Re: [WDDM] Anarchism and Direct Democracy

[Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it>]

Dear Mirek,

I have no real question about anarchy, but a comment only.

I have nothing against any homogeneous group of people who
decide to call publicly themselves -- say -- "prikelast", provided
only we the public all convene about what the word "prikelast"
means as a characteristic of those people, and that meaning is
made public.

The same goes along with the terms anarchist, anarchy.
I have nothing against a homogeneous group of people who
decide to call publicly themselves "anarchists", provided
only we the public all convene about what the word "anarchy"
means as the necessary characteristic to make those people
homogeneous, and that meaning is made public.  Period.

Now, I think that your Daniel Morley Johnson is quite right, as
he says "People use the term 'anarchy' recklessly" : just because
as far as I know there is NO public agreement  i.e. "convention"
about what the meaning of the word "anarchy" is.

Therefore, in a lack of such an agreement of a shared meaning,
I shall use the other tools at my disposal, in order to check out
what meaning I have to apply to the word.  In this case, the tool
I have is its etymology, as the word "anarchy" has a precise one,
from the Greek, which stands for "absence of a leadership".
Please correct me if I were imprecise.

Hence my question, since my firm belief is, NO group of people
can exist in the absence of a leadership, at least a natural one.


At this point, if a guy jumps in and claims that I was criticizing
the moral merits of the (self-claiming) anarchists and bla bla bla
-- there where I only wondered that this word is used recklessly
as there is no publicly shared meaning of it -- ,what shall I think?
Very simply, I think of this reckless guy that he does not know
the publicly convened meaning of the words the public uses.


Hoping this helps,  regards

antonio

M. Kolar ha scritto:
> 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)