Grey wrote on Jul 15^th, 2011 at 6:31pm:



Just to stop at the beginning - washing together all these groups as each being a mere gang, no better or worse than any other gang is the firts false step you make and from her its just o many more false steps.

If people are just partisans of gangs that are not hierarchically different - qualitatively different - then of course you are making the same silly mistake as Time: you are just a gangster of no particular worth or insight.

Pretending that you are of the select few who are un-ganged is just juvenile ignorance and boastfulness ithout any grounding.

Quote:


Quite wrong. It's a very English idea, William Godwin is widely regarded as the first Anarchist though some trace links back to Moores 'Utopia'. A frenchman Proudhon was the first to use the word as a self description rather than as a perjorative. He, being fond of words, recognised the ambiguity of the word. It commonly means a state of chaos, but actually means 'without rulers'.

The power of 'leaders' and their enabling gangsters is of course the old structure dating back to apes swinging through the tree tops. The evolutionary direction is towards the deconstruction of power. It's a two steps forwards one step back process. As we can see now the push is for us to hand back power to a central leadership with the Federal government clawing back power from the states and states removing the power of local councils.

The Anarchist tradition has both right and left adherents. The Ayn Rynd freemarketeers have a common bond with European left wing Anarchism; individualism. Ultimately Communists and Capitalists follow slightly different routes to the same place, totalitarianism.

[quote]This is why debates, discussions, arguments, wars etc occur. Because there is always competing perspectives battling it out.[/quote]

It's been said of Pietre Kropotkin, that he held the position of a sort of secular saint. That was in 19th century London where he produced his greatest work, the tome 'Mutual aid', first published as a series of essays throughout the 1890's. Mutual aid was supportive of Darwins Origin of the Species,(1859) but took issue with the Social Darwinism of Huxley, in particular 'The Struggle for Existence' (1888).

Kropotkin made the point that co-operation within and even between species was at least as much an engine of evolution as survival of the fittest. In fact the very bodies of higher animal life can be viewed as colonies of co-operation between single cell organisms.

Bakunin. Grizzled.

Big Donger wrote on Jul 16^th, 2011 at 5:48pm:


There are a lot of , er, post-structures in the Lebanon and Gaza and now in Bombay - anywhere really where the locals engage in theological dicourse with the sons of M.

WIth a good post-structuralist certificate from Bradford Poly, over there you could be the proverbial busy brickie of Beirut. Or as busy as a one legged man at the arse-kicking competition, as our Cultural Attache. Sir Les, once put it.

Feel encouraged.

barnaby joe wrote on Jul 19^th, 2011 at 1:10pm:



Dubbo's gettin' to ya??

Soren wrote on Jul 19^th, 2011 at 12:46pm:



The longer you avoid the question, the more obvious it becomes that you are pinned in a corner.

If morals aren't perspectives based in the needs and desires of its projector, then morals are grounded how? Ignore the question of grounding at your own peril, it's not going to go away.

Big Donger wrote on Jul 20^th, 2011 at 10:05am:


no we have nothing there dubbo doesnt exist move along good sir