I'm always impressed by your insights -- especially personal ones regarding one's own processes of radicalization and what role to play in the movement, as well as the role of the movement itself -- Jim. And much respect for taking weekly actions rather than the tendency to focus only on large demonstrations every few months, both to Jim and other members of DAWN.

I am particularly interested in something you state here, and which I've seen/heard you express elsewhere, namely the problem of recreation of colonial structures in our organizing. I personally feel the tendency stems from a larger problem relating to the role of the white left, and it's general refusal -- albeit usually subconsciously -- to recognize the need to place itself into the role of "subordinates" (for lack of a better word) to leadership and organizations within the oppressed communities and communities of color (which are pretty much one and the same, obviously).

Whenever I bring this up to most white activist organizations, they seem offended and argue with me etc, even otherwise well-intentioned and good activists. This problem, I feel, exists in general terms within most of the white left as individuals, but it is particularly problematic in organizations, especially larger ones. Even when doing "outreach" to communities of color and activist groups from those communities, there is the tendency to invite them to come to the white groups' meetings, or to say basically "WE have this idea for such-and-such event etc, and we think it's important to invite you to participate." Rarely do we see these white groups show up to meetings/events organized by the people of color and offer themselves (the white groups) in a support role, saying "What can we do to follow YOUR lead, to help YOUR projects, etc?" But that's precisely the role the white left needs to come to terms with, because ultimately that is the role I and many others (especially my activist friends in communities of color) feel is the only role in which the white left can be truly relevant to the left and help win the struggle for ultimate social change and justice.

So long as the white left consciously or subconsciously continues to attempt to take the lead in the movement, it will be irrelevant and the real oppressed communities, where the real struggle will grow and expand and take action. This has been a problem throughout the history of our movement, and it has been largely responsible for many of the major problems and splintering that has taken place -- and that is what has continued to hold us back. If the white left cannot accept the need to play this supporting role and follow leaders and groups within the most oppressed communities, it may as well get out of the way because otherwise it tends to be a stumbling block for the movement and brings that very colonial mentality into the activist community. Anarchists are much less likely than others, such as progressives and socialists, in the white left to fail to recognize this problem, but even anarchists can often not actually see and/or act upon this need for the white left to support or step aside.

So that's my two-cents worth. Again, thanks for the good reports and writing, and much respect.

I appreciate your comments. Wasn't it the Weather Underground, for all their flaws, who accepted a view something like the one you are outlining.

There are lots of frustrations and mistrust between groups dominated by different races, and I think there needs to be a healthy dialogue. The resistance that white groups have to being in a subordinate role, I think, is that the problem is still phrased in those terms, in an overlord/subordinate relationship.

I think it's important that groups of all kinds take time to listen to the sense of oppression of any group. I mean, recently, we've been working on the homelessness issue, and one of the problems is that it's seen as an "issue." Whose issue? It seems like it's OUR issue, but it's not always an issue in the same way or in a generalized way for the homeless population. So, what is it they want? Should there be any strings attached to whatever we do? Of course not.

When groups of mostly white people offer to work with groups who are mostly people of color, there's a history of oppression that exists, a certain privilege that exists for any white person, and I think it is a good idea to step back and simply help out so long as everyone is ultimately committed to the idea that we are trying to destroy the master/slave relationship. But, to pretend that there isn't a privilege relationship or assumptions or whatever on the part of white activists, is wrong. We need to step back.

But, there's mistrust all around since there's rarely one relationship of oppression. We can see classism amongst people of color, and sexism amongst people of color, and hierarchical oppression amongst people of color, and so there's a wariness for any anti-authoritarian who fears that she or he is replacing one oppression matrix for another.

The only way we can deal with this is to have talks like this, to show solidarity, and serve in support roles, and see how it goes. There's bound to be missteps. There's bound to be bruised egos. But, at least, we'll have started, right?

What do you think? What can we do to build trust, resist oppression, and deal with the fact that there are is and has never been a level field for people of color in this country so much so that we cannot pretend that the oppression isn't still ongoing and that any of us who happen to be white have not only benefited from this but have often in the most unconscious ways continued this oppression? What can be done?

In my experience, the vast majority of organizing by the black community in DC is done through the church. While willing to address racial and economic injustice as it relates to BLACK people of color, these churches are frequently culturally conservative and unwilling to challenge homophobia, sexism, corporate capitalism, etc. As a woman with secular progressive politics, I find most church teaching offensive, be it black or white. I do not feel that I should have to align myself with a group that disparages my personhood in order to support racial equality. I also do not feel that being oppressed in one regard makes you an automatic expert in understanding the nature of oppression, let alone organizing against it. To say that people who are white should always follow the lead of people of color seems to ignore the importance of context. How long are white progressives supposed to wait for DC's black community to radicalize itself before we can act?

Ward Churchill is a talking dog of the radical left. He has memorized variuous stock phrases and strings them together and waits for the applause.

He's much like those "speech generators" you see on the web. Pick a few topics and they'll give you a speech from that point of view.

It's scarry that anyone, especially people that share the views of the left do not recognize the guy is a cheerleader not an intellectual leader.

Umm, but Ward Churchill is not even a leftist. He critiques the left as he also critiques the various systems of opression that the left often mirrors. If you actually read the stuff he was talking about, you would know that he and many of the folks that appreciate his work are not leftists and have a far more radical (as in addressing problems from the roots) world view than the left spectrum allow,

Oh and next time you go swimming, do us all a favor and strap an anvil to your back. Thanks.

[Oh and next time you go swimming, do us all a favor and strap an anvil to your back. Thanks]

Peace and love....stop the left wing Hate Speech!

Peace out,
Wesley Cook

Interesting that criticisms of Churchill, or Chomsky etc for that matter, are limited to sound-bytes and character attacks of no substance. Offer an actual critique of the facts and information he presents, if you disagree with him. I don't see you doing that here, so until you do your criticism is without real merit.

It is actually possible to express disagreements with some of Churchill's views -- regarding 9-11, for example. Find out what he actually says, do your homework and try to refute it, and then say something intelligent if you can.

"Peace and love....stop the left wing Hate Speech!"

This is a typical tactic used by the radical right in this country. "hate speech"...I don't think that was anything near hate speech. It was petty sarcasm, if anything.

We need to stop these rightwing word games before they can even start. All they do is cause distractions, which is one of the reasons they do it to begin with.

When I first heard of Ward Churchill, it was due to the mainstream media's broohaha over his essay which compared 9/11 victims to Nazis. The main line from that essay was (I'm paraphrasing from memory) "sure they (the 9/11 victims) were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break." What he was referring to was the fact that the vast majority of Americans had zero qualms about the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed by a decade-long US-orchestrated sanctions. Nor did most Americans, in general, seem to have any concern for the systematic expulsion, oppression, and slaughter of Palestinians by US-backed Israelis. Few people would say (and I would guess that Churchill would be included) that, therefore, the attacks were somehow justified. However, it was clear that finally the attacks were explained. I was always annoyed by the headlines in the MSM that were along the lines of "Why Do They Hate US?" as if the US is such a pristine purely innocent country. How could "they" not hate us? And not surprisingly, the real explanation (as opposed to the "they hate freedom, democracy, and our 'success'" bullshit) touched a raw nerve and caused a massive uproar in the MSM. The truth hurts.

I was glad that finally attention was being paid to the root cause of the terrorism problem.

And problematically, I was glad that it was coming from a tenured professor at an accredited and semi-prestigious university. Why? Partly because I knew that his position would give his comments/opinions extra "weight" (as opposed to the case where his very same statements would have come from an anonymous blog or something). ie, people would be more willing to consider his opinions as valid because he has the "professor" stamp attached to his name. And indeed, part of the reason there was such an uproar in the MSM was that the statement were coming from someone who is part of the establishment, someone who has to be taken seriously at least to an extent, someone who is likely not a kook.

And that's the problem. That's the root cause of oppression. Get it? Why are some opinions more valid than others in people's minds? What if the comments came not from Professor Churchill, but instead from an anonymous blogger? Would anyone have noticed? And even if several people had, would the comments be considered so controversial or would they have been dismissed as some sort of random rant?

