> I think the biggest problem is that anarchists don't theorize about
> much. There is plenty of room for theory, but the antipathy to it is so
> widespread, it seems to me, that it's unlikely you'll end up studying
> anarchist ideas in academia. People do study them, they just aren't
> labeled as such.
That's right, anarchists are incapable of symbolic thought. We have no magazines, conferences, debates, controversies, message boards, picnics or whatever.
By the way, here's an interesting anarchist conference: Anarchism and Christianity http://conference.jesusradicals.com/
> I mean, look, is there an anarchist theory of human nature/being?
Yes. It's in our literature.
>Is there an anarchist position or positions on the relationship between the
> individual and society. Do they put forth any ideas about how social
> change works (or doesn't)?
Of course!
The relationship between the
> market/state/civil society? Any theory of knowledge -- how do we
> know--and, relatedly, what is 'it' that we're trying to know?
I don't know...
> I realize that about half the members of this list think these things
> aren't important. But, in my experience, that's not the case at all. As
> Chuck pointed out the other day (re: the sep. of church and state and
> questions of knowledge), these things are all bound up together. If you
> don't have any idea how social change happens, if you never ask why or
> study it, then you're just going to proceed on your merry way, assuming
> that whatever view you hold is The way, regardless of the reality around
> you.
I understand perfectly well how social change happens. My problem is that nobody listens to me. When I screamed two years ago that ANSWER would squander the anti-war movement's resources with ineffective rallies, I was labeled a sectarian. ANSWER got so mad at me that they spread rumors that I worked for the police.
I told an anarchist friend the other day that I've been thinking about writing an essay titled "I told you so" which would once again go after the anti-war movement's mistakes and point out the answers that are sitting right there in the sunlight.
> Feminist theory, practice, and movement was a pretty good model of how
> to combine the three--still is.
Right.
> Observation: something's wrong with the way things are now.
>
> Ask Why: what's wrong, exactly? Why? How did it get that way?
Sectarians took over the peace movements and nobody challenged them. Totally squandered the political capital that the anti-globalization movement had built up and ended up demoralizing thousands of new activists. After Seattle and Quebec City, young radicals are going to drop out if your political strategy consists of listening to Brian Becker in some Washington or New York park.
> Research: Do our observations that something's wrong hold up?
> Our theories as to how it got this way, do they hold up? Once we
> got this way, how is this system maintained and reproduced? Who
> benefits? Who is harmed?
>
> How can we change this? The answer depends on the other things, doesn't it?
>
> But, anarchists don't really much give a crap about this sort of thing,
> do they? I'd be interested and relieved to here otherwise. But, most of
> the peole with anarchist sympathies on this list seem to snarl about
> academia and theory.
I do, but nobody wants to listen to me. If I speak up on this list, people insult me personally. If I try and talk about these things with anarchists, they diss me as a liberal or a loud-mouthed white male.
So I go through the motions and wait for everything to fall apart...
Chuck