From: "Dave Coull" <coull2-AT-btinternet.com> Subject: RE: Ann Hansen talks shite Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 08:40:42 -0000 Scott wrote > Fuck a bunch of dictionaries, dead folks, > majorities and minorities, anarchism > is what I define it to be. No it isn't! Anarchism is what _this_ "I" , Dave Coull, defines it to be. > sometimes you seem to be too hung up on historical > continuity See here Scottie, I knew Albert Meltzer, and Albert knew Emma Goldman. Well, at least, he heckled her at a meeting, and she called him "that young thug". Emma knew Errico Malatesta, and Errico knew Kropotkin, and Pyotr knew Bakunin, and Mikhail knew Proudhon, and Pierre-Joseph may have been a racist shite but he was also the very first man in history to say "I am an anarchist". So that means there is a direct link between me and the beginnings of the anarchist movement, even if Emma didn't actually lay hands on Albert. And _that_ means I take precedence over you, you young squirt. > Anarchists of the past have created a useful > body of theory and experience, but they've far > from answered every question that gets raised today. You think I don't know that? I don't even believe they answered every question in their own day. Proudhon was a racist shite, so was Bakunin, and Kropotkin supported the Allies in the First World War. Nevertheless, they were all, at least for part of their lives, activists in what we call the anarchist movement. For me, the significant thing is not what these _famous_ anarchists said or did, but the fact that there was a _movement_ , consisting of thousands of folk whose names we usually _don't_ know, of which they were a part. > even on this list I got called a monarchist (???) The pleasantries exchanged on this list can be inventive. I'm not sure I understand that one. > All I'm saying is that the answers aren't all > to be found by looking backwards any more than > they can be found by ignoring the past. Now that I agree with. Agreement breaking out! We can't have this! Surely we can find _something_ to disagree about? Where do you stand on this fraudulent idea of "animal rights"? Would you agree with me that >> there is a major difference between, on the one hand, >> "animal rights", and, on the other hand, "women's rights" >> or "queer rights". The major difference is that _women_ >> initiated the women's rights movement. WOMEN took direct >> action in support of (for instance) their right to vote. >> The same applies to queer rights. Homosexuals took direct >> action to assert their rights. But most animals are quite >> incapable of understanding the concept of "rights". In fact, >> most animals are quite incapable of understanding the concept >> "animals". If you take a cat and a dog, for instance, they >> are incapable of understanding the idea that together they >> form a class which is oppressed by humans. Now, this is >> not to deny that animals _are_ oppressed by humans. As >> a matter of fact I am all in favour of compassionate treatment >> of animals. But that is a different matter from "rights". >> Rights are something you fight for. When Tom and Jerry >> (and Fido) all band together and take collective action, >> not in a cartoon but in real life, I will believe in >> "animal rights". Dave Coull
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005