Too many listen to who is saying something, not what is being said.

And that's the problem.

I didn't go to see Churchill's recent talk (the subject of the above article) in part precisely because of the problem I outlined above.

I would hope that everyone would check themselves every time they pay attention to a name attached to a set of words. I would hope people would stop scanning for "Chomsky" or "Churchill" when looking for interesting new commentary or insight about the world's current predicament.

Better yet, people should just stop attaching their names to whatever text they type (yeah, that includes you Jim MacDonald).

But a name is simply a color, isn't it? If you attach so much significance to a name that we must banish their use, then we've done what we said we hated. Better than dealing with who the name is, or who is above sharing names, dealing with oppression is going beyond the categories of oppression. Refusing to state one's name is simply to adopt the other side of things. It's meaningless. But, if it's truly meaningless, then do whatever you feel like doing when it comes to one's name.

If you want to deal with oppression, it doesn't matter whether you go to Churchill or not go to Churchill (and I definitely appreciate your line of thinking), but just do something. Find some friends and take action against this madness. Who the hell cares whether you are an anonymous blogger or Ward Churchill; get over it. No one should care who you are not or who you are. That's a rather comical and empty point to be making. It would be like trying to achieve sexual equality by cutting off everyone's genitals. I mean, it's the same damn thing.

Do something, and find a community you can do something with, and get serious about finding ways to challenge oppression whether it's direct confrontation with the arms of the state, or educating others, or supporting those who do. And, do it in a way that gives participatory voice to every member of your group. Do it in solidarity with other groups up to the same thing.

Just because who I am does not matter one lick, doesn't mean I'm still not a me. Just because we have a society that adores ego and hero worship doesn't mean we can just drop the fact that we are egos and beings with an identity. Both sides of the coin you describe are equally oppressive to me. Be anonymous or don't be anonymous; people need to get over the very relevance of that distinction.

Isn't anarchy something else?

Jim

It's always funny to me when people call Ward Churchill a "leftist" or a "marxist". What that tells me is that they have either 1)not read anything the man has actually written and are only parroting what they've heard from others, or 2) they have read some of his writings, but don't have very good reading comprehension and completely misunderstood what he was saying. Here's a news flash for the slow witted; some people do not fit into either category (left wing and right wing).

Who gives a rat's ass what churchill thinks or has to say. Insignificant is the operative word for the pos.

"Who the hell cares whether you are an anonymous blogger or Ward Churchill; get over it."

Well apparently, the 80 people who showed up at Churchill's talk do care. Do you think 80 people would have showed up if a talk had been promoted as "that anonymous indymedia blogger who rags on Bush/US foreign policy will be speaking"? Somehow I really doubt it, though you're free to try such a promotion as an experiment (I'll show up wearing a mask and use a voice-altering megaphone to ensure anonymity).

Or are you saying that, yeah, Churchill, by virtue of his name, does command more respect/deference/intrigue than Anonymous Blogger, and that that is what I should "get over" (the "get over it" part of your statement). Well, ok, then why not say some people make enough $ to pay rent because of the value they've been able to associate with their identity in this society, and some others, well, cannot make enough $ for the rent and must live in the street? And maybe they should just get over it.

You cannot get around the fact that ascribing a name to a set of words, on a continual basis, eventually leads to an inequality whereby certain names are more highly valued than others. That's inequality. That's hierarchy. That's the main ingredient in the soup known as "oppression." Why does this happen (even I'm guilty of it. I love reading Chomsky. It's even better than TV)? If someone continually notices that a certain name is writing things they find to be valuable, they will then start having the idea that that person is someone who is somehow predisposed in some way to create such valuable things, and hence that person becomes more valuable.

What about non-web-mediated casual interpersonal discourse? Doesn't the same thing happen there? Of course it does, though perhaps in a way we don't immediately notice (think of the people you look forward to talking with again, those you don't have any real inclination one way or another, and then those who you'd actively avoid). The thing is that the web makes such name/identity-association unnecessary. So there is no reason to have the problem which will inevitably crop up in casual interpersonal discourse (and obviously in formal speaker/listener "event" discourse such as the Churchill talk).

Anonymous text forces the reader to evaluate the text free from prejudices about what they've come to expect from the writer. It is a way of preventing the formation of hierarchy. You asked if anarchy is something else. Anarchy is ultimately simply the complete absence of hierarchy in whatever form that hierarchy may take.

You know patents are evil. Authorship is only a milder form of the evil that is inherent in patents.

Why am I writing this? I believe I am describing a very real problem which the world would be better off without. Another option would be for me to say nothing and hope that most people will come to these realizations on their own. However, I don't see anything wrong with perhaps providing an idea to someone who for some reason hasn't thought of that idea on their own. I believe that anonymous communication will accelerate the formation of new ideas, and so my writing about this subject may help to push things along.

There is a central confusion in this response that I would like to get to, not to mention a fallacy.

Hierarchies are certainly about value, but it's the sort of value that we should be getting at. Some people are faster than others. Some can jump higher. Some know more things than others. Some facilitate meetings better than others. Some learn certain types of skills faster than others. In each respect, of course, hierarchies are going to develop. They are rather organic. Cheetahs run faster than humans. If you were to run a race between animals on the planet, one would value having a cheetah more than a human being.

In a functional sense, hierarchies exist and will always pop up depending on the value needed. If you need someone to make a flyer, are we to pretend that there aren't some people who might better make the flyer that someone else wants to have made?

And, so it can also go with scholarship and ideas. Some are better scholars, and some are better at articulating ideas.

Does that make such people inherently more valuable or more likely to be at the top of an oppression relationship? In the first, no. Of course not. Just because someone may have more intelligence or can phrase ideas better, they are not therefore more valuable as beings (if people understood that insight, they wouldn't abuse animals, the environment, or the minerals and non-living beings of the earth to the degree they do). It may make it more likely that they get treated as though they have more value. That is true. But, the problem then is not with the association of that intelligence to any one being but with the value people place on intelligence to overall value. And, whether someone has a greater degree of intelligence, their voice shouldn't matter more in decision-making, shouldn't be more. The problem is the value people place on either the name association, or in the overall ranking of intelligence in their overall scheme. Instead of seeing it as simply one more thing in a chain of natural hierarchies, people for some reason have a tendency to make it THE most important value.

So, I would say that it's your analysis that's guilty of hierarchical thinking in placing too much value on intelligence, in giving credence to the idea that there is some reason to rank it higher on the scale of hierarchies. It's not more important. We all have to live together and listen to each other all the same. It's useful in fulfilling functions of the group, but it does not make a person inherently better.

And, therefore, it does not make the person who has a particular name inherently better. It just means that people seem prone to value something they shouldn't, and that's what we need to go after. And, that's why I said it was like trying to achieve sexual equality by cutting off everyone's genitals. Instead of eliminating the world of men and women, the problem is that people fallaciously hold something about being either a man or a woman as somehow superior.

Now, we could cut off everyone's name, and we could cut off everyone's genitals, but we would not really have done anything about the true value distinction. If the anonymous blogger has a good idea, a brilliant idea, there is no interacting with that blogger as a being, there is no going into the idea to better grasp it, so that the idea can flourish in a community that's using the idea for discussion. That is, there is no sex of the idea in a community; no intercourse. And, sex, of course, is a beautiful thing, and we would be left with empty ideas that sit on their own attached to nothing but themselves, and yet they would be the most valuable things in the universe. That is the strangest hierarchy I have ever heard.

So, I don't care who gives a name or who doesn't so long as I can relate to them. And, I don't really care whether you have great ideas or crappy ones so long as we are all committed to a process of listening to each other as beings and taking care to maximize the inclusiveness of our community of value.

Apparently, you do, and that's why names threaten you. And, apparently a lot of people do, too, and that's why they spend so much time going to see people like Ward Churchill instead of taking action. But, the threat isn't in the name but in the value underlying the name, and that's where the hierarchy that we must resist really is.

