can someone explain this to me?
Out of context: Reply #1
- Started
- Last post
- 4 Responses
- DaveId0
I am certainly no expert, and I don't tend to agree with the politics of various black-masked-militant-anti-estab... groups but...
looking at history, especially when anarchism was actually a viable movement (i don't know, Russia c. 1880?), i think that you can see oppression as almost universally coming from the top-down. the way to fight it from the bottom would be with small, grass-roots, localized resistance movements. terms such as "terrorism". "anarchism" (maybe even "gang violence"?) can be seen as linguistic counter-insurgence by those in power to keep those on the margins from gaining support.
He doen't explicitly call himself an "anarchist", but much of what Noam Chomsky talks about does ring true for me. He calls himself a "social libertarian", but i think this is just a way of not dealing with the knee-jerk reactions you get when you call youself an "anarchist". He doens't really seem to care about individuals or intentions. it is more about "systems".
i dunno, maybe a "system of governent" when it becomes powerfull enough is inherently problematic. is that so far-fetched? there are many natural systems that become unbalanced when they reach a tipping-point. why not government? Why does 1cent out of every dollar i earn have to go to supporting a military system that i beleive is making the world less safe for everyone in it?
In R. Buckminsterfuller's "Spaceship Earth", he says that he thinks that the planet would be much better off if it were made up of a thousand nations with populations of one million( the population was much smaller when he wrote it) kind of like a city-state model.
anyways, I'm no anarchist. but I can't say that i can think of any instances where nationalism did anything but cause unnecessary harm.
... now back to laying out this magazine ad for TRW.