[LAF] Date for computer symposium

[steve ash]

Have we agreed on a date yet or not?

Let me know so I can advertise it....

According to the Southbank website there's nothing on at the RFH on the 24th July, so this may be holdable in Green Room (in the unlikely event we cant get in we can just wait for people and go up to a balcony, but I'm sure it will be available).


--- On Mon, 22/6/09, laf-request at lists.aktivix.org <laf-request at lists.aktivix.org> wrote:

> From: laf-request at lists.aktivix.org <laf-request at lists.aktivix.org>
> Subject: LAF Digest, Vol 52, Issue 24
> To: laf at lists.aktivix.org
> Date: Monday, 22 June, 2009, 10:16 PM
> Send LAF mailing list submissions to
>     laf at lists.aktivix.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>     https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/laf
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help'
> to
>     laf-request at lists.aktivix.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>     laf-owner at lists.aktivix.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more
> specific
> than "Re: Contents of LAF digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>    1. AN APPEAL FROM IRAN (Ed McArthur)
>    2. SPES BOOK CLUB ETC (Ed McArthur)
>    3. Re: Personal Responce to the Pendry
> Paper (steve ash)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 06:17:17 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Ed McArthur <antines at yahoo.co.uk>
> Subject: [LAF] AN APPEAL FROM IRAN
> To: London Anarchist Forum <laf at lists.aktivix.org>
> Message-ID: <977938.72826.qm at web24608.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> PLEASE? CIRCULATE FAR AND (WORLD) ?WIDE
> I have received an appeal for support 
> from the Communist Workers Party Of Iran
> one of the SECULAR parties opposed to the regime in Iran
> and to the Islamic Republic itself
> It is posted on my secular diary website with a link to the
> CWP site which
> has news updates
> Ed
> http://seculardiary.webs.com/appealfromiran.htm
> 
> Ed McArthur?? 07981? 900? 563??????????? 
> ?
> ?
> 
> www.eventsandissues.bravehost.com
> see also
> www.freewebs.com/bookevents
> Conway Hall Sunday Concerts
> www.conwayhallsundayconcerts.org.uk
> www.freewebs.com/secularcivilrights
> ?
> ?
> ?
> ?? 
> ?
> ?
> 
> 
>       
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <https://lists.aktivix.org/pipermail/laf/attachments/20090622/8df161b5/attachment-0001.htm>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 08:20:15 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Ed McArthur <antines at yahoo.co.uk>
> Subject: [LAF] SPES BOOK CLUB ETC
> To: London Anarchist Forum <laf at lists.aktivix.org>
> Cc: SPES <spesevents at yahoo.co.uk>
> Message-ID: <759362.11607.qm at web24614.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> 
> 
> Thursday 9th July? 7pm-9pm 
> SPES BOOK CLUB? will discuss 
> The Shock Doctrine
> ?by Naomi Klein
> ?published by Penguin Books (2007)
> ?Facilitated by Emmet Haverty Stacke
> 
> all Confirmed SPES events are posted at
> www.seculardiary.webs.com? 
> pending the redesign of our own website which has not 
> for technical reasons been updated since April
> =================================
> Sunday 19th July 11am
> Public Order Policing 
> Andy Meinke : Legal De fence and Monitoring Group
> ?
> ?
> ==================================
> ?
> KINDRED EVENT
> GALHA? 30th Birthday Party 
> BISHOPSGATE 
> 10th July 2009 
> see 
> www.galha.org?? 
> ============================================ 
> NON SPES EVENT AT CONWAY HALL 
> BOOKS FOR AMNESTY 
> SECOND HAND BOOK SALE 
> Thursday 2nd July 
> 11am-6pm 
> all books @ ?1 and ?2 
> ========================================= 
> ? 
> 
> Ed McArthur?? 07981? 900? 563??????????? 
> ?
> ?
> 
> www.eventsandissues.bravehost.com
> see also
> www.freewebs.com/bookevents
> Conway Hall Sunday Concerts
> www.conwayhallsundayconcerts.org.uk
> www.freewebs.com/secularcivilrights
> ?
> ?
> ?
> ?? 
> ?
> ?