Jim

Now all Ward has to do is begin to realize that the attacks of 9/11 were NOT "blowback" as he says (even though that's an extremely reasonable assumption) but in fact an inside job to further the drive toward "full spectrum dominance".

Just an FYI: I made the initial comment about Churchill and 9-11, saying one can disagree with his views on something, and what I meant was not his remarks about 9-11 victims but about his insistance that those who think 9-11 was an "inside job" are falling prey to racist thinking. Just wanted to clarify which aspect of his 9-11 related views I was specifically refering to.

80 people showed up. man, what an enormous crowd. Wonder why the great professor, fake native american, and idiot extraordinary couldn't draw at least a larger crowd than was at the VFW bingo last saturday night. He is famous only in his own mind, and in the small minds of anyone who would go to hear him speak. but 80 were there, LOL.

Did he talk about carrying the brief case and doing "what only the arabs had the guts to do?" What a wonderful man. No wonder CU has gone down hill. You must be very young and lacking world experiences (other than a little college) to believe the trash this man delivers.

^ okay, so offer a factual refutation of some of his work. Do it.

Why respond to Jim at all? Because I think the case needs to be made for anonymous communication.

One alternative is to have anyone who is interested in the subject come up with their own reasons for supporting anonymous communication. Of course there's everything noble about that scenario.

I think what I may be trying to achieve is some sort of cultural consensus, a formation of a novel taboo where non-anonymous communication is seen as a back-door way towards self-promotion.

Such a situation could be ultimately counter-productive, since the implication is then that people aren't really thinking about why non-anonymous communication is a problem, they'd just be going along with the flow of things (much as the taboo of racism has led a lot of people to unthinkingly shun racism and yet go on to practice much of the logical fallacies that are inherent in racism, only applying them to other situations).

However, even if it is a situation of non-thinking taboo-avoiders, it could provide a short-term, beneficial environment in which anonymous communication can flourish. And then people can come out with the formal rationalizations of why this is the best way to proceed.

So what are my main arguments and counter-arguments? The sexism/genitalia analogy is flawed because genitalia are physiological structures the removal of which would cause pain and continued discomfort. So one can clearly argue that a lot is lost by going down that road. However, not stating one's name does not cause severe physiologically-based pain (though perhaps some might argue that it could create psychological pain, but then one could say that forgoing one's BMW causes them great psychological pain, and that is something most other people would view as a problematic psychosis). A better analogy might be forgoing men's vs women's traditional clothing. Since such clothing has traditionally been associated with particular roles and pre-conceptions about the relative "place" of males and females in society, it's not a bad idea to prevent such pre-conceptions from even being a possibility in a given environment by simply having both men and women dress the same way. And to a certain extent that's what happened in the business world, where women started wearing clothing that more closely resembled traditional men's suits.

Now you can argue, as you tried to do, that such an act is silly. Instead of removing the "causative agent" of perceived sexism (the clothes), why not simply have everyone rid themselves of the pre-conceived notions they attach to particular types of clothing? Then men and women can wear whatever they want, and it's up to the rest of society to stop making value judgements about those particular types of clothing.

Well, ok, then why not carry that argument to words like "bitch" and "nigger"? Jim, you should start calling black people "niggers" and when they scream at you, you can just explain to them that they're being silly. It's their fault for attaching a particular value to a word, and that they're interfering with your indentity-freedom, that obviously you don't have any racist intent, etc etc. Do you really think such a scenario is plausible?

There may well come a time when white people can call black people "niggers" without any ill-will or hurt feelings of any kind. But few people would say that such a time is now.

Similarly, there may well come a time when people can attach their names to text without anyone even thinking of the possibility that it could be a back-handed way towards self-promotion. But I would argue that such a time is not now. The current entire cultural context (you admitted to this) is one of people being recognized and receiving "credit" for whatever actions they engage in. And in that cultural context, putting a name to text one writes is very difficult to divorce from the possibility of self-promotion. Until that cultural context changes, that possibility will always be the case.

And just as affirmative action was in part a way to attempt to change the cultural context with respect to racism, actively remaining anonymous can be viewed as part of an attempt to change the culture of property-ascriptive, hierarchical-valuation of people.

In a larger perspective, we agree on far more than we disagree, and as this discussion moves forward, the area of difference becomes increasingly small. Yet, in every difference no matter small, there is room for infinite life and activity.

It is good to have this discussion with you. You, who may be anonymous, have something of an identity, a body. You are embodied in syntax and style, in the range and scope of your arguments, in your relationship to me. Thank goodness you aren’t an idea in the heavens, but a concrete, realized reality that can be engaged. You are not anonymous; everything identified has a name.

And, yet, because of your stance, both nameless and named, perhaps I know you, perhaps I don’t, it is very difficult to put ideas into action, to build a community of action, to do anything with these ideas. In the name of freeing the idea from the name, we have enslaved the idea from the active being. Because we treat the symptom and not the cause, we foster the façade of equal communication (by stripping everyone of their names) without providing the actual substance, (and ironically, without actually stripping people of names – they merely replace one body for another). If everyone, for instance, wore uniforms to school, would that do anything about oppression? If everyone were forced to wear the same color, would we not find some other identifying mark, some other means of oppressing one person over another?

My argument is simple. We have not freed the person from oppression merely by stripping the clothing of oppression, just as we haven’t taken even one step toward ending oppression simply because white people don’t say “nigger” to African Americans or “bitch” to women. In fact, all that has done has helped create closet racists and closet sexists who clothe their oppression in ways that’s harder to understand. It’s a lot more hidden than the white cloth of the Klu Klux Klan.

What’s more by making our communication more anonymous, not only have we not freed ourselves from the substance of the oppression, we have also not freed ourselves from names. The names are only different and harder to understand. I know who you are somehow, “anonymous blogger,” and yet you insist on speaking a different language that we must work harder to translate.

Even more than that, there is quite a bit of value in being able to identify people as people, to being a somebody, since those identifications of ideas with people are the only means we have of joining together, befriending each other, and taking active resistance. I can’t organize with an idea in the sky. What’s annoying about the Churchill talk wasn’t that it was Ward Churchill but that people seem more interested in his ideas than in organizing with the man. So, I’d say the reverse is true. We pay too much attention to ideas as ideas than to people as people. Why Ward Churchill and not you? Why is there so much attachment to a man who is a brilliant scholar, who has great ideas, and hence to the value of idea over anything else, and then the attachment of that name to that idea, and not an attachment to the man? We need people and beings with which to organize; we can’t do anything with a mere, bodyless idea, even if there were such a thing.

This was intended to be a small preface. I wanted to get specifically to some of your other remarks.

So what are my main arguments and counter-arguments? The sexism/genitalia analogy is flawed because genitalia are physiological structures the removal of which would cause pain and continued discomfort.

I wasn’t making an argument by analogy; all arguments by analogy are flawed because it’s not by virtue of something being like something else that something is true but the reasons that make both true. Analogies are used simply like new clothes to illustrate the reasons of a point; they are linguistic expressions intended to shed light that other words couldn’t shed. Analogies being what they are, you can always point to a critical difference, or else they wouldn’t be analogies. Similar triangles are not necessarily congruent ones. So, of course, there’s a difference between psychological and physical pain, but my point wouldn’t change if I could give you a pill that would take away all the physical pain. The oppression relationship does not therefore change simply because you take away one of the key symptoms defining the oppression relationship. A lot of Churchill’s point about colonialism is the same as the point I am making here.

A better analogy might be forgoing men's vs women's traditional clothing. Since such clothing has traditionally been associated with particular roles and pre-conceptions about the relative "place" of males and females in society, it's not a bad idea to prevent such pre-conceptions from even being a possibility in a given environment by simply having both men and women dress the same way. And to a certain extent that's what happened in the business world, where women started wearing clothing that more closely resembled traditional men's suits.

