> >This is the third post in which I said ad dollars DO NOT equal free
speech.
> >I said that the Brown paper has a right to take money from whoever they
want
> >and print or not print whatever they want, just as leftwing papers do. If
> >the Brown paper had rejected Horowitz's ad, I would not criticize them.
It
> >would not be censorship. But they accepted it, as is their right. You
don't
> >like it? Quit school, get a working-class job and help to overthrow
> >capitalism. Until then, spare me your paper darts from the academy.
Then replied:
> Doesn't the above sound awfully like, "if you don't like America &
> free enterprise, go to Soviet Russia!"
Not at all. Does it to you?
> Resisting violent scabs with force may likewise alienate the majority
> of today's workers. In fact, that's very likely.
What kind of workers do you hang around? I'm around workers 5 days a week and I doubt many of them would be put off by resisting scabs.
> Anarchists used to be fond of people like Henry David Thoreau who were not
afraid of the
> "majority opinions." What happened?
> Yoshie
Anarchism isn't a doctrine. It is a tendency that encompasses a wide-range of views, philosophies and modes of action. It is not a fear of "majority opinions" that drives me (is the idea of armed guards at women's clinics a mainstream one?), but the ability and political subtlety to undermine mainstream assumptions and replace them with concepts of freedom. The way you strut about, Yoshie, suggests that subverting and ultimately convincing the mass is of little interest to you. Once in charge you'll have them either working in the fields or rotting in prison. And there'll be a lot to jail. If I were you, I'd start rounding up guards. You'll need them.
DP