> 
> 
>       
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <https://lists.aktivix.org/pipermail/laf/attachments/20090622/f3015e02/attachment-0001.htm>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:16:41 +0000 (GMT)
> From: steve ash <steveash_2001 at yahoo.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: [LAF] Personal Responce to the Pendry Paper
> To: LAF EMAIL LIST <laf at lists.aktivix.org>,
> Joy Wood
>     <joy_helbin at hotmail.com>
> Message-ID: <891103.82048.qm at web23208.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> 
> 
> Thanks Joy. I'd reply by saying that Evolutionary Biology
> does indeed contain Mutualism (often wrongly termed
> Reciprocal Altruism), its driven by individual Natural
> Selection itself rather than in tandem (the individual
> benefits more through it) that's well established, but not
> Altruism as such, it sounds pedantically technical but there
> are serious consequences of the two views. The difference is
> explained here in this encyclopaedia extract:
> 
> "According to the standard definition, a social behaviour
> counts as altruistic if it reduces the fitness of the
> organism performing the behaviour, but boosts the fitness of
> others. This was the definition used by Hamilton (1964), and
> by many subsequent authors. However, there is less consensus
> on how to describe behaviours that boost the fitness of
> others but also boost the fitness of the organism performing
> the behaviour. As West et al. (2007) note, such behaviours
> are sometimes termed ?co-operative?, but this usage is not
> universal; others use ?co-operation? to refer to behaviour
> that boosts the fitness of others irrespective of its effect
> on self; while still others use ?cooperation? as a synonym
> for altruism. (Indeed, in the simple Prisoner's dilemma game
> above, the two strategies are usually called ?co-operate?
> and ?defect?.) To avoid this confusion, West et al. (2007)
> suggest the term ?mutual benefit? for behaviours that
>  benefit both self and other, while Sachs et al. (2004)
> suggest ?byproduct benefit?."
> 
> On Sadism, I tend to agree, but no one knows. But my gamble
> is to assume its innate, therefore if wrong thats a plus,
> while if we assume its a social product and we're wrong we
> arent well prepared.
>  
> 
> --- On Sat, 20/6/09, Joy Wood <joy_helbin at hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > From: Joy Wood <joy_helbin at hotmail.com>
> > Subject: RE: [LAF] Personal Responce to the Pendry
> Paper
> > To: "steve ash" <steveash_2001 at yahoo.co.uk>,
> "LAF EMAIL LIST" <laf at lists.aktivix.org>
> > Date: Saturday, 20 June, 2009, 12:44 PM
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > #yiv25019051 .hmmessage P
> > {
> > margin:0px;padding:0px;}
> > #yiv25019051 {
> > font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > An Anarchist Response to An Anarchist Responce (to
> Tim
> > Pendry's Paper) Share
> > 
> > ?
> > 
> > I agree with the majority of what Steve says (eg
> > "political Samsara" - LOL) but would like to add
> > the following technical point of information:
> > 
> > ?
> > 
> > "It even cathartically channels our sadistic urges
> > towards those foolish enough to attempt to maintain
> > authority, let alone increase it. It is simply the
> politics
> > of popular empowerment, but as autonomous individuals
> not a
> > herd."
> > 
> > ?
> > 
> > Re:? sadistic urges.? I think the so-called
> > sadistic urges are reactions to being thwarted.? In
> > other words, it is a "healthy self-centred
> > [person's]"?reflex when confronted with
> > authoritarians or control freaks to lash out in
> > self-defence.??Another variety?of
> > so-called?sadistic urge is the impulse to attack or
> > humiliate or torture something 'weaker' or?to
> > destroy or?despoil something 'unspoiled'.?
> > Again I do not think this human nature (in the sense
> of
> > being a primiary characteristic), I think it is a
> bitter
> > reaction (ie a secondary characteristic, a tool of
> > self-defence?rather than core personality)?to an
> > earlier insult made to the attacker, and is stored
> > resentment leaking or bursting out rather than any
> inherent
> > behaviour.? In other words?such behaviour to my
> > mind corresponds to the phenomenon you comment
> > on?below, which appears at the time?unwanted
> > restraints are suddenly or unexpectedly removed.? It
> is
> > a reaction to an experienced
> > restraint/abuse/control-freakery -?not a
> > non-provoked?action initiated in the organism but
> > rather a reaction to outside authoritarianism (which,
> due to
> > fear or impotence couldn't be?either repudiated at
> > the time or dispersed later).? In other words, I do
> not
> > think sadistic urges are core human traits, they are
> > survival tools in the first instance, the immediate
> > response, and reactionary behaviour in the sense of
> being
> > expressions of resentment when they appear as delayed
> > reactions (eg in torture, schadenfreude, etc) and I do
> not
> > agree that such a view of human nature is naive.
