I also understand that Chomsky advocates more nationally based policies in
the meantime of some type of transition to an anarchist society, so it's a
bit more sticky.
You asked about the utility or practicability of anarchist ideals. Be assured
that these ideals are more than just intellectual verbiage. New models for
organizing, recently popularized by Seattle, etc., are based on anarchist
ideals-- affinity groups, etc. A wide variety of community-based living
projects and cooperatives (housing and worker) have flourished since the
'60s, despite what a "propaganda model" might tell you. Given, these are
limited in scope and dominated by the bourgeoisie which would flounder in a
class-conscious upheaval, but, hey...
-- David
In a message dated 1/10/1 3:33:48 AM, you wrote:
>see if you can understand this about anarchists:
>
>very naive and discontented people think that it is possible to return
>to non-hierarchical governments, non-hierarchical businesses,
>non-hierarchical organizations generally. these people call themselves
>anarchists.
>
>chomsky eloquently states that a government must justify itself, but he
>is not practical enough to describe precisely how this government would
>operate. nor does he describe the steps that are needed to get from the
>present state of affairs to the anarchist ideal.
>
>i read his books avidly, but just to get another view of U.S. foreign
>policy. i can't take him and the other libertarian-socialists
>(anarchists) seriously when they talk vaguely about some anarchist
>utopian society. most of the time here they spend playing "ain't it
>awful", but have no useful information to provide on "what's to be
>done". their utility to society is to support each
other--------------------------------------------
>
>Jonathan Julius Dobkin wrote:
>>
>> Does this (or any of your other messages) actually mean anything? If
>> not, why waste our time? If so, why not write in English (or French,
>> Spanish, Portuguese, or something else coherent that I might have at
>> least a chance of understanding)?
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Sueko Sakai <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: Tuesday, January 9, 2001 8:32 pm
>> Subject: Re: [CHOMSKY] is this correct or not?
>>
>> > On Sun, 31 Dec 2000, Ratibor Trivunac wrote:
>> >
>> > > > is chomsky really advocating for anarchism? or for the >anarchist?
>> > >
>> > > For both =:)
>> > >
>> > > > i'm thinking that he's for the anarchist. and i'm also saying
>> > to myself
>> > > > that in every age anarchists are needed, for if not, the king
>> > would still
>> > > > be in his counting room counting the profits from our parents'
>> > "blood &
>> > > > sweat." of course, today it's the capitalist who is in the
>> > counting room.
>> > >
>> > > Chomsky is alllso member of revoloutionary-syndicate called IWW
>> > > (www.iww.org) which is advocating for destruction of state and
>> > capitalist> system=anarchy...
>> > >
>> > > > saka'i
>> > >
>> > > Rata
>> >
>> > ok, and sorry for responding so late...i had to think a bit on it.
>> > so
>> > it's about socialism/communism? my problem is that our social-
>> > economicsystem is a big one, and i rather doubt that anarchism is
>> > a form of
>> > organiation that the mass majority fear--out of ignorance. but of
>> > course,isn't chomsky thinking more along the line of: we begin at
>> > the community
>> > level, then work our way towards the state.
>> >
>> > if confucius had the patience to do what needed to be done to recover
>> > social order in his time, i guess his way of doing it is a clue
>> > for our
>> > time? (26 yrs. after his death, confucianism).
>> >
>> > call me keiko
>> > i'm spiritually evolving....
>> >
>
>
>----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
>Return-Path: <[log in to unmask]>
>Received: from rly-yh05.mx.aol.com (rly-yh05.mail.aol.com [172.18.147.37])
by
>air-yh04.mail.aol.com (v77.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 09 Jan 2001 22:33:47 -0500
>Received: from cherry.ease.lsoft.com (cherry.ease.lsoft.com
[209.119.0.109]) by
>rly-yh05.mx.aol.com (v77.27) with ESMTP; Tue, 09 Jan 2001 22:33:15 -0500
>Received: from grape.ease.lsoft.com (209.119.0.34) by cherry.ease.lsoft.com
(LSMTP
>for Digital Unix v1.1b) with SMTP id <[log in to unmask]>;
Tue,
>9 Jan 2001 22:33:13 -0500
>Received: from MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU by MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
(LISTSERV-TCP/IP
> release 1.8d) with spool id 551355 for
[log in to unmask];
> Tue, 9 Jan 2001 22:33:30 -0500
>Received: from mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net (204.127.131.52) by
> maelstrom.stjohns.edu (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id
> <[log in to unmask]>; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 22:33:30 -0500
>Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.78.130.91]) by
mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net
> (InterMail vM.4.01.03.10 201-229-121-110) with ESMTP id
>
<[log in to unmask]>
> for <[log in to unmask]>; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 03:33:08
+0000
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
>X-Accept-Language: en
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>References: <[log in to unmask]>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Message-ID: <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 22:27:43 -0500
>Reply-To: "The philosophy, work & influences of Noam Chomsky"
<[log in to unmask]>
>Sender: "The philosophy, work & influences of Noam Chomsky"
<[log in to unmask]>
>From: Norman Mikalac <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: [CHOMSKY] is this correct or not?
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
|
