Hi norm

I read into your posting that you're not that well versed re what anarchism
is / does / has done / proposes - not that it's some dogma that is not
critiqued and contested by those many groups that seek to advance @'s
central tenets... meaning that it has lots of different strands, all of
which, however, support a central thesis. The resources are readily
available to those who care to look. @'s living expressions are also all
around you and the rest of us... but again, one has to care to look. The
web-based anarchist FAQ is a good place to get a general overview. Chomsky's
behaviour makes perfect sense, I think, from an @-perspective... cunning old
devil that he is.

Regards

b

bruce sandford
Aotearoa-New Zealand

Security: a deceptively comfortable restriction of one's possibilities.

norm:
> 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.