> > 
> > ?
> > 
> > One reason I believe it is a realistic view of human
> nature
> > is that although the mainstream view of "evolutionary
> > biology" may say "there isn't a single animal
> > species that shows any trace of altruism (outside of
> > eusocial insects, like wasps and ants, who are
> probably a
> > hive organism, rather than individual entities, in
> the
> > main)" the mutual aid half of evolutionary biology
> > shows the other side of the theory (not opposite side
> of the
> > theory, but additional side - the other mechanism
> working in
> > tandem with naturual selection).? The survival of the
> > fittest is the survival of those most fitted to
> survive, in
> > other words what we see on earth now has survived so
> they
> > are the fittest to survive or they wouldn't still be
> > here.? What we have has survived through a
> combination
> > of two main behaviours, taking enough for oneself to
> survive
> > and sharing enough to allow others to survive.? As to
> > the view of mainstream evolutionary biology that such
> > behaviour doesn't exist, of course it doesn't exist
> > if they label that behaviour "altruistic" and then
> > define altruism as "self-sacrifice."? When
> > they do that, they disappear the behaviour.? An
> example
> > of said animal behaviour which *is* altruism but is
> not
> > self-sacrifice?appears in Kropotkin's Mutual Aid
> > where two adult male birds (crows or ravens or
> eagles?I
> > think, well anyway they weren't Tweety-pie) were
> > fetching food and not eating it but taking it inside
> a
> > hollow tree.? For three days or more.? Further
> > investigation showed they were feeding another adult
> male
> > bird who had injured his wing and needed to eat, rest,
> hide
> > away and heal before he could venture out alone again
> to
> > fend for himself.? So, the two male adult birds were
> > not only not hogging food for themselves, not only
> not
> > attacking weaker birds and stealing their food but
> shielding
> > an injured so-called adult male rival and caring for
> > him.? Examples of this kind will not be featured in
> the
> > literature of those who have an ideological
> belief?that
> > nature is red in tooth and claw and that altruism
> equates to
> > self-sacrifice.
> > 
> > ?
> > 
> > Joy
> > ?
> > > Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 05:19:55 +0000
> > > From: steveash_2001 at yahoo.co.uk
> > > To: laf at lists.aktivix.org
> > > Subject: [LAF] Personal Responce to the Pendry
> Paper
> > > 
> > > 
> > > An Anarchist Responce (to Tim Pendry's Paper)
> > Share
> > > 
> > > Tim's analysis of the failure of democratic and
> > authoritarian Socialism is telling I think. The
> common
> > denominator in both, as Tim correctly identifies, is a
> lust
> > for power and a 'self regarding opportunism', in
> > other words selfish egotism. Kerensky is likewise
> censured
> > for not seizing the moment, but how could he when
> faced with
> > the potentials of his own power? His own egotism would
> have
> > prevented a truly egalitarian move, and did. However,
> all
> > these have a strength in common we are told, a
> commitment to
> > hierarchical organisation. Yes, of course they do,
> they want
> > to be at the top of that hierarchy, like any sane
> individual
> > in such a set up, or if they are a bit more
> intelligent than
> > their colleagues, a powerful niche within the system,
> with
> > suitable scapegoats at the top. Only those crushed in
> spirit
> > will settle for sheep function, and will stay there
> forever
> > seeking a new leadership to herd and protect them. 
> > > 
> > > But as Tim himself admits, the hierarchical
> > institutions they create eventually fail and chaos
> ensues,
> > until some new institution replaces it a repeats the
> whole
> > miserable cycle, a political Samsara. This may be a
> good
> > gamble for those near the beginning of a cycle of
> course,
> > but its early initiators are in a very uncertain
> situation
> > while those later in the cycle soon face instability
> and the
> > unpredictability of an inevitable collapse. Not a
> good
> > situation for most in fact and certainly not good for
> > society.
