[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]

01445: Re: [WDDM] Anarchism and Direct Democracy

From: "M. Kolar" <wddm(at)mkolar.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 23:25:07 -0500
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Anarchism and Direct Democracy

Dear Antonio,
by pure coincidence the leading Canadian daily Globe and Mail had on
Aug 11. a review of three anarchist books presented as three books for
thought. The title of the review was "Government? Who needs it?" The
subtitle was "People use the term 'anarchy' recklessly, Daniel Morley
Johnson says. They might be surprised at what it actually means".

Does this hopefully answer your question together with previous good
posts by echarp and Giorgio?

Otherwise, the review starts with two recent examples of two
self-proclaimed anarchists (an employee of Environment Canada, an
American professor) begin clearly dealt with more harshly/discriminated
against, because anarchism is (still) associated with some sort of menace.

The three books were:

1. The Conquest of Bread, by Peter Kropotkin, 1892 (first time in
English in 1906)

2. An Anthology of Emma Goldman'd Mother Earth (Counterpoint 2001)

3. Wasase: Indigenous Pathways of Action and Freedom, by Canadian Mohawk
scholar Taiaiake Alfred (Broadview 2005)

Mirek



Antonio Rossin wrote:
Dear Giorgio,

sorry, I do not find anything news in your last post,
but cheap irony and sarcasm only.

Let's hope in a better future,


antonio





Giorgio Menon ha scritto:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 20:28:13 +0200, Antonio Rossin wrote

Dear Giorgio,

Please don't go off-topic.


Offtopic you say? I thought that talking about all the possible alternative to
the current political mess was the topic. If i'm wrong my apologies. Let's
talk about soccer then, do you agree?


I read the definition of the word anarchy, anarchism etc. in my
English "Oxford Advanced Learner's" Dictionary, and notice that
the definition there doesn't fit to "something that has ruled
mankind's social behaviour for millenia and has been replaced by
democracy just in recent times"


Of course your dictionary is the best. Written by the same community that
keeps things together since the advent of social stratification, it MUST offer
better definitions than other communities (like Wiki, an community open to
popular contributions). Of course you're right again.
But let me say the history remains history and while recent history (since
agricolture was adopted) has offered mankind a variety of rulers (kings,
queens, dictators, democrats and anything that could sustain social
stratification) less recent history had been built upon different premises.
Ah, for what it's worthg reminding it, we are talking about 23h and 54 min of
the 24 hour clock, as Jared Diamond says in his mind boggling essay:
http://www.awok.org/worst_mistake/
"If the history of the human race began at midnight, then we would now be
almost at the end of our first day. We lived as hunter-gatherers for nearly
the whole of that day, from midnight through dawn, noon, and sunset. Finally,
at 11:54 p. m. we adopted agriculture.....
Forced to choose between limiting population or trying to increase food
production, we chose the latter and ended up with starvation, warfare, and
tyranny. Hunter-gatherers practiced the most successful and longest-lasting
life style in human history. In contrast, we're still struggling with the mess
into which agriculture has tumbled us, and it's unclear whether we can solve it."

We did pretty well for 99.99% of our past, we are doing no good now, seems to me.
Of course this is again an off-topic statement. My apologies.


Let's agree, to do so, those people must have given themselves
some kind of social organization, or "..archy" - be it tribe, or
dictatorship, or whatever you like it better, but no arrangement
at all sounds idiotic nonsense.


Here we go again: does anarchy mean ONLY lack of organization whatsoever, pure
chaos? Sure, in the sick mind of the compilers of your "Oxford Advanced
Learner's" Dictionary. It surely disturbs that anarchy may have signified
dignity and equal rights for all members of the communities that have menaged
to survive for so many millennia without causing too many troubles to the
environment as current democracies.
But forgive my idiotic nonsenses. Maybe i need a neurologist.
I still like to remind you that in ancient greek Archòs means leader. Add the
suffix An and you get the word "without leader". An impossible option these
days. Find the guru and be happy, don't worry, he'll fix all your problems.
Don't worry about searching the true meaning of the words. You must have faith
on dictionaries specialists. If other specialists disagree don't worry to
challenge your own opinions: leave facts alone and don't let them speak.
What better definition of fundamentalism?

Giorgio




Now I read in the wikipedia that some people offered another
definition for that word. Of course feel free to call "cat" a
dog, and "dog" a horse, as you like it better.

I must admit, the OAL dictionary is fourth edition only, 1989.
Perhaps in a later edition the definition has changed.

Giorgio Menon ha scritto:

Antonio Rossin wrote:


Dear Mirek,

you did not answer my post.
Let me quote what you did not of it:

...


Well now, I have nothing against some inhabitants of the world who
decide to adopt a different, personal meaning for words that have a
shared meaning by the remaining majority of the inhabitants the
world. But -- if they do so -- they are a sect, not a member of
democracy.
BTW, I go back to my shareable OAL dictionary, and read under the
item "sect":
- Sect = group of people who share (esp religious) beliefs or
opinions which differ from those of most people.

Dear Antonio,
i cannot understand your refusal to accept anarchy as something that
has ruled mankind's social behaviour for millenia and has been
replaced by democracy just in recent times, after the creation of the
elites (elites, mind you, allow top-down and bottom-up, impossible in
anarchy).
About sect: your definition perfectly fits neurologists (among
others), seems to me. Are you a member of that sect? Does it feel
wrong, weird or else? How can a member of that sect actively
partecipate to DD, if i may ask? Why can neurologists partecipate but
anarchists cannot?

Regards

Giorgio

PS my compliments to Mirek for the clarity of his post and position.
Noble and democratic are postive attributs forged in the workshops of
nobles and democrats (guess why?) while anarchy (maybe) represents a
direct threat to those workshops drop forging words and minds.




--
Open WebMail Project (http://openwebmail.org)



[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]