I would love to chat with you about your comment, maybe follow up with a new article in response.

Linda

My main question is actually about your definition of anarchy

“Anarchism maintains that corporations (of whatever sort, political or commercial) do not value basic human needs, and tend to diminish cultural and social freedom.”

I tend to spend time online with a circle of anarchists and classical liberals that are more interested in discussing religion as opposed to architecture. It was my impression from what i have read so far that anarchy was only opposed to forced corporation or society as opposed to being against voluntary corporations.

This quote is from a classical liberal but I had always been told it apply to anarchy aswell.
“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.

We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.” Bastiat.

In classical liberalism the only point of law is to have justice. but the anarchists i talk to have good points about libertarian thought about limited government being hypocritical by forcing others to fund their protection scheme.

It seems though that right of association is something that still exists in anarchy. as anarchy is about love and not domination.

It seems Ayn Rand rubbed off on Frank Lloyd wright a bit. and though he seems fairly atheist he seems to like Jesus and says that not only is he an anarchist himself but says that Jesus was the gentle anarchist.

I am currently looking at comparing Volunteerism with Usonian ideas.

Any thoughts or answers would be appreciated.

The thing to note is the ability of contemporary capitalist institutions to co-opt ANY kind of aesthetic gesture to their advantage, even the ones that seem to be a mockery of them (a topic that has been widely discussed in public art for eternity). This is a revealing territory as the difference between architecture and art is that architecture serves a function – so the question to be asked is in what sense and in what capacity can architecture actually challenge the predominant ideal of capitalism?

(It is heartening to know there are other architects who look into anarchism. Also you listen to great music.)

If you haven’t done it yet, do it.

Michal

I agree that the statement “cities are a product of capitalism” relates more to the development of the modern city, in particular from the beginning of the 20th century. My target on capitalism here is indeed the consequences of corporate structures, and how this fuels capitalist agenda’s.

Now, onto the topic of human beings – this one for me could be another essay in itself! I believe we are capable of managing our own lives – however as you pointed out we are not very good at doing so. I think human beings (generally) are pretty lazy, complacent and inconsiderate – thats not to say that there isnt a bunch of amazing, thoughtful and considerate people also – because there sure is!

I recently visited New York (and did hang out near the world trade centre site – not sure if I went down Vesey St though) and you are absolutely right, people are far too busy thinking about themselves, their jobs and their money (among other things) to really take much notice to the people and environment around them. Richard Sennett talks alot about this and describes us a being nurtured in a way that neutralises and supresses our ability to consider ourselves as social beings who respect and consider others. Matta-Clarke of the three is also my favourite, the physicality of his work is just beautiful.

Your point about Entrepreneurs supporting capitalism is one I have never really considered myself but you make a very interesting point. And is a good place for the idea of capitalism evolution to manifest. I also believe quite strongly that to evolve capitalism is needs to occur from within system. So you point about OMA is true (in my opinion). Organisational structures (and capitalist agendas) can exist but the product can indeed have variables (and hence I think the idea of evolution can come into play).

I obviously agree with your point about architecture schools. I was lucky enough to select subjects (and tutors) which allowed me to explore the areas of Architecture which interested me most. (even though these were always the less popular subjects, and I wasn’t exactly the coolest kid on the block for doing so – Always a bit of an outsider if you don’t hang with the majority.)

I’m glad you like my musical references, and that you can relate also. My interest in punk and ska surfaced in my work at uni also.

Perhaps my understanding of the implications of people managing themselves is based on the fact that Australia does only have 22 million people! ha ha and hense I dont deal with the same issues you do on Vesey St everyday!

Linda