> It's kind of a sport among anarchists to debate who's in or not. (Not
> just anarchists -- I see this in many other contexts.) Chomsky claims:
True. Anarchists are pretty inclusive when it comes to identifying anarchists.
> I really don't care; almost anyone who's read Albert's work can accept
> the plausibility of loosely calling him an anarchist, and understand
> what that means. Same with Chomsky. Perhaps there exist technical
> contexts where you wish to delineate someone's social status or
> membership within some exclusive club, but this certainly isn't one of
> them.
I understand that some people loosely call Albert an anarchist. He has shown some leanings in that direction. But people like Chomsky has actually spoken and written at length about his anarchism. Howard Zinn has said at public appearances that he is "sort of an anarchist."
Albert has many interesting things to say, but what he has said about anarchism isn't very interesting and isn't very connected to contemporary anarchism.
Chuck -------------------------- Bread and Roses Web Design serving small businesses, non-profits, artists and activists http://www.breadandrosesweb.com/