Comments on: The troubles of an anarchist blogger http://notreason.com/2008/12/28/the-troubles-of-an-anarchist-blogger/ Abolition, Nullification and Revolution Thu, 11 Feb 2010 04:50:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Mike Gogulski http://notreason.com/2008/12/28/the-troubles-of-an-anarchist-blogger/#comment-306 Mike Gogulski Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:09:10 +0000 http://notreason.com/?p=406#comment-306 and... there it is! and… there it is!

]]> By: Educating for anarchism #4 — a reply to FSK | nostate.com http://notreason.com/2008/12/28/the-troubles-of-an-anarchist-blogger/#comment-305 Educating for anarchism #4 — a reply to FSK | nostate.com Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:03:41 +0000 http://notreason.com/?p=406#comment-305 [...] Flatline of the No Treason blog adds additional commentary, to which FSK replies in An Example of Pointless State [...] [...] Flatline of the No Treason blog adds additional commentary, to which FSK replies in An Example of Pointless State [...]

]]> By: Mike Gogulski http://notreason.com/2008/12/28/the-troubles-of-an-anarchist-blogger/#comment-304 Mike Gogulski Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:45:24 +0000 http://notreason.com/?p=406#comment-304 Nitroadict has a blog!? Kick ass! Subbed!!! :) <em>Left Anarchism is not compatible with rational economics. Anti-capitalists are cranks.</em> Agreed on point one. To point two, we have the perennial unfortunate definitional quibble. I'm reading some Rand at the moment. When Rand talks about capitalism, she means freedom. When huge swathes of the world's population talk about capitalism, they mean oppression. If the statement were "Left-anarchists, insofar as they identify with economic theories not commonly labeled 'capitalist', are cranks", I could agree. I share your persuasion, Dixie, that they are simply <em>wrong</em>. Then the labels come in and mix everything up. BTW, pingback incoming, I'm finally getting around to replying to this... not to you, really, but to FSK. Peace. Nitroadict has a blog!? Kick ass! Subbed!!! :)

Left Anarchism is not compatible with rational economics. Anti-capitalists are cranks.

Agreed on point one. To point two, we have the perennial unfortunate definitional quibble. I’m reading some Rand at the moment. When Rand talks about capitalism, she means freedom. When huge swathes of the world’s population talk about capitalism, they mean oppression. If the statement were “Left-anarchists, insofar as they identify with economic theories not commonly labeled ‘capitalist’, are cranks”, I could agree. I share your persuasion, Dixie, that they are simply wrong. Then the labels come in and mix everything up.

BTW, pingback incoming, I’m finally getting around to replying to this… not to you, really, but to FSK. Peace.

]]> By: Nitroadict http://notreason.com/2008/12/28/the-troubles-of-an-anarchist-blogger/#comment-283 Nitroadict Tue, 30 Dec 2008 21:54:33 +0000 http://notreason.com/?p=406#comment-283 Excellent post, LS (or DF?). It's admirable that such a personal conundrums are covered, as it helps provide a blueprint of action for those who are in unsure, idealogical waters regarding their relation to The State. It's actually helped one of my own concerns regarding my actions in the non-free markets & my own relationship with The State itself. Sadly, I think some would interpret this (possibly left-libertarians, or left-anarchists) this that while not working directly for The State could be the more valid & more ethical position, as possible excusing market income derived from corporations (and thus, possibly giving a soft pass at corporatism). Alas, were not for The State, such a "compromise" (I myself an unsure if this is really a compromise, actually, as whatever roles companies fulfill in a non-free market would most likely be fulfilled by free-market counterparts) would not be required. I look forward to the Interview with Mike, & I'll be sure to meta-blog it when it pops up here :D. Excellent post, LS (or DF?). It’s admirable that such a personal conundrums are covered, as it helps provide a blueprint of action for those who are in unsure, idealogical waters regarding their relation to The State. It’s actually helped one of my own concerns regarding my actions in the non-free markets & my own relationship with The State itself.

Sadly, I think some would interpret this (possibly left-libertarians, or left-anarchists) this that while not working directly for The State could be the more valid & more ethical position, as possible excusing market income derived from corporations (and thus, possibly giving a soft pass at corporatism).

Alas, were not for The State, such a “compromise” (I myself an unsure if this is really a compromise, actually, as whatever roles companies fulfill in a non-free market would most likely be fulfilled by free-market counterparts) would not be required.

I look forward to the Interview with Mike, & I’ll be sure to meta-blog it when it pops up here :D .

]]> By: Dixie Flatline http://notreason.com/2008/12/28/the-troubles-of-an-anarchist-blogger/#comment-278 Dixie Flatline Mon, 29 Dec 2008 20:15:24 +0000 http://notreason.com/?p=406#comment-278 Yeah, it searches tags and links posts with the same tags, I believe through Technorati. We're both talking about class warfare, my position is just a little (well, a lot) more radical. Thanks for commenting and replying on your blog. Yeah, it searches tags and links posts with the same tags, I believe through Technorati.

We’re both talking about class warfare, my position is just a little (well, a lot) more radical.

Thanks for commenting and replying on your blog.

]]> By: reed mollins http://notreason.com/2008/12/28/the-troubles-of-an-anarchist-blogger/#comment-277 reed mollins Mon, 29 Dec 2008 20:08:25 +0000 http://notreason.com/?p=406#comment-277 I'm not sure how come my post was linked into this one, as the subjects are only loosely tied-- my focus was on viewing the auto bailout as an act of aggression against the autoworkers, by changing their contractually promised corporate pensions and corporate retiree benefits... was it just the words 'class warfare' that brought me in? I’m not sure how come my post was linked into this one, as the subjects are only loosely tied– my focus was on viewing the auto bailout as an act of aggression against the autoworkers, by changing their contractually promised corporate pensions and corporate retiree benefits… was it just the words ‘class warfare’ that brought me in?

]]>