Just one quick point to Brian and the rest of you discussing
anarchy. I think a definition of terms is in order. Anarchy does not (in
a literal sense) mean "no higherarchy," it means "no rules." It is the
fundamental belief that no human being has any right to tell another
human being what or what not to do. "Populism," a much misused word in
the media today, was a movement of the nineteenth century which focused on
community based economics and bottom up power structures. Though the
movement has been dead longer than any of us have been alive (my
apologies to anyone on the list over ninety), it has left such things as
agricultural co-ops and S&L's behind.
If you all would be so good, I would appreciate knowing where
those people who call themselves "anarchists" place themselves. The
popular misuse of these terms makes discussion of the ideas behind them
difficult if we don't define what we mean first.
Thanks all,
Jon.
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Nov 11 11:03:40 MST 1994
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 1994 12:03:45 -0600 (CST)
From: Jonathan M Poppele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Post election distress
To: Annica Young Kronsell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I do agree with this in the sense that we must
> strive for simplicity and toward subsistence
> living if we want to live in an equitable and
> ecological way, in order to realize that vision of
> society. However, there is a enormous difference
> between choosing to live simply and being poor. It
> might very well be that poor people have happier
> more fulfilling lives,but how can we, who have a
> choice whether to live simply or not, make any
> judgements about this.
>
> I admire the choices you have made. Keep on,
>
And that right there is the key. Choice. Poverty is a condition in our
society when choice is gone. Being poor (in terms of material goods) is a
choice for most of us, and this is what I (and I believe Jim) am talking
about. Your comments on the distinction are very important. Thank you.
Jon.
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Nov 11 11:14:54 MST 1994
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 1994 13:18:09 -0500 (EST)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Being Poor
Jim Roper wrote:
>By being poor I don't feel obligated to keep up
>with the matierialism that plagues the developed world. I don't watch
>television, so that leaves me time to think, to dream, to become aware of
>the universe. I don't have a car, so I am not plagued by costs, by fear
>of thievery (which is a big problem in Philadelphia), I have little in
>the way of possessions, so I could toss everything I own into a small
>container and throw it all away and not miss it very much (some of the
>photos, and books I'd miss). Small is beautiful, so why play the silly
>games? Only in the US could you see the bumper sticker, and find people
>wwith which they agree, that says "He who dies with the most toys WINS!"
>It is the converse of that mentality (if you can call it mentality) that
>I equate with enjoying being poor. I have watched wealthy people, filthy
>rich people, and they don't love life, nature, each other, or even
>themselves (IMHO).
I agree with the sentiment Jim expresses, only I wouldn't call it being poor.
Being poor, to me, is not having enough to eat, not having adequate shelter,
not being able to take care of one's children. What Jim is talking about, I
think, is not allowing material possessions to interfere with one's spiritual
nature. Material things are good, in moderation. There is nothing wrong per
se with television: it can be very edifying and entertaining. Too much of it
is not good. Cars can take us to places we couldn't get to otherwise. Too
many cars being used too much causes sloth and pollution. Caring too much
about material things makes us less able to care about spiritual things, such
as our love for each other, and the cosmic issues: life, the universe, and
everything. Still, I would not wish anyone to be poor in then sense I
described it above.
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Nov 11 11:19:20 MST 1994
sendmail 4.1/UCSB-2.1-sun
Fri, 11 Nov 94 10:22:19 PST for [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Rachel Coles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: The Bell Curve
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 94 10:00:00 PST
Encoding: 6 TEXT
To ecofemmers:
There is an interesting article in the October 26, 1994 issue
of "The Chronicle of Higher Education" about the _The Bell Curve_
and its authors.
Rachel
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Nov 11 11:26:40 MST 1994
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 1994 12:22:29 -0600 (CST)
From: Jonathan M Poppele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Anarchism, briefly
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Yes, thanks for clarifying that. Anarchism is opposition to
> hierarchical violence, not opposition to voting per se.
Again, a problem with terms. I call oposition to heirarchical
violence "pacifism," or "non-violent civil disobediance," or
"concientious objection." Anarchy is something all together different,
Jon.