I would argue that you simply exchange one oppression relationship for another. When the emphasis on sexual equality comes by making sure people are wearing the same kinds of uniforms, then you’ve merely enforced conformity without there actually being a change in the understanding. The example you used about the workplace happened the other way around. Because people challenged the value judgments about the differences between men and women, some women felt more free to dress as men. Unfortunately, at the same time patriarchy has not been successfully challenged so that you have both women and men both fighting for patriarchal ideals. It’s natural that when you challenge an oppression relationship that it’s likely to look different afterwards as people change their mode of expression, but the mode of expression is not the same as the reason for the oppression relationship. The modes only help give us metaphors for what’s really going on.

Now you can argue, as you tried to do, that such an act is silly. Instead of removing the "causative agent" of perceived sexism (the clothes), why not simply have everyone rid themselves of the pre-conceived notions they attach to particular types of clothing? Then men and women can wear whatever they want, and it's up to the rest of society to stop making value judgements about those particular types of clothing.

Well, ok, then why not carry that argument to words like "bitch" and "nigger"? Jim, you should start calling black people "niggers" and when they scream at you, you can just explain to them that they're being silly.

Why should I do that? My argument doesn’t entail that. The freeing of words and names from the value judgments attached to those words does not entail that I therefore should use those things; it simply entails that people should be free to use them. Of course, that’s a minor point since I don’t think that would change the essence of your argument.

We are going to have names that signify things which are ugly and horrible. “Ugly” and “horrible” are but words, and yet they do have a certain signification that we as a people generally agree upon, and they aren’t very nice. They represent a consensus in the way that “bitch” and “nigger” have as well in the history of oppressed peoples. Your point seems to be that the names that people have, when they attach themselves to ideas, should also have the same signification. You distrust them; they signify self-promotion, or whatever sin you think produces a hierarchical relationship. It tends to insult you in a certain way when I or others sign their names and dare to attach them to an idea; it taints and dirties the ideas we should be able to consider purely on their own terms. But, I have challenged the reasons to you behind giving the name such a foul signifier and suggested that it was not the real problem. In other words, I can still communicate to you as a named person, and we can still have a real conversation. If I use the word “bitch” to most women or “nigger” to a black person, what is my point? Why am I using them? For what purpose, and can there be a conversation about them? Surely, they are names, too, and history can change how names are used.

The larger point is that simply imposing a meaning on certain words does not erase the oppression. How many white people think they aren’t racist simply because they get so mad when others say “nigger?” Quite a few I’ve come across! And, I would even argue that it was understanding the fallacies of racism that produced such a consciousness about certain words and how they’ve been used historically to denigrate people that have created the aversion, not simply because there was a refusal to use certain words. The process is backwards.

So, even if there were something pernicious about using one’s own name or using any name that might be identified with an idea, the process isn’t to refuse to use it but rather to have conversations like the one you and I are having in order to convince each other about the values implicit in names. If the real value is as I argued last time fallacious, if you accept that intellect isn’t a higher value and that people having intellect aren’t to be valued more highly, why would you urge us to use names even less than we already do? Why would you turn the process backwards?

There may well come a time when white people can call black people "niggers" without any ill-will or hurt feelings of any kind. But few people would say that such a time is now.

Similarly, there may well come a time when people can attach their names to text without anyone even thinking of the possibility that it could be a back-handed way towards self-promotion. But I would argue that such a time is not now. The current entire cultural context (you admitted to this) is one of people being recognized and receiving "credit" for whatever actions they engage in. And in that cultural context, putting a name to text one writes is very difficult to divorce from the possibility of self-promotion. Until that cultural context changes, that possibility will always be the case.

This example assumes there is something fallacious in assuming that there’s a certain value just because a certain name is used. So, like I said, we aren’t that far removed. Afterall, we are both after an end to hierarchies and oppression – we simply don’t agree on the means of resistance.

And just as affirmative action was in part a way to attempt to change the cultural context with respect to racism, actively remaining anonymous can be viewed as part of an attempt to change the culture of property-ascriptive, hierarchical-valuation of people.

In previous essays, I have defended the need for some kind of affirmative action, especially in the sense that the oppressed class should work together to destroy the class relationship. I do disagree with the method, which I would consider mainstream and patriarchal, in which affirmative action has often been applied to destroy that relationship. I think many of the methods you here defend are many of the methods to which I would object, and yet I would argue that affirmative action is necessary and can be more robust and radical in its orientation. Affirmative action has been a big government solution that…….., but before I go into that, do we want to see that we are getting somewhere with this discussion? I think we are.

It would be great if we could discuss these things, as we often do, inside an affinity group or some other format, but alas, perhaps we already do.

Cheers,
Jim

To the person engaging Jim on this issue:

I think a point should be made here that to the extent "self promotion" exists, no amount of self-promotion will amount to anything without a corresponding response from readers, right?

The problem is not that people have names (which allows us to more quickly reference someone rather than calling everyone "that person I know" or "hey you"), it is that people have a tendency to react in a specific manner depending upon the person named. If we like the person, know them, are familiar with that person's thinking and agrees with it, etc, these are things which impact how we judge what that person says. Does it blurr our judgement? Does it make us more likely to agree with what the person says, or less likely to think critically about what they say, than we might if we weren't familiar with them? Therein lies the problem, not in the fact that we all have names. If you find that knowing the identity of the author tends to influence your judgement about what they say, is the problem that they have a name, or that you are inclined to use your past knowledge and experiences with that person and their ideas as a way of predetermining your tendency to agree with what they might say?

Your brain uses all sorts of "short-hand" in life, and unfortunately very often we let this short-hand do the heavy lifting for us. It doesn't have to be that way, of course, and some people are able to actively work at trying to avoid this problem and can be very successful at it. We could all wear hoods and alter our voices and never use names, dress identical and talk identical (lest speech patterns, accents, etc tip you off about who we are), and pray Harrison Bergerson never shows up. Or we could recognize that the problem is within us, and that what needs to change is not simplistic aspects of life that in fact can be very helpful (like having names) but rather our own value systems and how we choose to interact and how (or IF) we critically think for ourselves.

Chomsky and Churchill are very brilliant, contribute greatly to political discourse, etc, but are also in my opinion capable of being wrong and making gross errors of thinking and analysis. I try very hard to avoid assuming that either of them is automatically correct, and when I read something that I find questionable, I QUESTION it! The problem of cults of personality is indeed quite real, but ending the use of names (even if only in discourse) will not stop the problem, and we should avoid searching for easy methods of dealing with internalized issues of hierarchies.

The fact is, often who somebody is has a very real influence on what they say and why they are saying it. Suppose you are talking to a person who sounds very progressive, says all the right things about war and imperialism etc, and says they are rallying at a certain spot and they ask you and others to join them. Now, what they say sounds right and they've dotted all their "i"s, but you get there and it's a Dennis Kucinich For President rally, or an ANSWER rally (depending on how you feel about them...). Would you wish you'd known, would you feel taken advantage of and that they used the annonymity to hide their real intentions? Would it matter so long as technically what they "said", their "ideas" sounded right? Would the fact that they knew precisely what to say and how to say it to reach you and used annonymity as the best way to reach you be something that made you angry?

Theoretically, the argument that discourse would be better, and ideas weighed without prejudice if it were all annonymous, should then be applied to everyday life as well -- there is no rational reason, if you accept the argument, not to do so, since if the argument is valid then it would have equal value and the same benefits in day-to-day interaction. Or do you prefer to know who you associate with, do you prefer to hang out with people who share your interests? Of course you do, we all do. I don't say that I fail to understand what you mean, or that I don't recognize some benefits in annonymous posting and exchange of ideas, but I actually suspect your thinking goes deeper than merely in reference to annonymous posting of comments and ideas on the internet. You specifically refer to people like Churchill, and the issue of personality behind the ideas, and you speak of these things with disdain. I must assume, therefore, that you would also prefer books to be annonymous, interviews to be annonymous, etc. This really must -- or should -- be the gist of what you are really saying, otherwise how is the issue of "self-promotion" relevant here? Solve self-promotion and cults of personality and hierarchies by blogging unnamed? No, you are smart and have thought this through so obviously you mean to imply more than that.

