Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 11:12:45 -0500
From: "Jon George" <Jgeorge-AT-gw.hamline.edu>
Subject: Re: Anarcho domain purity


>>> John Anderson <panic-AT-semiosix.com> 08/24/00 09:48AM >>>
At 16:04 24/8/00 , Jon George wrote:
>On the other hand, not *every* way can be considered *a* true way.  There 
>must be some criteria that distinguishes anarchism from, for instance, 
>thuggery, state communism, or libertarian capitalism.

"Why must there be some criteria to make the distinction?"

How else does one make rational distinctions between political philosophies without criteria that try and and establish what one philosophy is and isn't?  Or are you saying it just doesn't matter?

"The questions I end up asking myself on this issue: why is it necessary to 
be identfied as; or to identify myself as; an "anarchist"? Why is it 
necessary to establish who is an "anarchist" and who isn't? Why is it 
necessary to take a collection of ideas, attitudes and beliefs and label it 
as "anarchy"? I suspect that we do this because it's a habit - labelling 
that is, I'd go so far as to say a bad habit. Encouraging uncritical 
loyalty to a symbol representing a set of ideas, attitudes and beliefs has 
always been a favourite tactic of those interested in the control of many."

I think what I'm encouraging is *critical* loyalty to a set of ideas, attitudes and beliefs which taken as a whole can be called anarchism because they form a more or less coherent philosophy.  If 1 + 1 + 1 = 3, why not say "3" each time instead of "1 + 1 + 1"?  By debating the meaning of "anarchism" and criticizing those who say "anarchism" when what they mean is something I think best described by other political philosophies, I'm engaging precisely in loyalty to a set of ideas behind anarchism rather than a symbol devoid of meaning.
     To throw up your hands and say "anarchism" is whatever people say it is would be fine if you don't plan on calling yourself an anarchist or using anarchism as a coherent term (your approach?) but a think labels have a place in our language.
     You don't "need" to call yourself an anarchist - you can say you believe in a whole host of propositions like individual freedom, abolishing the state, collective ownership of property, etc. but since you don't believe it's necessary to establish who is an anarchist and who isn't, if you explain these beliefs to someone and they say, "oh, you must be a fascist, or a racist, or a terrorist" are you going to disabuse them of these labels or not?  And what language will you use to do so?
     And in the final analysis, isn't every word a label for an idea?  To attempt to know other minds at all means relying on the abstraction and representation of language, of symbols.  
     I guess in the long run I don't see much difference between unpacking every label you come across in every conversation or struggling to make sure the labels mean what you want them to mean.  I hardly think the latter approach means I'm "interested in the control of the many"

Imp '00