Soren wrote on Apr 18^th, 2013 at 11:14pm:


Let's face it Soren, you've got a negative attitude and a mind that's not very adaptable. You must've had a rough life to feel so threatened all the time. 

Soren wrote on Apr 20^th, 2013 at 7:46pm:


As you sow pal.


Quote:


Nothing that makes a historical mark can be a total failure. And a failed experiment, for whatever reason or excuse, (and we know, if we're honest, that Anarchist Spain is not short of reasonable excuse), is nevertheless of value, with knowledge gained and lessons learned. 



Quote:


Oh for heavens sake, 'try a reasoned argument'.

Look Soren, I know that the Anarchist philosophy, (like any other) is not without fault. One of the greatest faults is the name. Smart arse wordsmith Proudhon saw rhetorical value in proclaiming 'I am an Anarchist'. He was right in seeing that the word literally said 'no rulers' rather than 'bring on chaos and confusion'. But the label was always going to be confusing, to both its adherents and detractors.

I'm writing a neo-anarchist theory which I call Huarchy. I am for all hues and humans taking responsibility. I think Anarchism has suffered for bearing a name that's negative. It's a long way short of useful to be forever protesting about what you don't want, without offering alternative solutions. I certainly don't want to be part of a movement dedicated to overturning the apple cart.

I'm really trying to bring Anarchism back to its roots. As Proudhon wrote to Marx, -
we should not put forward revolutionary action as a means of social reform, because that pretended means would simply be an appeal to force, to arbitrariness, in brief, a contradiction. I myself put the problem in this way: to bring about the return to society, by an economic combination, of the wealth which was withdrawn from society by another economic combination.

I like the idea of a society where the distribution of wealth enables the majority more opportunities for entrepreneurial and creative behaviour. I don't believe in egalitarian totalitarianism, but I do want more egalitarianism.

I do think that money that ought to be earmarked for local use should remain with local authorities, (that's not a slip up). I don't see why it has to go on a circuitous journey getting depleted by Fed-gang, Fed-bureacrat, state gang, state bureacrat before returning home as an empty purse.

I see a system that has another tier of politics added at the bottom, where block reps meet and elect their own candidates for the other tiers of government. A system that ensures nobody votes for somebody they don't know and eventually a system that displaces the political gangs altogether. Not a revolution in other words but an ap.

Too my mind Anarchism is a concern with structure, a means of progressing democracy. Is it possible? Maybe, maybe not, I suspect that like most things, people will buy it if the sales pitch is good enough.

simonhall1900 wrote on Apr 21^st, 2013 at 11:43am:


Blimey constable

Did you read the post above your own? I pledged commitment to this country and would do again. I would do it with no qualms about my integrity or honesty.

Do you think that an idea that things could be done better, more democratically, is treason? Do you think the Greens are treacherous and unAustralian? I think you need a cup of tea and a nice lay down.

Quote:


Funny that    But I still want decisions reached by consensus. Which means to me that they're decisions arrived at by the reasonable people in the middle, the ones who are currently divided. That means amongst other things that bad decisions can be overturned without a loss of face.

And I'd like an end to taxation from cradle to grave for everybody. Replaced with a 100% death duty. I think that's fair, makes for a meritocracy and a level playing field.

Quote:


Well possibly you nail my weak spot Soren. Actually i think my dastardly plan would edge things a little to the right initially; but would result in less lurching and tend to a steady progress to the left. At least that's what I used to say, I'm not so sure anymore, we've edged right already since then.

I do tend to trust the popular consensus rather more than our pollies. The influence of the Murdoch press can still be a worry though.

we.......bludge.......

Grey wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2013 at 4:18pm:



That's what we ALL say:
I am not the anarchist, atheist, christian, jew, muslim, conservative, progressive (your label here) you, completely ignorantly/misguidedly/viciously imagine/imply/attribute/caricature me as.

Good one.

Quote:


Actually that's not right. In a true democracy we would all be politicians. The USA called it government of the people, by the people and for the people. Well is it? We have two, (main) political gangs. they each put up a candidate and you take your choice. You don't know either of them any better than a brand of soap powder and that's exactly how they're marketed to you. How you could think that a better system beats me.