In fact, this should (to be logically consistent) also carry over to interviews for news segments and so too to so-called specialists. Thus we'd have no way to know the validity of sourcing, if we lack any knowledge of the annonymous sources of information (I know, the media already relies on such sourcing, but I refer more directly to more concrete sourcing). We can't demand that people back up their information, provide sourcing, if it's all annonymous. Even links to websites supposedly supplying source information would be suddenly lacking if it were all annonymous -- how do you or I know the validity if the site and the sources are all annonymous?

It is also true that Chomsky, Churchill, and many others are notoriously good at documenting their cases and (usually) delving into an issue and studying it and then presenting their case with a stack of sourcing the size of "War and Peace". That's precisely why so many people trust them and give them at least the benefit of the doubt when reading/considering their ideas and analysis. And I do not at all think that's a bad thing. Do we not assess the involvement of activists around us by their actions, by their history of consistency in standing against injustice? Yes, we do. We get to know someone, we try to understand them, we watch them, etc and from there we can make our assessments. It is not that we should do this INSTEAD of weighing ideas on the merit of content, but rather that we can do BOTH. I know Chomsky's views and his history of consistency etc, and yes I agree with him much more often than I disagree with him. But I also make an attempt to read his work critically and to actually USE the sourcing he supplies to verify for myself that he's accurate or that his conclusions/interpretations are ones I agree with. I don't need him to hide his name or his face to compell me to do this, and I don't need anyone to do so for me to judge their ideas on merit. Why do you?

Okay, obviously we all at times fall prey to letting the short-cuts do the heavy lifting for us. But that's because we allow it to happen, period. We aren't going to change this world if we refuse to change ourselves as well, and I for one do not demand that the world change so that I don't HAVE to change. That kind of thinking is a mistake, in my opinion. There are times when even a Chomsky could and should and probably does choose to use annonymity -- maybe in chat rooms, for example. But annonymity is good in some instances and maybe not as good in others, and in my opinion undesireable in many.

Self-promotion sucks, sure, but I don't think that every time someone puts their name on something it is self-promotion. And I don't think every instance of you or I relying on name-recognition is bad, either (I use it a lot when deciding where or what to eat, for example -- is this product made by Coca Cola, for example? If so, I'm not drinking it). It's the times when this leads to hierarchies that concerns me, and really what seems to concern you as well. So we should focus on that, and how to get ourselves and others to change so that name recognition DOESN'T so often lead to short-cuts in our own critical thinking. Let's not simply replace one short-cut with another.

There's lots to respond to here, both from Jim and from the newcomer (Tim?). Unfortunately, I don't have time to respond to all of the postings point by point. Furthermore, there seems to be some confusion arising from the fact that I am only speaking of publication of text, and not the act of organizing meetings/protests/other activities where maintaining strict anonymity would be too time-consuming.

First, Tim, you raise an interesting point (among many interesting points) about news media quoting expert sources. And you ask how those expert sources would be identifiable as such if they remained anonymous. Let me posit to you that in an anarchical world, there would be no such thing as experts that the rest of society is so dependent upon (to the point where they have to be specifically called on to provide answers to certain things). Take the following example: suppose you want to cross over the Potomac from Rosslyn to Georgetown. You can walk across that bridge, and most of the time I'll bet you don't think twice about going across. Why? Maybe because you've seen lots of other people go across the bridge on several occasions, you never saw the bridge collapse as a result, and so you assume that the bridge is safe enough to go across yourself. But suppose the bridge is replaced with a new bridge, and you can't use that past experience to feel safe about going on it. Instead, you look at a sign on the bridge, and it says something along the lines of "built by the Virginia and DC Departments of Transportation" or something to that effect. Now you feel safe. Why? Because you know those agencies hire certain experts (there they are finally) who know all about statics and mechanics and materials science, etc etc. In other words, the bridge was built by people who "knew what they were doing." And maybe you never studied physics or mathematics or any type of engineering or materials science. Instead, you trust that others who have studied these things (and of course got passing grades) have made the bridge safe.

Where is all of this going? An alternative would be for you to have your own knowledge of physics/engineering etc, and then you can look up the documentation that went into the construction of the bridge. And from that, you can make your own determination about the safety level of the bridge. But if you don't have that knowledge to understand the documentation, you're dependent on the experts. And because this is the actual typical situation, these experts are in fact in a position of power over you and most other people (this is something that was pointed out by Zerzan and other primitivists). I would argue that in an anarchical world, such a situation would not exist. And that means one of two things: 1) we don't have bridges or 2) we only have bridges and other structures to the extent to which all of the concepts that go into making these things are readily understandable by all who would be in a position to be compelled to use them. This latter possibility may actually not be as far-fetched as it sounds. It may require an alteration in the methodologies of education.

So what does all of this have to do with what you said? For one thing, reliance on "expert sources" is itself an act which helps perpetuate a hierarchical state of affairs. So wherever possible, it's likely best to try to reach the original facts and concepts from which the "expert sources" are drawing their opinions/conclusions.

As a general response, I think maintaining strict anonymity in all situations is too impractical to achieve. But wherever use of a name is not necessary (such as publication of any kind), then I see no reason why someone should include their name. And even if people did what you recommend (check themselves to make sure they aren't using the name to help them form their opinions about what was written), that doesn't prevent the problem I brought up: that continued association of a name with a set of ideas that society (or a part of society) finds valuable leads to the elevation of that name (and the person so named) and therefore leads to hierarchy.


Ok, now Jim: I'm not sure what we agree on. You seem to be saying that there will be some people with higher intelligence, and that that's ok, and that we as a society should just not be valuing higher intelligence. And so hence, in the absence of such a value judgement, those with higher intelligence will not be more valued and so hierarchy won't result.

I don't believe that's true. Let's take the case of the bridge I outlined above. If most people in the society value having a bridge (instead of having to swim) across the Potomac, then the creation of a functional and safe bridge will be a value expressed by members of that society. And let's say that only people with an IQ above 175 or so are in fact capable of inventing and understanding the concepts needed to make such a bridge. And let's say less than 2% or so of the population has such a high IQ. Are you really going to say that those high-IQ people are not going to be valued more than people who do not (or cannot) provide anything that the society values? Or are you saying that the members of the society should somehow will themselves not to value these people moreso than anyone else, even though these people were indispensible in the creation of this structure that everyone so clearly values?

Do you really think Ward Churchill is not more highly valued within the activist community than average Joe activist? If you say that Ward has better ideas than Joe does, and you admit that you value better ideas as a means to achieving social change ends, are you still honestly claiming that Ward is equally valuable to the movement as Joe? If Joe was gone, few would notice. But if Ward is gone, then we're without the source of those brilliant ideas that led us forward (what were those again?) and the likely source of future brilliant ideas that will lead us from future troubles. And yet Ward is equal in value to Joe? Do you really think I'm trying not to understand? You must at least see that I'm making a plausible if not entirely correct argument.

what ever happened with his horowitz debate? i cant find any coverage of it.

>So long as the white left consciously or
>subconsciously continues to attempt to take the lead in the movement, it will be irrelevant and >the real oppressed communities, where the real >struggle will grow and expand and take action.

In other words, deep down inside, white leftists know they're working against their own best interests. There's even a chance they'll wake up, grow up, and become productive members of society.

^ No, not "working against their own best interests", just no longer working under a mindset that presumes putting their interests ahead of the interests of the rest of society. The point is precisely that white activists too often allow the notions of white supremacy that we've ALL (white, black, male, female, etc etc) been indoctrinated with to influence their actions and ideas, so that they always seek to lead and feel that they know what's best. It's nothing but the same basic notion of "white parents" helping their "colored naive helpless children", although it is disguised as philanthropy or charity or (among white upwardly-mobile but self-proclaimed "revolutionary socialists") being the "vangard" who will lead the movement. So I'm saying white leftists need to stop working/acting ONLY out of self interest (ie trying to be in charge, to preserve another version of their priviledged position in society) and start acting in the interests of all of us as ONE PEOPLE, and to do that means recognizing the need to listen to and follow the lead of the truly oppressed communities.

Now, on to the more rational comments above -- first, I'm not the person you refered to as "Tim", by the way.

