Guest guest Report post Posted July 12, 2005 Well, no offense to anyone but perhaps folks should come up with their own word to define things? Using a word that has a long history is just asking for confusion and misunderstanding. And, the whole process sounds more like the 60s' generation definition of communism as in communes with pure democracy -- one voice, one vote, equal weight, decisions by concensus. Or have I read it all wrong? Lynda - Peter That is the dictionary definition.... there is now a growing political movement in which the word has quite a different meaning... basically, non-hierarchical, completely egalitarian political system in which everyone's voice is heard. Generally working on the principle of very small "collective" groups, as opposed to the rather cumbersome nation state idea. BB PeterTo send an email to - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 13, 2005 Starhawk seems to think it is the right term, and she has been campaigning/demonstrating since the 60s or 70s. Maybe the word has slowly evolved and we just didn't get to know about it. Jo - Lynda Tuesday, July 12, 2005 9:40 PM Re: Re: Edinburgh (BBC website) Well, no offense to anyone but perhaps folks should come up with their own word to define things? Using a word that has a long history is just asking for confusion and misunderstanding. And, the whole process sounds more like the 60s' generation definition of communism as in communes with pure democracy -- one voice, one vote, equal weight, decisions by concensus. Or have I read it all wrong? Lynda - Peter That is the dictionary definition.... there is now a growing political movement in which the word has quite a different meaning... basically, non-hierarchical, completely egalitarian political system in which everyone's voice is heard. Generally working on the principle of very small "collective" groups, as opposed to the rather cumbersome nation state idea. BB PeterTo send an email to - To send an email to - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 13, 2005 Hi Lynda > Well, no offense to anyone but perhaps folks should come up with their > own word to define things? Using a word that has a long history is just > asking for confusion and misunderstanding. I agree - but the word was already being used that way when I " discovered " it, so I'm just going with what other people use. But this sort of thing happens all the time... the word Agnostic was originally used to refer to Catholics (it literally means " without knowledge " , and was used to refer to people who believed in a god who was beyond human understanding)... nowadays it means people who don't have firm beliefs... And look at hoe many changes the word " queer " has gone through in the past 25 years! > And, the whole process sounds more like the 60s' generation definition > of communism as in communes with pure democracy -- one voice, one vote, > equal weight, decisions by concensus. > Or have I read it all wrong? You've read it slightly wrong, but that's more because I didn't go into details. Concensus doesn't have any voting at all - things are discussed until *everyone* agrees (or doesn't object so much that they will block the proposal). It has nothing at all in common with democracy. My understanding of communism is probably from a far older time, but I understand that to be workers co-operatives sending a representative to a larger organising body and so on. I suppose there might be some connection in that the current " anarchist " movement comes largely out of early 70's American protest movements, which probably did have a number of communists, so maybe some influence. BB Peter Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 13, 2005 She's from my old stomping grounds and was around the protests, etc. beginning probably 5 years or so after I started. She still has a place down the road from where some of the ex's cousins have ranches and vineyards. While the word may have evolved, in the 60s it meant get rid of government at any cost regardless of how bloody it might be/get. She and other folks she does teachings with have describe anarchism as the modern Marxism. Lynda - Jo Cwazy Wednesday, July 13, 2005 10:08 AM Re: Re: Edinburgh (BBC website) Starhawk seems to think it is the right term, and she has been campaigning/demonstrating since the 60s or 70s. Maybe the word has slowly evolved and we just didn't get to know about it. Jo - Lynda Tuesday, July 12, 2005 9:40 PM Re: Re: Edinburgh (BBC website) Well, no offense to anyone but perhaps folks should come up with their own word to define things? Using a word that has a long history is just asking for confusion and misunderstanding. And, the whole process sounds more like the 60s' generation definition of communism as in communes with pure democracy -- one voice, one vote, equal weight, decisions by concensus. Or have I read it all wrong? Lynda - Peter That is the dictionary definition.... there is now a growing political movement in which the word has quite a different meaning... basically, non-hierarchical, completely egalitarian political system in which everyone's voice is heard. Generally working on the principle of very small "collective" groups, as opposed to the rather cumbersome nation state idea. BB PeterTo send an email to - To send an email to - To send an email to - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 13, 2005 Hi Lynda I've just looked up the word anarchy in my oldest dictionary (bound by my great grandmother) - the Universal Dictionary of the English Dictionary. The word anarchy comes from 'anarch' (an-arch in Greek) meaning without a head or leader. Jo - Jo Cwazy Wednesday, July 13, 2005 6:08 PM Re: Re: Edinburgh (BBC website) Starhawk seems to think it is the right term, and she has been campaigning/demonstrating since the 60s or 70s. Maybe the word has