kelley:
> then why don't you quit invoking anarchist to legitimate what you say. just
> say you're Joe R. Golowka and this is what you think. if anarchists have
> nothing in common then it's useless to call yourself an anarchist in these
> discussions, especially if you're going to label everyone else as NOT an
> anarchist and judge them as condescendingly as you do. chuck0's discourse
> is a great example: if you're not sympatico with what he believes, then you
> ultimately support either the capitalist state or the socialist state. and
> then when you don't have an answer as to how to address the questions
> raise, he pulls a chaz and says it all happen automagically when people
> decide.
>
> horse hockey.
It gets some response, though. I asked what it was about high technology that requires a context of coercion, as many participants in this discussion seem to assume. I think that's a fundamental moral and political question with some fairly serious implications, but no one seems willing to engage it. Apparently it's much more rewarding to deride Chuck and Joe as primitivists.
-- Gordon