I'll say that I personally don't share the specific views of primitivists. In the last couple of years I've moved from generally just describing myself as a socialist to saying (if we have to have specific terms to apply to ourselves, which I don't always mind since it does help generally sum up our views so we don't need to give in-depth descriptions every time) I'm much more of a libertarian socialist, since my views have increasingly tilted towards agreement with anarchism and away from the views and (especially) methods of most self-proclaimed socialists/Marxists/etc. I understand the notions behind primitivism, and I don't disrespect them, but I simply don't agree with some of the primary themes.

Let's take the bridge issue. I do not at all feel that society needs to ONLY have those things which every single person is themself capable of doing/building/etc. That would inherently mean, for example, that nothing should be built heavier than the average physically weakest person could lift, perhaps. It would also necessitate either FORCED education on topics some might not WANT to study (like physics and bridge-building) or erradication of knowledge that any mildly significant segment of society is uninterested in. In each case, it would require FORCING these conditions. Would you agree that under your theory of society, somebody who WANTED to study deeply and design and build a home or a bridge for themselves would not be allowed to do so, and would be PREVENTED from doing so? Would this extend into artistic expression, if someone wanted to paint images expressing private notions of existance and their experiences that perhaps many might not have the intimate personal knowledge to grasp or appreciate? Or would that artist simply be prevented from displaying it in public?

I know that what you are implying is a society where everyone is equally educated so that nobody holds status as "elites" with abilities that place them into positions of potential power over others, where society might become dependent upon their expert knowledge etc. But, how long would highschool be in such a society, one decade or two? Let's consider the idea of everyone needing eight years of medical studies, then four years of hard-core engineering and physics, plus maybe eight years of agriculture and geology...we'd all be ready to go out and start contributing in society fully informed by the youthful age of about fifty, right? Except that nobody could be teachers, since that itself implies a hierarchy of knowledge and expertise, so we'd all have to go out and get the books and educate ourselves on these things...except that nobody can be an expert so nobody can write those books, so...

See where some of us feel these concepts lead? A society you describe is not a free society, since too much would have to be forced or censored, which are things that are unworkable actually in an anarchist society. Is it easier to impose a society of total educational/skill equality, or one in which we shift values so that we don't overvalue a person based upon such skills and education nor do they seek to use their skills and education to wield power over others? If all people work for the good of society, which is an initial prerequisit for the very society you suggest, then that itself makes the issue of hierarchy in skill and knowledge a moot point, doesn't it? And isn't that more realistic, more freeing, for all of us than imposed equality by either forced education in everything or prevention of skill and knowledge exceeding a certain limit? I'd say so.

I have no problem with the fact that someone who has lived twice as long as I have has had lots more life experiences and so might have something interesting to tell me and to give me different perspectives on life and living. Well, that's a form of accumulation of additional knowledge and skills and understanding that is simply inherent in day-to-day experience of life, isn't it? How, and how much, would your notion of society seek to limit THAT type of "expertise", where literal repetition of actions and experiences grants someone more insight into something like (to use a simplistic but legitimate example) touching a hot stove, or knowing the best way and proper time to cultivate a crop in a very specific climate and terrain?

I don't want to live in a society that seeks harmony and liberty via limitation on the development and skills and maximum decrease in differences in people and their experiences. I hope to live some day in a world where such knowledge and skills are shared and developed for the common good of all, and where differences and experiences are cherished, and where people no longer seek ways to use those differences and experiences to divide us or create elite classes among us.

It is all about changing our perceptions, something that your ideas rely upon before the rest can happen. I say that once those changes take place, we won't have to limit accumulation of more knowledge by certain people, because they won't abuse their knowledge or positions. If you feel that that is impossible, that people would inherently value such people more or that such people would always try to abuse their position, you are saying you don't even trust the changes that are required for forming your own vision of society. You would also be imply something nefarious about human nature, by the way. So if the only way to prevent such abuses is to prevent such knowledge and experience, that people must be STOPPED or at least implementation of ideas based upon "excess knowledge" must not be allowed, then you aren't talking about a free society at all, nor one in which attitudes of hierarchy have even been dealt with. It's a society that distrusts not just those who would acquire additional knowledge and/or would wish to utilize it even for the common good, but also distrusts the REST of society and assumes it will ultimately resort to hierarchies of value and "herd" mentality. And I'd reject the idea that, in an anarchist society, some bridgemakers or similarly "skilled" people could hold the rest of us essentially "for ransom". since I assume some other anarchists would ALSO know how to build a bridge or would learn to do so and prevent the rest of us from being exploited.

I hope we attain a world where whatever skills a person wishes to develop, they are free to do so, and that they wish and do then apply those skills for everyone's benefit. I hope we attain a world where everyone, including you, learns not to fear the abilities of others, fear that which they themselves don't have (but obviously COULD have if they wished to study it etc), and instead embrace the idea of cooperation and sharing of what we can each personal produce and contribute. In the end, it's about trust. The world I envision trusts the people who live in it, especially since we would have presumably actually reached the point of such revolutionary change and attained a cooperative, libertarian socialistic or anarchistic social structure where values are not shaped and warped as they are now. Your vision doesn't sound like it trusts people much at all, if I can be blunt. Nor does it sound very workable, just speaking practically.

If I'm misunderstanding your points here, I apologize. Again, I see a lot of what you are trying to say in relation to the need for ideas to stand or fall on their merits, and how annonymity can help play a role in achieving that. But that's only true to the extent we continue to internalize hierarchy, really, and I still feel that we shouldn't rely on the world changing to make our own self-change easier. We use words to represent ideas and abstract concepts, as well as things in everyday life, because that's how we communicate, and we can't blame words or the existence of specific identifying words for our own shortcomings and our own lack of progress in internal rejection of the prejudices and hierarchies we are socialized with.

"I do not at all feel that society needs to ONLY have those things which every single person is themself capable of doing/building/etc. That would inherently mean, for example, that nothing should be built heavier than the average physically weakest person could lift, perhaps. It would also necessitate either FORCED education on topics some might not WANT to study (like physics and bridge-building) or erradication of knowledge that any mildly significant segment of society is uninterested in. In each case, it would require FORCING these conditions. Would you agree that under your theory of society, somebody who WANTED to study deeply and design and build a home or a bridge for themselves would not be allowed to do so, and would be PREVENTED from doing so?"

I think this is a mis-characterization of what I'm describing as an anarchist society. I could go the abstract argument route, but it's just so much easier to illustrate with an example:

Consider Microsoft vs Linux. Linux is "open source," meaning that the code for the operating system is freely available and alterable by anyone who chooses to spend time to tweak it. Microsoft's operating system code is zealously guarded as a "trade secret" by that company. But there could be an even "free-er" operating system than Linux. And that would be an operating system whose commenting and documentation is so straightforward and comprehensive that just about anyone who can read can, within a few hours or less, entirely understand the underpinnings of the operating system and would allow them to have all of the capabilities of the engineers who wrote the original code.

You may say that such a situation is far-fetched, that systems like operating systems and computers are far too complex for the lay person to readily and entirely grasp in the course of a few hours. But I would say that there can be advances made in the way education occurs such that something very close to what I'm describing could take place.

I am NOT saying that people wouldn't be free to invent novel technologies. All I'm saying is that once those novel technologies are invented, the inventor(s) and society have a choice: 1) keep all of the concepts that go into that technology something to be kept in a dry textbook someone has to go to college for years to learn about (which is the situation I'm saying leads to hierarchy) or 2) figure out the best ways to allow the greatest numbers of people, regardless of educational background, to most readily and easily master the concepts needed to understand and control the technology themselves. So there would be extra work that goes into creating new technology. In the case of computer software, the extra work would come in the form of what might be called "hyper-commenting," whereby each line of code in a program is comprehensively explained in plain english so anyone, even someone with no computer training, can understand it.

I am NOT saying that anyone would be REQUIRED to learn the concepts that underlie the technologies the society has become dependent on. However, again, each member of the society would have the choice of allowing themselves to be dependent on others (which again leads to hierarchy) or of taking the initiative to learn those things that allow them to be able to understand the technologies they depend on. There wouldn't be any kind of forcing people to do anything, though of course there may be a lot of preaching going on, just as activists try to alter the cultural landscape by engaging in a form of preaching. Do you say that those activists are forcing other people to do certain things?