> > > 
> > > Interestingly while identifying this trait in
> these
> > two political poles of Socialism, he misses another
> > important manifestation, Trade Unionism. For here, as
> long
> > as an elected leadership seeks to represent its
> members in
> > an authoritarian way the same negative 'socialist
> > trait' will emerge. Only when workers represent
> > themselves in genuine collective organisation will
> this
> > change.
> > > 
> > > Two factors identified by Tim as strengths of
> their
> > mode of organisation are solidarity and fixed
> ideology. The
> > latter is a doomed position in the face of reality, as
> Tim
> > acknowledges, though I would suggest that some form
> of
> > adaptive, minimal ideology and personal solidarity
> are
> > important for any political movement. The implication
> that
> > this was the reason for their success over anarchist
> rivals
> > is very wide of the mark however, as these are also
> features
> > of the most successful moments in the history of
> anarchism.
> > Solidarity in particular is traditionally a defining
> feature
> > of anarchists, as one would expect from
> non-hierarchical
> > groups. Though admittedly there have always been
> > pseudo-anarchist groups who mirror the 'socialist
> > trait' in more subtle ways, as well as a significant
> > degree of sectarianism within the anarchist movement
> that
> > sometimes counters any broad solidarity. A critique
> of
> > anarchism could be very well made on this point, and
> indeed
> > has,
> > > often from within the anarchist movement itself.
> > Today's diversity within the 'anarchist stance',
> > including those Green activists and libertarian
> Marxists who
> > have adopted anarchist organisation to a large
> extent,
> > though rarely its pure ideology, has emphasised this
> problem
> > even more, and is one reason I champion a return to a
> purer
> > anarchism, with a clear ideology of individual
> freedom,
> > within a social mutualist and economic egalitarian
> context.
> > The principle of 'from each according to means, and
> to
> > each according to needs' is a principle written in
> stone
> > for most authentic anarchists.
> > > 
> > > A very broad solidarity is a double edged sword
> > however. For the real reason of the success of
> Anarchy's
> > rivals is not their solidarity but duplicity and
> false
> > solidarity, which often co-opted trusting anarchists
> who had
> > naively applied a more authentic solidarity in
> broader
> > revolutionary movements they had initiated. This is
> not only
> > demonstrated by the cynical betrayal of anarchists,
> and the
> > people, by the Communist Party in the Spanish Civil
> War
> > (repeated in farce in the May 68 Events in Paris) and
> the
> > hijacking of the Russian Revolution by the Bolshevik
> Coup,
> > but also by the egotistic conspiratorial machinations
> of
> > Karl Marx within the First International. But again
> the lust
> > for power and control freakery lie at the heart of
> this.
> > > 
> > > Tim believes this reveals human nature to be far
> from
> > benign and has a point, but largely distorts the point
> in
> > the contextualisation he gives it. Evoking mythical
> entities
> > such as 'human nature', and even 'animal
> > nature', he deploys these biased abstractions in
> > relation to dubious scientific studies and
> > misinterpretations of well formulated experiments. A
> case in
> > point being the Milgram Experiment, in which while a
> > majority behaved in the sheepish ways expected of the
> > (de)socialised masses in response to conventional
> authority,
> > a significant minority refused to conform, with at
> least one
> > person seeing through the experimenters motives quite
> > insightfully. Are we to assume that such rebels are
> > geniuses, saints or freaks, or are we to realise what
> this
> > tells us about the potential of the human
> constitution.
> > > 
> > > Anarchists have a variety of different views on
> > 'human nature', as befits a free, individualistic
> > movement. I was glad Tim avoided the popular portrayal
> of
> > na?ve anarchism, with its faith in the benign nature
> of
> > human beings, but I think his idea that anarchists
> follow a
> > Marxian model of the benignity of the liberated, while
> true
> > of some, is false of many of us. Its seems to be
> quite
> > obvious from all modern studies that 'human nature'
> > is a social construct, organising a chaos of
> biological and
> > psychic drives into a variety of habituated forms. Far
> from
> > benigning us sudden liberation may release a host of
> > destructive impulses suppressed by our current
> culture
> > (though this may also have its place, both cathartic
> and
> > practical, under certain conditions). What is required
> is an
> > awareness of this social constructivism from cradle
> to
> > grave, and its existance in child rearing, education,
> family
> > life, the workplace, economic and power relations and
> > lifestyles
> > > in general. But more importantly I would suggest
> in
> > the power of every partially liberated individual to
> > recreate themselves.