slowly evolved and we just didn't get to know about it. Jo - Lynda Tuesday, July 12, 2005 9:40 PM Re: Re: Edinburgh (BBC website) Well, no offense to anyone but perhaps folks should come up with their own word to define things? Using a word that has a long history is just asking for confusion and misunderstanding. And, the whole process sounds more like the 60s' generation definition of communism as in communes with pure democracy -- one voice, one vote, equal weight, decisions by concensus. Or have I read it all wrong? Lynda - Peter That is the dictionary definition.... there is now a growing political movement in which the word has quite a different meaning... basically, non-hierarchical, completely egalitarian political system in which everyone's voice is heard. Generally working on the principle of very small "collective" groups, as opposed to the rather cumbersome nation state idea. BB PeterTo send an email to - To send an email to - To send an email to - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 13, 2005 Hi Jo / Lynda > I've just looked up the word anarchy in my oldest dictionary (bound by my > great grandmother) - the Universal Dictionary of the English Dictionary. > The word anarchy comes from 'anarch' (an-arch in Greek) meaning without a > head or leader. Call me obsessive if you like... but I've just had a look in a slightly older dictionary (or dictionarie as it was spelt at the time)... Randle Cotgrave's Dictionary of 1611 defines " Anarchie " as " a Commonwealth without a head, or Governour " ... so looks like the modern political definition is using a far older meaning of the word which has become corrupted during more recent years! BBPeter Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 14, 2005 Hi Lynda > > Well, no offense to anyone but perhaps folks should come up with their > > own word to define things? Using a word that has a long history is just > > asking for confusion and misunderstanding. > Kinda like " hessian " ! Nikki Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 14, 2005 Hi Peter > Call me obsessive if you like... Ok, your obsessive. BB Nikki Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 14, 2005 Hi Nikki > Ok, your obsessive. I guess I asked for that! BB Peter Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 14, 2005 oh stop it hahahaha words always change meanings if they didn't evolve, the language would die nikki_mackovitch <nikkimack Jul 14, 2005 4:49 AM Re: Edinburgh (BBC website) Hi Lynda > > Well, no offense to anyone but perhaps folks should come up with their > > own word to define things? Using a word that has a long history is just > > asking for confusion and misunderstanding. > Kinda like " hessian " ! Nikki To send an email to - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 14, 2005 Hi Fraggle > words always change meanings > if they didn't evolve, the language would die Now that's just not fair... Latin hasn't evolved for a few centuries... hang on, just let me rethink that for a moment! :-) Anyway, would it be such a bad thing if the language died... it's pretty silly really, and we could replace it with something much more sensible :-) BB Peter (in a slightly silly mood) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 14, 2005 sorry..i never learned to flash colors across the surface of my skin.... mores the loss for me i suppose i'll just have to stick with my occassional inarticulate gruntings i imagine metalscarab Jul 14, 2005 2:35 PM Re: Re: Edinburgh (BBC website) Hi Fraggle > words always change meanings > if they didn't evolve, the language would die Now that's just not fair... Latin hasn't evolved for a few centuries... hang on, just let me rethink that for a moment! :-) Anyway, would it be such a bad thing if the language died... it's pretty silly really, and we could replace it with something much more sensible :-) BB Peter (in a slightly silly mood) To send an email to - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 16, 2005 Hi Peter, We will have to agree to disagree, If anarchy did riegn, I think I would stay indoors behind some sandbags, gun at the ready protecting me and mine. Although out of chaos eventually comes order? I would like to think that a more collective form of rule would prevail, but politics and common sense aint related are they! Ideology is a wonderful thing, but hardly realistic. Sorry dont remember when the footage I saw was, I think it was a day or two before the summit.Maybe you were right about old footage, I never thought of that, They were definately British police though. The Valley Vegan........ Peter <metalscarab wrote: Hi Peter > Glad to have you back in one piece. Not sure I agree with you about anarchy, as I dont think it could ever practically exist, > same as pure communism, not practical. Each to his own. Or pure Capitalism! I don't suggest that anarchy would solve every problem in the world... I just think it would be better than anything that has been tried before, and particularly better than the current system. > The question I raised was in reference to footage shown on the telly of a gang of people clad in black,faces covered, openly > attacking a line of police with sticks......seemed extremely stupid to me. Must have been a hidden agenda somewhere? Could you at least tell me which day it was? I don't recall there being any such incidents. Perhaps this is a case of using old footage to try to make a point (like the 10 year old footage they used of Palestinians after 9/11). > Anarchy :Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose. That is the dictionary definition.... there is now a growing political movement in which the word has quite a different meaning... basically, non-hierarchical, completely egalitarian political system in which everyone's voice is heard. Generally working on the principle of very small "collective" groups, as opposed to the rather cumbersome nation state idea. BB PeterTo send an email to - Peter H Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 16, 2005 Yes, language does evolve. Just listen to our colonial cousins, across the pond. See Y`all The Valley Vegan.......metalscarab wrote: Hi Fraggle> words always change meanings> if they didn't evolve, the language would dieNow that's just not fair... Latin hasn't evolved for a few centuries...hang on, just let me rethink that for a moment! :-)Anyway, would it be such a bad thing if the language died... it's prettysilly really, and we could replace it with something much more sensible:-)BBPeter (in a slightly silly mood)To send an email to - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 16, 2005 yes..someday we hope ya'll will have yer language catch up to ours... peter hurd Jul 16, 2005 2:45 AM Re: Re: Edinburgh (BBC website) Yes, language does evolve. Just listen to our colonial cousins, across the pond. See Y`all The Valley Vegan.......metalscarab wrote: Hi Fraggle> words always change meanings> if they didn't evolve, the language would dieNow that's just not fair... Latin hasn't evolved for a few centuries...hang on, just let me rethink that for a moment! :-)Anyway, would it be such a bad thing if the language died... it's prettysilly really, and we could replace it with something much more sensible:-)BBPeter (in a slightly silly mood)To send an email to - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 16, 2005 Yeah, I can't really see Easter bonnets on car <<eg>> Lynda - fraggle Saturday, July 16, 2005 12:50 PM Re: Re: Edinburgh (BBC website) yes..someday we hope ya'll will have yer language catch up to ours... peter hurd Jul 16, 2005 2:45 AM Re: Re: Edinburgh (BBC website) Yes, language does evolve. Just listen to our colonial cousins, across the pond. See Y`all The Valley Vegan.......metalscarab wrote: Hi Fraggle> words always change meanings> if they didn't evolve, the language would dieNow that's just not fair... Latin hasn't evolved for a few centuries...hang on, just let me rethink that for a moment! :-)Anyway, would it be such a bad thing if the language died... it's prettysilly really, and we could replace it with something much more sensible:-)BBPeter (in a slightly silly mood)To send an email to - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 16, 2005 Hi Lynda > No, but on a large scale, without plenty of well-organized planning and even brainwashing, anarchy would > result in chaos, to a large degree. Humans are too well trained to be sheople. Ummm - yep - anarchy wouldn't work on a large scale... that's the whole point of it - the concept is based on the complete removal of the nation state, and have local communities make their own decisions. BB Peter Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 16, 2005 Hi Lynda > Yeah, I can't really see Easter bonnets on car <<eg>> But surely that's better than those elephant noses that you currently have on your cars :-) BB Peter Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 17, 2005 How would you define "local communities?" I can see the definition you are using working in really rural areas but as a worldwide concept I can't see it working. However, with the current lack of planning and general "la la la" attitude of folks about oil and thinking things are infinite that are finite, I can see a total collapse of the world economy resulting in total chaos and those isolated areas such as I live in converting to a commune, socialist, anarchy type of living situation and being the sole survivors of the giant upheaval. Lynda - Peter Saturday, July 16, 2005 1:18 PM Re: Re: Edinburgh (BBC website) Hi Lynda > No, but on a large scale, without plenty of well-organized planning and even brainwashing, anarchy would > result in chaos, to a large degree. Humans are too well trained to be sheople. Ummm - yep - anarchy wouldn't work on a large scale... that's the whole point of it - the concept is based on the complete removal of the nation state, and have local communities make their own decisions. BB Peter Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 17, 2005 Hi Lynda > How would you define "local communities?" However local communities define themselves! > I can see the definition you are using working in really rural > areas but as a worldwide concept I can't see it working. Yep - you're starting to get the idea. I can understand that it's hard to get out of the idea of thinking on a global or national scale, but that's exactly what it takes. > However, with the current lack of planning and general "la la la" attitude of folks about oil and thinking things > are infinite that are finite, I can see a total collapse of the world economy resulting in total chaos and those > isolated areas such as I live in converting to a commune, socialist, anarchy type of living situation and being > the sole survivors of the giant upheaval. Actually, I'm quite surprised that you're having difficulty with this - I understood that you were a homesteader from some of your previous posts? Doesn't that have a tendency to remove you to a certain extent from national control. I'm making some assumptions here about homesteading, but I had the impression that it was somewhat similar to community farming here in the UK? BB Peter Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 17, 2005 Peter, you are talking apples and oranges here. Being a seperationist and homesteader isn't living in a city. I have 12 acres and the knowledge to subsist without outside help. Between DH and I we can do all the from scratch stuff, do electrical, plumbing and mechanical, weave, sew, build, etc. We don't need or want outside help/instrusion. HOWEVER, folks who live in cities are generally sheople. They are neither prepared nor willing to take care of