With regards to your stament about making objects easy to lift by anyone, I would say that, oddly enough, technology could be the solution to that problem. So devices could be available to allow anyone to partake of all of the goods/services that society has to offer (in much the same way as the technology of wheelchairs afford handicapped people the freedom of motion that non-handicapped people enjoy). Again, the technology would have to be documented in a way that no small group of experts becomes the controller of that technology (and then by extension, of the society that uses it).

The wheelchair example is actually one of the reasons I'm not a primitivist (though I make use of their arguments to illustrate certain points). Strict primitivists would envision a world without wheelchairs or dialysis machines, and so millions of people would suffer or even die as a result. I don't think technology can just be gotten rid of.

While it is possible that some currently nonexistant form of education could develop which allows people to learn complex skills quickly, I doubt very much that it will happen in a way that cuts learning time of physics etc down to a matter of hours. That is, however, what would be really required in order for the increasingly complex aspects of building, medical treatment, and so on to become quickly and easily accessible to everyone for their day-to-day living requirements, assuming of course that societal changes don't do away with technology -- something we both seem to disagree with to some extent. Considering the many decisions we all make every hour of every day, do we really WANT to be in the position of studying everything first before making a decision as simple as whether to cross a bridge or not?

That's what I was getting at -- that the society you described suggests either that we find a way for everyone to learn everything about whatever they come across in life, or that we restrict the number of potential situations and decisions a person might encounter. You're saying that you are proposing the former, not the latter, but I feel that it seems impossible, or at least improbable, that this sort of social structure will take form WITHOUT a necessary limiting (either at the start, or gradually as the form is seen as unworkable in a highly technologically advanced society) of options. But to me, the question is whether skills -- even highly necessary ones, or at least ones we tend to think are highly necessary -- need to be seen as automatically forming hierarchies. I personally think that the sense that they DO stems itself from our tendency to think in ways influenced by hierarchies, and so we assume that perfection of a skill equates to a higher position in society, when in fact all we need is to change our values and point of view, which itself should automatically be a part of any attempt to restructure society along the lines we feel would be best.

It's more likely, I think, that society will move away from the tendencies to view skills as a component of social stratification since such stratification wouldn't exist in the sort of society we are talking about. Skills will be shared and used for the common good, and if society works out as you and I hope, then we should be at a point where it is seen as our duty to others to use our abilities to benefit everyone and seeking status based upon such skills is seen as sociopathic.

The idea, I thought, was to get everyone to share their knowledge and combine it and cooperate, so that you can afford to depend upon the skill of the bridge-builder, for example, and cross that bridge without going to look in your physics book before deciding to cross. I for one don't want to haul a backpack full of medical texts with me every time I go to the doctor, nor wait to cross bridges or use any other more complex things until I can build one myself. And I needn't have to do so, if society is truly structured as we hope. And if that structure does exist, then hierarchies won't form because our outlook and values won't really have room for them.

Think of those societies where a person's "wealth" is based upon how much they've given to others and the number of favors they've performed -- which means they are "owed" that much in return, but everyone always tries to keep a balance of having given more than they've gotten back. Now, that's pretty counter to most all Western thinking and value systems. The idea that someone with nothing, because they gave away all they had, is the most valued and wealthy member of society seems strange to most people in this nation. Doesn't it immediately occur to you that someone in that society could act as the receiver of as many favors as possible and accumulate tangible "wealth" by taking everything from everyone else? But of course, that's not their social system so it isn't a real problem. It's still a hierarchy, obviously, since one person is valued over another, but it's a total reversal of the hierarchy of accumulation of wealth that exists in this nation. But it shows that it's possible to reverse our own hierarchies, so it's possible that if we are talking about the formation of an anarchist society that such issues will be easier to work out in terms of our own values as opposed to developing radical learning methods that seem impossible (unless brain downloads ala "Matrix" are developed, but who'd trust THAT??).

So we'll have anarchy with experts? Who will decide who the experts are? An authority? A set of authorities? How are authority and anarchy compatible?

Your example of cultures where the hierarchy is based on how much people "give" is not, to me, a "better" form of hierarchy. As you say, it's still hierarchy. And not only that, but it is ultimately based on the very same thing our current hierarchy is based on: the productive output of the person to be stratified along the gradient of the hierarchy. There's just an extra gimmick where it's all based on what they "gave" to others. Maybe there's less direct material reward for one's actions in that culture, but the stratification - and the basis for it - is the same.

You wouldn't need to drag textbooks to go see a doctor. For one, there would be no such thing as "doctors." Furthermore, all the information you need can readily be made available in a light, compact device called a Blackberry (or Treo). These devices can surf the web wirelessly and work quite well. This isn't science fiction. It's technology millions of people are using right now. I doubt even that technology has reached its acme.

Learn to write an operating system as complex as Linux in a few hours? Perhaps that is far-fetched. But think about how some technical texts are lousy at explaining things, while others are extaordinarily clear and give you a deep understanding of a technical subject in relatively little time. Does that mean the latter is the best there could be in terms of educational effectiveness? Why can't it go further? Why couldn't the educational effectiveness go much further?

Finally, yes, there likely would be an upper limit to the complexity of technology that would still allow most everyone to completely understand it as well as all the other technology society depends on. And maybe we have already passed that limit. I don't know. All I am saying is that you can try to make all technology as accessible as possible to everyone who depends on it, and that is the road that ultimately leads to anarchy. Or you can not make that effort and continue along the current path, which leads to maintaining and then increasing hierarchy.

I think you and Jim want to have it both ways. You envision a situation where person A provides countless benefits to society, where they're permitted to make decisions about bridge safety that affect everyone else, where they're specifically called on to decide how to allocate research resources for cancer, etc. and person B, who, try as they may, is actively prevented from making decisions about bridges, is subjected to rolling eyes when they try to provide input on how to allocate resources for cancer research, etc. And yet you somehow firmly believe that A won't be held in higher esteem than B, that a hierarchical gradient won't result. All I can say is "dream on."

You started off by asking "So we'll have anarchy with experts?" Well, if by "experts" you mean people who have an "expertise" they have perfected, I would hope so -- will we have anarchy where nobody has any expertise, or where everyone can only develope the base-level knowledge on any topic? The issue is whether having expertise in a field will automatically place someone on a higher social level than others, and I say that need not at all be the case. It seems that to you, having expertise equates to being at a higher level than others or you feel that socially humans are incapable of avoiding hierarchy if any of them has more skill in a particular area than others. That, in my opinion, is precisely the thought process that I think is responsible for such hierarchy, and if we move towards anarchy I presume that at least the majority of us will have overcome such thinking and value judgements -- doesn't that inherently follow in any situation where anarchy exists?

Consider this comparison: biologically, it is simply true that some people will be born more physically strong than others -- so would that not inherently lead to hierarchy based upon brute force? Or force those who are physically weaker to band together to dominate and suppress those with more brute strength? I don't at all feel such conditions would inherently exist, since under anarchy the sort of mentality and socialization that leads to that sort of conflict will not exist, right?

This is no different from the issue of people developing a higher degree of knowledge or skill in a particular area because it interests them more than it interests others. Within an anarchist society, those who do engage in such deeper study and development of skill will also have been socialized to NOT seek higher social status or to use that skill to gain power in society -- and we won't value them more for that skill, it is simply a skill that either provides benefits for the masses or it doesn't and if it does then the person is expected to utilize that skill for maximum benefit for ALL.

The main thing I want to respond to is this quote from your post:
"I think you and Jim want to have it both ways. You envision a situation where person A provides countless benefits to society, where they're permitted to make decisions about bridge safety that affect everyone else, where they're specifically called on to decide how to allocate research resources for cancer, etc. and person B, who, try as they may, is actively prevented from making decisions about bridges, is subjected to rolling eyes when they try to provide input on how to allocate resources for cancer research, etc. And yet you somehow firmly believe that A won't be held in higher esteem than B, that a hierarchical gradient won't result. All I can say is "dream on.""

