This is typical exile fantacy a la Russians in POaris and London in the 19th century - noithing to do but yak,yak,yak.

We can't be all polititicans, just as we can't all be cobblers, farmers, builders, printers, writers, teachers, police, street cleaners.

I am amazed by each new burst of your combative naivity (now there's a paradox that fits anarchists perfectly).

We’ll still have henpecked, reactionary old boys after the revolution, Grey. There’s not a lot you can do about it.

Give them the power to put the bins out on time - that’s the best you can do for them. They’ll even come to respect you for it.

The old boy doesn’t want a more direct demokracy. He just wants his dinner on the table and his lawn mowed just so  and everything in its place.

Which is no easy task, let me tell you. It’s a source of endless groans, which is just how the old boys want it.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 25^th, 2013 at 9:06am:


If Anarchists wanted disorder they'd have nothing to complain about. For the umpteenth time anarchy is a  word used as a perjorative, and meaning chaos. Anarchism is a philosophy, its meaning is 'no rulers'. It's meaning is that in a dynamic system too much control leads to chaos, (see fascism).

A forest has order, when you impose order upon it you create deserts. Anarchism is difficult because in some ways it's counter-intuitive, but it works. Now I know what you say to that; but the fact is that Anarchy has never collapsed under the weight of its own inherent failure. Spains republican government of 1939 was denied the arms to defend itself. The only time in European history a democratically elected government suffered an arms embargo; while its fascist enemies received arms, including personnel and planes. While the Stalinists opened up a second front to ensure failure, hardly a fair fight.

Similar situations saw the collapse of Anarchism in the Ukraine and Mexico. Anarchism has been defeated by paranoia from without not disorder from within. And yes, there's lessons to be learned from that.

... wrote on Apr 25^th, 2013 at 12:30pm:


Sorry Paulson, my post too long for your attention span was it?

What else can ya do but point and laugh mockingly at the centenarian who still hasn't figured out that anarchy cannot last?

Quote:



Defining Anarchism is indisputably problematic. Like any 'ism' it means different things to different people. In my own writings I've coined a new word Huarchy to avoid confusion. Anarchism has been defined more often by its detractors than its adherents. Nevertheless I'm usually heartened by the degree of understanding young people have for its roots.

As you know Joseph Proudhon was the first to call himself an Anarchist, though the river of thought as flowed for much longer. There's nothing in Proudhons letter to Marx that is inconsistent with my interpretation. 

Quote:


I will not subscribe to any theory of Anarchism that precludes participation by conservative thinkers or socialist. Anarchism is the exploration of co-operation through political structure. It is not the sales force for a manifesto. My personal left wing leanings are divorced from my Anarchistic ones. I think a totally socialist society would be as disasterous as a totally conservative one.

Now you might say that is a statement that supports liberal democracy. I'd agree that a liberal democracy is a much better system than most others. But at its heart the system is flawed and like any system the small flaws have become big ones and the system is no longer functioning as well as it did.

As Soren has said, Anarchism is a step towards greater direct democracy. I do not believe that anybody should vote for giving away their sovereignty to somebody they don't know at all well.

Soren wrote on Apr 25^th, 2013 at 9:04pm:


On the contrary, Anarchism is for the self disciplined and unblinkered, though quite possibly altruistic.

Quote:


You really do protest too much Soren. I'm beginning to suspect you own an inner Anarchist, but are as yet incapable of admitting your wrongness for all these years.


Quote:


What do you know of William Godwin, Pietre Kropotkin, Germaine Greer, Ursula Le Guin, Eva Cox, Noam Chomsky? That they 'are the stupidest, most impractical, most destructive bastards'? People who 'lack self discipline' Get away  In his day Pietre Kropotkin was the most respected intellectual in London. George Bernard Shaw described him as 'the closest thing we have to a secular saint'.



Quote:


If there's a paradox concerning Anarchism it's being the 'ism' that isn't. Paradox is not a dirty word, paradox is the place where all views collide, it's the muddy water, the blurred image, the grey truth. If you are not a bigot you are uncertain. I would very much like to deny Anarchism, but I'd be a liar and disrespectful of the past. 

Quote:


No, no, no, no, no.

Quote:


Of course Anarchists are different from Fascists of any colour. To be an Anarchist is to be as far from totalitarian as it is possible to be. Have people murdered in the name of? Of course, just as they have murdered in the name of Jesus, Gandhi, Martin Luther King. I'm sure one day some idiot will murder in the name of Joan Baez  I have done no redefining. I do reassert the historically accurate non-violent nature of Anarchism, while of course allowing the right of Anarchists to defend themselves.

"they are just as blinkered, just as violently, just as monomaniacal and intolerantly sure" as kings, rulers, dictators and priests? Listen to yourself. 

Grey wrote on Apr 26^th, 2013 at 12:51pm:

Um, I thought there was a whole pile of American anarchists who had to apologise on reflection for their 'deeds'!!