some folks put it this way, the days of tribal living is gone.  yet if we
were to concentrate on recovering one's community, by way of restoring
social order, anarchism sounds almost like Mencius' notion of virtual
democracy, or "a government's legitimacy depends upon the assent of the
people."  so another mark against geo. bush.  does this mean that virtual
democracy has roots in anarchism?

i'm spiritually evolving, please call my keiko (kay-ko) thanks.

keiko


On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Norman Mikalac 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's verbiage to
> maintain their sanities in a world run under
> republican-plutocratic-capitalism.
>
> norm
>
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> 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....
> > >
>