residents is attempted but usually fails, so that government and private companies have the ultimate control over intimate aspects of poor peoples lives. It’s degrading and dehumanizing, and in a matter that is close to my heart, it is not democratic.

This happens all over the world. Poor people either get screwed without a thought, or they have to submit to dehumanizing and undemocratic philanthropy on the part of rich people, NGOs, and governments to meet basic needs. I get to buy filtered water if I don’t want to drink possibly contaminated water from the tap. A slum dweller has to submit to an interview from government officials in her home, two years of waiting, and finally a water-main installation project that displaces her neighbors before she can legally drink cleanish water out of her tap. Think about how that difference feels psychologically. It sucks.

Democracy means, or should mean, the idea that people should have control over the decisions and processes that affect their lives. And in a globalizing world this becomes more and more out of reach for all people, but especially the urban poor in “developing” countries. The answers we are generating to solve this are big-hearted international institutions (think the UN, multinational NGOs) to ameliorate the actions of big bad international actors (corporations and certain governments *cough* the U.S.). Side note: I don’t know how to classify the World Bank here- they seem to be in the middle of an identity-crisis between the two poles.

Perhaps the good and bad are not the problem, but size. Being BIG means something is too far from the people who matter to ever get it right, regardless of intentions. Small and anarchic is what we need, putting aside for a moment that I only have vague ideas what that might look like and not the faintest clue how it might be achieved.