it's kinda what people are bound to do since, ahem, there isn't a party.
and ever if there was, if it was like the democrats, you'd still have the same conversation. democrats are constantly having the same war about what a democrat is, who is one and who isn't, what's the line.
since there isn't really a stable foundation, for any of it - anarchist, Liberal, democrat, leftist (or republicans, conservatives, tea partiers, etc.) - this is a worthless criticism.
> On Oct 18, 2011, at 4:39 PM, SA wrote:
>
>> From my ongoing research into the anarchist scene, I get the
>> impression that AK Press is resented in some quarters for publishing
>> stuff critical of anarchists, and gets accused of not being
>> anarchist enough.
>
> I was in a Facebook exchange yesterday with an intelligent,
> sophisticated anarchist who kept defining the thing to her advantage.
> When people did things she didn't like, they weren't real anarchists.
> Etc. Reminds me of the Sparts with their "fake Trotskyist" epithet.
>
> What's that history of anarchism you mentioned?
>
> Doug
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)