Neo-Proudhonian Mutualism.—Between Contr'archy and Guarantism.—The Multiplication of Free Forces is the True Contr'un.
Well, Mr. Wilbur, I took you up on your suggestion: I just spent two hours "checking out" the blogs you link us to in your laconic post here (with the exception of one: Exploring American Anarchism appears to be a broken link, FYI). By far, the most sensible-sounding one is Royce Christian's, which, however, is not necessarily saying a hell of a lot. For a long time now, I've thought that anarchism, which I'm not at all unsympathetic toward, does itself a great practical disservice by cultivating so deliberately its lunatic-fringe methodologies. In some ways, it seems inherent to anarchism, and I'm sad to say that the blogs you've linked us to have not only not diminished that; they've reinforced it. For instance, the explicit calls for "purges" and "revolution against all enemies of radicalism"(!) and such wild things of this nature, it does absolutely nothing for anarchism's real cause. Certainly it doesn't help bring any (much-needed) respectability to anarchism. In fact, it does just the opposite: it confirms in people's minds what most people already think. http://blog.askmisspriss.com/?p=85
I'm sure there were those who were just grateful that I was "laconic" for a change. I'm not certain what more you expected from a somewhat tardy "welcome to the neighborhood" post, but I have no doubt that all of my readers can figure out what they do and don't like in the links provided. Neither agreement nor respectability are primary criteria for me, when it comes to recognizing other voices in the conversation. For better or worse, "anarchism" is, to some degree or another, all of the things that anarchists espouse. It's probably more useful, from the point of view of promoting anarchism, to get the cards on the table, where we can discuss them, than to worry about whether or not we are "marketable" as a primary consideration. I can vouch, I think, for the seriousness and good intentions of all five bloggers. All five are valued friends or comrades. YMMV.
Well, I can honestly say that's the first time in my life I've had someone call be "sensible".I realise this is kinda out of date, you have to realise the audience for most of these blogs is unique. The kind of overpowering radicalism noted by Miss Priss that performs a "a great practical disservice" is inherent in that many bloggers write for other Anarchists, who expect this kind of thing. Whether you're merely sympathetic - like Miss Priss, neutral, or against, you'll likely be put off by many Anarchist writers who write for Anarchists. Perhaps you are correct in pointing out that this is a weakness among Anarchists, in that there are not enough writing for those not already Anarchists.
Post a Comment