> > > 
> > > But what I think Tim is right about is this
> > 'animal nature', as he calls it, and its tendency
> > towards selfishness rather than altruism. However I
> would
> > not invoke such dualistic, abstract human notions as
> > 'animal' and 'human', but rather appeal to
> > what we know about our biological drives as set by
> our
> > genetic make-up. This may not be our only influence,
> or even
> > the most powerful, free will remains an essential
> human
> > characteristic, but it is a strong force in our
> being,
> > resistance to which can only cause internal conflict
> and
> > pathological states. Our constitution needs to be
> balanced
> > and integrated with self sensitivity not repression.
> > > 
> > > So what does evolutionary biology tell us about
> our
> > drives? Well sadly there isn't a single animal
> species
> > that shows any trace of altruism (outside of eusocial
> > insects, like wasps and ants, who are probably a hive
> > organism, rather than individual entities, in the
> main).
> > Most animals are capable of demonstrating such degrees
> of
> > selfishness they would make New Labour appear like
> Christian
> > saints in comparison. Natural Selection clearly
> operates on
> > an individual level and favours the self centred
> > survivalist. Moreover I would argue on Nietzschean
> lines
> > that survival is not the only factor here either, but
> the
> > expansion and betterment of individual existance,
> > conceptualised by humans as empowerment, or more rawly
> as
> > power, is also one of the basic self centred drives.
> > Socialisation can ameliorate this but can never
> overcome it.
> > More often it is pathologically inverted through the
> direct
> > dominance-submission patterns that trump power urges
> with
> > survival
> > > urges in the weakened (with accompanying
> repressed
> > resentment, the source of all eruptive fascisms).
> However
> > things are not as dark as they seem, for altruism as
> > understood by biologists simply means
> > 'self-sacrifice' (outside of special exceptions,
> > such as 'maternal instincts'). In fact as anyone who
> > studies nature will discover there is considerably
> > mutualism, and even symbiosis, present. But always to
> the
> > advantage and not the disadvantage of the cooperating
> > animal, that is it is acting purely from self-interest
> (in
> > humans even 'love' is a self-centred phenomena!).
> > The reason for this can be scientifically
> demonstrated
> > through Game Theory which demonstrates how win-win
> solutions
> > are far more optimal than the more common win-lose
> > situation. For animals this is usually an accidental
> > habituation, but we should not under estimate the
> weak
> > ability to reason in most humans.
> > > 
> > > Thus I conclude that the very history of
> socialism
> > demonstrates this unavoidable egoism within us. But it
> is
> > for this very reason that non hierarchical, consensual
> means
> > of organisation are really the only forms that can
> > functionally sublimate this selfishness into
> mutualist
> > egoism. An egoism perfectly compatible with such self
> > centred emotions as compassion, empathy and the
> removal of
> > an unpleasant environment of injustice and suffering.
> 
> > > 
> > > What does this mean in terms of practical
> politics? It
> > means that left libertarianism is the only social
> structure
> > that can actually deliver what healthy self-centred
> people
> > want, empowerment and the good life, both of which are
> only
> > realisable in any sustainable form within a mutualist
> > society (by which I mean mutual aid, not passe
> economic
> > mutualism, to avoid confusion). Yes, there are issues
> with
> > this, such as the over population which causes
> competition
> > for resources etc, but that is hardly an
> insurmountable
> > problem (poverty being the main reason for high
> birthrates
> > etc). All the necessary means for correcting existing
> > problems are achievable through a shared culture, or
> > ideology, within small, local communities (a culture
> > allowing for individual and ethnic diversity of
> course).
> > Here agreement could not be achieved by coercion,
> neither
> > its authoritarian or seductive forms, and certainly
> not
> > through the tyranny of the majority called
> > 'democracy', but
> > > only through genuine consensus (for those
> directly
> > effected and with pragmatic opt-outs for dissidents).