themselves. Anarchy and true communism and socialism, not the political animal, don't work with people who want the nanny state. I love Mr. Spock. I love logic. Logically speaking anarchy won't work on a large scale. And the vast majority of the population lives on a large scale, cities. If one defines a "local community" as say a neighborhood, it won't work because the edges bleed and then you need rules and a source of enforcement. So, like I said, when the chaos is over then the anarachy could happen. Lynda - Peter Actually, I'm quite surprised that you're having difficulty with this - I understood that you were a homesteader from some of your previous posts? Doesn't that have a tendency to remove you to a certain extent from national control. I'm making some assumptions here about homesteading, but I had the impression that it was somewhat similar to community farming here in the UK? BB Peter Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 17, 2005 What's an Easter Bonnet? The only way I know the phrase is from an American film. Jo - Lynda Saturday, July 16, 2005 9:03 PM Re: Re: Edinburgh (BBC website) Yeah, I can't really see Easter bonnets on car <<eg>> Lynda - fraggle Saturday, July 16, 2005 12:50 PM Re: Re: Edinburgh (BBC website) yes..someday we hope ya'll will have yer language catch up to ours... peter hurd Jul 16, 2005 2:45 AM Re: Re: Edinburgh (BBC website) Yes, language does evolve. Just listen to our colonial cousins, across the pond. See Y`all The Valley Vegan.......metalscarab wrote: Hi Fraggle> words always change meanings> if they didn't evolve, the language would dieNow that's just not fair... Latin hasn't evolved for a few centuries...hang on, just let me rethink that for a moment! :-)Anyway, would it be such a bad thing if the language died... it's prettysilly really, and we could replace it with something much more sensible:-)BBPeter (in a slightly silly mood)To send an email to - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 17, 2005 Hi Lynda > Peter, you are talking apples and oranges here. Being a seperationist and homesteader isn't living in a city. > I have 12 acres and the knowledge to subsist without outside help. Between DH and I we can do all the from > scratch stuff, do electrical, plumbing and mechanical, weave, sew, build, etc. We don't need or want outside > help/instrusion. OK - so, basically you've set up a little "commune" of your own? > HOWEVER, folks who live in cities are generally sheople. They are neither prepared nor willing to take care > of themselves. Anarchy and true communism and socialism, not the political animal, don't work with people > who want the nanny state. People can always choose to take no active role in whatever system - doesn't mean the system won't work. The only problem is that the current system doesn't allow those of us who aren't apathetic to have any say. > I love Mr. Spock. I love logic. Logically speaking anarchy won't work on a large scale. And the vast majority > of the population lives on a large scale, cities. Cities have developed as a result of Capitalism. Under another system (be that anarchy or something else), cities would naturally change their role over a period of time. The reason so many people live and work in cities is because our society is based on the movement of money, and the movement of money is best controlled in small areas... i.e. cities have developed around that concept. In a society where money is less important, and material necessities of life such as food anc clothing are more important, the centralising focus of cities would disappear, so people would move to where the work is... i.e. to smaller communities. And yes - anarchy wouldn't work on a large scale... that's the whole point... large scale is bad, because it means that people have less say (except for the one or two who gain power). That's exactly the basis of anarchy! > If one defines a "local community" as say a neighborhood, it won't work because the edges bleed and then > you need rules and a source of enforcement. One defines "community" as whatever community one is in. The rules are decided upon by those in the community, as opposed to those who have stolen power from the rest of us. The enforcement is done by the community, not by a police force designed to protect the wealthy from being bothered by the poor. BB Peter Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 18, 2005 In your Easter bonnet, with all the frills upon it You'll be the grandest gal in the Easter parade. I'll be all in clover, and when they look us overWe'll be the proudest couple in the Easter parade. --Irving Berlin's "Easter Parade" (1948) Here's a history of the Easter bonnet: http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art29982.asp - Jo Cwazy Sunday, July 17, 2005 2:29 PM Re: Re: Edinburgh (BBC website) What's an Easter Bonnet? The only way I know the phrase is from an American film. Jo - Lynda Saturday, July 16, 2005 9:03 PM Re: Re: Edinburgh (BBC website) Yeah, I can't really see Easter bonnets on car <<eg>> Lynda - fraggle Saturday, July 16, 2005 12:50 PM Re: Re: Edinburgh (BBC website) yes..someday we hope ya'll will have yer language catch up to ours... peter hurd Jul 16, 2005 2:45 AM Re: Re: Edinburgh (BBC website) Yes, language does evolve. Just listen to our colonial cousins, across the pond. See Y`all The Valley Vegan.......metalscarab wrote: Hi Fraggle> words always change meanings> if they didn't evolve, the language would dieNow that's just not fair... Latin hasn't evolved for a few centuries...hang on, just let me rethink that for a moment! :-)Anyway, would it be such a bad thing if the language died... it's prettysilly really, and we could replace it with something much more sensible:-)BBPeter (in a slightly silly mood)To send an email to - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
