Anarchy

[belimah at neomailbox.net]

Le Dec 23, 2006 à 9:24 AM, paul barrett a écrit :

> it is a problem when you try to separate theory and practice.  If  
> enough people practice a theory in a particular way, does this  
> override the original definition, or are they misappropriating a  
> term to justify their own actions?

For some practitioners, I would think that it has to override the  
original definition - that is, there must be some idea there to  
return to, or one's variance from it becomes meaningless (or at least  
something to be placed in a different, perhaps new category).

> Was it acceptable?  Maybe not.  Was it necessary?  There it gets  
> tricky.  Maybe it was.  Maybe the only way to remove an oppressor  
> *is* to take them out violently.  They sure aren't going to listen  
> to you if you try to talk.

I think it must be a matter of delineating forms - I wonder if  
Pynchon would consider, along with dissent by dynamite, the  
organization of unions and strikes as anarchist forms of dissent?

> I'm not really sure what anarchists do.  It's been a sticky point  
> with me because if they do not in some way act to remove government  
> from the world, then all they are is philosophers.  Nothing wrong  
> with philosophers, I even thought of becoming one, but philosophers  
> theorise.  They do not act on their theories (other than to try to  
> convince others of those theories.)

Those dreamy clouds . . .  But you are correct - actions occur in the  
street, or perhaps even, as with Benny Profane's passive anarchy(?),  
under the Street.

> I really do believe that small communities could live in an  
> anarchic system.  I know people who will live happily with one  
> another, not steal from or cheat one another, and treat one another  
> with respect.

They must not be related :-)

Thanks,

Tim