> > 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.
> I don't understand anarchy this way. To me it means opposition to
> hierarchical violence in all its forms (patriarchy, racism,
> anthropocentrism, the state, capitalism, etc.).
Without removing the discussion too far from ecofeminism, I would
would concur with Brian that anarchism IS about hierarchy and abuse of
power more than limiting it to a narrow definition of rules. I think of
anarchists as being rule-abiding people, so long as they are comfortable
with the process which derived the rules (i.e. a cooperative). It isn't
simply just a knew-jerk reaction against all order. The goal is to have
an order which allows individuals to be free. That is the point of
being part of a society to an anarchist.
All of which is not to say your definition is not valid. I don't
think of anarchism as a static, monolithic ideology with one definition...
joel
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Nov 11 15:27:15 MST 1994
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 1994 16:10:54 -0600 (CST)
From: Jonathan M Poppele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Anarchy
To: Ecofem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From _The American Heritage Dictionary_:
anarchy: 1) Absence of any form of political authority. 2) Political
disorder and confusion. 3) Absence of any cohering principle, as a common
standard or purpose. [From the Greek anarkhia: an-, without + arkhos, ruler]
I am not trying to tell anyone what it is they believe in, I'm just
trying to point out to you that the use or your terms is misleading. You
have taken anarchy to mean something far more akin to populism. It does
not mean this and you are most likely alienating people simpathetic to
your cause (especially those on the right) by calling it anarchy.
The idea of bottom up power structures is a good one. The people on the
left use it when they talk about commerce, they are called Socialists. The
people on the left use it to talk about government, they are called
Libertarians. The milder forms of these groups are called Democrats and
Republicans, they run our lives. They get elected based partly on the
idea of empowering people at the bottom. They do a lousy job of this,
which is why people are so cynical about our Government (this is one,
extremely oversimplified view of what is happening).
Many people think the country is ripe for a third political party. That
party would do well to promote empowerment, environmentalism and
diversity. Such a party would be a sort of Green Populist party. Those of
you who are calling yourselves Anarchists are promoting sentiments far
more mainstream than you may realize. But if you call it anarchy and cry
for the destruction of our government as we know it, you will endear
yourselves to very few people. Call it Populism, and market it as
empowerment, and bottom up control of commerce and government and you
might well be able to sell the whole nation on it.
Respectfully yours,
Jon.
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Nov 11 18:44:14 MST 1994
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 1994 20:47:13 -0500 (EST)
From: Jayne S Docherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Being Poor
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Fri, 11 Nov 1994 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 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.
> 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.
So, simplicity of lifestyle is connected with spirituality. Lots of us
are willing to talk about the former. But, few are willing to talk about
the latter. What gives?
Jayne
