ebola?
Bluelight Crew
>>
I'm not saying you need to be an active participant in redesigning society if you are going to hold those views. However if the plan is to be implemented, somebody somewhere is going to be doing it, and they may not share your morality.
>>
I have been very explicit in the idea that if anarchic social structures are to be erected, they need be built by anarchists involved in local struggles. So, yes, to the extent that people continue to want hierarchy, anarchism will be completely inviable. The only real avenue of practice is open discussion of whether hierarchy is damaging and also participation in functional, non-hierarchical groups, like Food Not Bombs, for example. Small potatoes, yes, but it's something.
>>
The reason I say this is that I seem to evaluate the quality of ideas according to how well they could be implemented, whereas you evaluate according to the logical coherentness of the idea itself.>>
Maybe types like us would do best working together, eh?
"First off, you better get your god damned lists correct. Whatever I say, it gets exactly that."
>>Or maybe an idea that fails in reality cannot be logically coherent.>>
One may easily build a logically coherent system based on false axioms.
ebola
I'm not saying you need to be an active participant in redesigning society if you are going to hold those views. However if the plan is to be implemented, somebody somewhere is going to be doing it, and they may not share your morality.
>>
I have been very explicit in the idea that if anarchic social structures are to be erected, they need be built by anarchists involved in local struggles. So, yes, to the extent that people continue to want hierarchy, anarchism will be completely inviable. The only real avenue of practice is open discussion of whether hierarchy is damaging and also participation in functional, non-hierarchical groups, like Food Not Bombs, for example. Small potatoes, yes, but it's something.
>>
The reason I say this is that I seem to evaluate the quality of ideas according to how well they could be implemented, whereas you evaluate according to the logical coherentness of the idea itself.>>
Maybe types like us would do best working together, eh?
"First off, you better get your god damned lists correct. Whatever I say, it gets exactly that."
>>Or maybe an idea that fails in reality cannot be logically coherent.>>
One may easily build a logically coherent system based on false axioms.
ebola