> By
> > coercion I would also include the so-called 'rule of
> > law', one of the most barbaric customs ever invented,
> > and one that cannot function without coercion. The
> only
> > functional rule of law can be that which we impose on
> > ourselves, contrary to 'pop anarchism', authentic
> > anarchism is founded on the personal responsibility
> and
> > strict discipline that makes freedom possible as well
> as
> > engendering even greater self esteem (the famed
> anarchic
> > rebellion only applies in the face of authority and
> > imposition, and so will necessarily be eternally
> present to
> > some extent). Coercion is not only bad in principle
> of
> > course its bad in practise, as anyone who has placed
> their
> > finger over a dripping tap and got soaked will tell
> you, it
> > actually gives you the opposite result to the one you
> want.
> > As Blake observed ?Prisons are built with stones of
> Law,
> > Brothels with
> > > bricks of Religion.? Law creates crime. And this
> > hasn't even touched on the problems of
> generalisation,
> > to quote Blake again ?One law for the Lion and the Ox
> is
> > oppression?. So for this reason I fundamentally
> disagree
> > with Tim, and like all anarchists hold the 'Rule of
> > Law' unacceptable and non-negotiable. I'm surprised
> > Tim falls for the bourgeois paranoia that the removal
> of law
> > leads to barbarity (or that 'primitive people' in a
> > natural environment are barbarous), this old chestnut
> has no
> > grounds whatsoever. Of course repressed people
> discharge
> > their repressions on liberation (or at will) but that
> is
> > hardly grounds for continuing the repression through
> > coercion and law (and intensifying the problem in the
> > inevitable moments of social disruption). And such
> eruptions
> > have their uses when faced with those who would
> intensify
> > rather than reduce coercion.
> > > 
> > > The form of society portrayed here may sound
> Utopic to
> > some, and it certainly is not an over night solution
> or an
> > easy project, the transition is a particular problem.
> > However it is better qualified as Eutopian, as it is
> the
> > only form of society that actually satisfies peoples
> needs
> > and drives, and one that is not undermined by those
> drives
> > as Tim has shown all other forms are. It even
> cathartically
> > channels our sadistic urges towards those foolish
> enough to
> > attempt to maintain authority, let alone increase it.
> It is
> > simply the politics of popular empowerment, but as
> > autonomous individuals not a herd. 
> > > 
> > > But what of the immediate 'crisis' and the
> > possibility of broad solidarity to tackle it. The
> > differences of ideology may make this difficult,
> however the
> > crisis itself is serious enough not to make it
> impossible.
> > But what crisis? The trivial one of political
> confidence
> > (and the rise of sociopathic authoritarians who will
> fail
> > far quicker and be crushed by far more ruthless force
> than
> > such cowardly weaklings can muster) or the real crisis
> of
> > the eco-system and the increasingly likely
> catastrophic
> > systemic collapse of Capitalism (don't believe the
> hype
> > about 'Recessions'). Anarchists far from being naval
> > gazers have been the historical catalysts of all
> revolutions
> > in modern history (or rather insurrections, have we
> have no
> > desire to invert power relations), socialist
> bureaucrats are
> > hardly able to inspire popular uprisings (despite the
> > revisionist accounts of Marxist academics). But
> hopefully
> > with a collapsing system (which we can always help
> push a
> > > little) such violent revolts will not be
> necessary and
> > instead we can self-organise along consensual lines,
> > ignoring the official, established powers and creating
> the
> > kind of autonomous alternatives that will make
> violence
> > unnecessary (beyond the means of their defence, which
> in
> > themselves could also be non-violent in principle).
> The key
> > issue is to empower people not to lead them to
> empowerment
> > and certainly not to represent them. Though a little
> > inspiration, social catalysis and power structure
> demolition
> > sometimes requires supportive specialists.
> > > 
> > > In this respect strategic alliances on the left
> are
> > indeed possible, we all want a libertarian future and
> so can
> > work together on projects that achieve elements of
> that or
> > that move us closer to a full realisation of it.
> Anarchists
> > may want to go the furtherest and will always push
> the
> > envelope. We may never achieve our full goal, but we
> will
> > never surrender our aspirations. The rest of you can
> stay
> > with Samsara if you will. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > LAF mailing list
> > > LAF at lists.aktivix.org
> > > https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/laf
> > 
> > Beyond Hotmail ? see what else you can do
> > with Windows Live. Find
> > out more. 
> > 
> 
> 
>       
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LAF mailing list
> LAF at lists.aktivix.org
> https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/laf
> 
> 
> End of LAF Digest, Vol 52, Issue 24
> ***********************************
>