Nowhere did Jim or did I say that those with skills will be allowed to make decisions for everyone else, decide how to allocate resources, etc. Nor did either of us say or suggest that other people would not be allowed to participate etc, or that anyone will roll their eyes. I'm not sure where exactly you got this from, so I assume it's just a major misunderstanding about some aspect of what either Jim or I have said. Thus, by the way, the issue of a hierarchical gradient developing under such conditions is moot, I assume.

Again, this speaks (in my opinion) to a problem of still viewing post-anarchist social change through the value-system-prism operating in society today. If we are incapable of avoiding people taking and exerting power over others, development of heirarchies, etc in any situation where some people develop particular skills beyond those of most other people, that means humans are incapable of any social structure without hierarchy. I say that because I absolutely reject the suggestion that we can -- or necessarily should -- attempt a social condition in which nobody develops skills in excess of a predetermined "norm", unless that society rejects the actual notion of personal liberty and freedom.

I use the word "expert" with its connotation of someone having knowledge that is beyond the immediate grasp of the "lay" person.

Certainly, there could be a society where everyone is an "expert". ie, everyone has a ton of knowledge and everyone has exactly the same knowledge as everyone else. But that isn't what I was referring to when I asked how expertise and anarchy are compatible.

What I was referring to is the situation where some people have specific knowledge that other don't, and where that specific knowledge is something that everyone else in society (expert or not) depends on. That situation (which is the current situation) is a situation of hierarchy. Why? Simply because the experts thereby have a means of controlling aspects of the culture which others (non-experts) cannot similarly control. Think of it: if Bill Gates and Linus Torvalds (the Linux dude) decided the world doesn't need a particular security or privacy feature for their operating systems, what can the rest of us do? Depend on another expert to solve the problem for us?

"Consider this comparison: biologically, it is simply true that some people will be born more physically strong than others -- so would that not inherently lead to hierarchy based upon brute force?"

It would if society values either 1) physical strength for its own sake or 2) the resolving of problems or the act of domination thru physical strength. It's easy to imagine a society where neither of the above two conditions are true.

Now the problem for you is the following: society does value effective and safe bridges. It also values effective medical treatments and effective research for the creation of novel and effective treatments. It's not easy to imagine a society where such things are not valued. And the people who can provide those things, and are seen as somehow intrinsically better than others at providing these things (would you honestly say a janitor is as likely as a Nobel prize-winning physician to make the right calls for deciding how to allocate resources for cancer research?; before you go down a particular path of argument, keep in mind that the physician is actually better at cleaning than the professional janitor), will, I say, unavoidably be seen as being intrinsically more valuable.

When you say that the experts will provide their special services/insights for the good of all, how is that different from the current situation? Haven't countless Nobel prize winners provided the world (ie, all) with the knowledge that has provided us all with better medicines, computers, understandings of the physical world, etc? Are you saying perhaps they won't be rewarded specially for what they provide? Most researchers and engineers make a modest living, even after they've come up with paradigm-shifting discoveries. Again, how is that different from what you're envisioning?

"Nowhere did Jim or did I say that those with skills will be allowed to make decisions for everyone else, decide how to allocate resources, etc."

Ok, then what will be the point of having experts? Are you going to say that someone who spent years studying mechanical engineering will have no more say on bridge safety than someone who spent all their studying time on Russian literature?

"Again, this speaks (in my opinion) to a problem of still viewing post-anarchist social change through the value-system-prism operating in society today. If we are incapable of avoiding people taking and exerting power over others, development of heirarchies, etc in any situation where some people develop particular skills beyond those of most other people, that means humans are incapable of any social structure without hierarchy."

I think what you are trying to say is that we can have experts living alongside non-experts, and somehow there won't be any kind of value judgement made whereby the expert is valued more highly than the non-expert. You may well be correct. But no, I'm not conceding the point. I stand by my assertion for the following reason: a logical idea which can be formed in someone's head, especially one which seems to fit observed data on a repeated basis, will have an excellent chance of becoming the predominant idea that guides that person's thinking. What am I talking about? If people continually observe person A providing insights or solutions to problems those people what to see addressed/resolved, and they see person B as consistently coming up with bogus "insights" or "solutions", they will start to form the idea that somehow A is in some way inherently predisposed to being better than B at providing these things that the people value. I'm not saying that idea these people have is true, I'm just saying they will eventually have that idea. And then the short-cut gets made. People tend to dwell on those things that they value. And so it's not a stretch to say that people will start saying that A is simply better than B. Think of the music you like to listen to vs the music you can't stand. A makes the music you like, B the latter. Music is all A and B ever do. It's their life, their expertise, if you will. To you, A is better than B. And in the case of bridge building, the subjectivity is non-existent. B always makes bridges that collapse. A's bridges always work perfectly.

What I'm saying is that for all practical purposes, it will be difficult to have people NOT form the idea that certain people are better than others if people are deemed to have a gradient of varying ability to provide things that society values.

And even if you don't buy my argument, you can't get around the fact that expertise (in the sense I outlined above) will lead to hierarchy simply because the experts will have a degree of control over the culture that non-experts won't (for the reasons I outlined above).

I'd like to add one other point. When studying a particular written proposition for the sake of determining its validity, does it not make sense to focus all of one's attention on the meaning of the words, on their inter-relations, and on the meaning of their inter-relations? Of course it does. What else could be considered? Well, the way society currently works is this: a considerable amount of focus is placed on the author of the proposition. And to a large extent, the history of the judgements made on that author's prior propositional statements is very much considered.

What I'm getting at is that it's ultimately problematic to pay any attention to the author of the proposition. Why? For several reasons. First, just because an author has made statements deemed valid or invalid in the past, doesn't mean their current statement will be as valid or invalid as their previous statements. Second, relying on that past history takes time away from looking at the validity of the proposition itself, which can lead to an inaccurate assessment of the validity of the current proposition.

So, as you can see, as one follows a logical course for evaluating propositions, the relevance of the proposition's author becomes negligible to non-existent.

And why not have things this way? Think about how wonderful the world would be if we focussed our attentions on what was being said rather than to any degree on who said it. Think about all of the new voices that could finally be heard. Think about the accuracy of the resulting analyses. Think about the absence of the ego problems that result from not following this path.

Think about it.

You are getting sleepy...

Just kidding. One more thing tho. I have noticed a lot of discussion (and imho time wasted) on griping about groups such as ANSWER or UFJP or even DAWN (sorry Jim) and how they often attempt to take credit for things etc etc. This isn't something unique to peace movements. It happens in all aspects of the culture. In academia, they call it "politics." And by "politics" they don't mean the legislative issues being dealt with in Washington DC. They mean the internal bickering about who's taking credit for what and who's trying to gain more power/influence than they "should" etc etc. It's a collossal waste of everyone's time. Why not get rid of it altogether? Why not just stop attaching names to ideas? Why not?

I agree to some extent with what you are saying in general about the way in which names can automatically block discussion/consideration/etc of ideas.

But I also realize that every single word we use is itself a sound to represent a thing, basically, and we use words to communicate so I'd say that I personally have nothing against the general existence of words that represent complex ideas since it allows us to discuss the idea/concept/etc with a general common frame of reference for it. I don't dismiss that problems can and do arise, especially in society as it exists today, but I also don't think we should overstate the problem as it relates to the existence of the words as opposed to how we as people react to them.

That's my common thread in my political thought on these matters -- we need to focus more on the fact that before we ever even get NEAR the point of the road that eventually will lead us to an anarchist society, we have to change a lot of the ways in which we think about ourselves, the world, others, etc etc. Rather than putting so much effort into figuring out what we will get rid of and limit, like words or names or experts, I feel it's much more important to focus on changing attitudes and overcoming the sick way we've all been socialized.

Now, as far as the issue of ANSWER et al, again I agree with you for the most part. The politics of "I said it first" or whatever is a waste of time, and pretty childish as well. But I also see that this is not a catch-all way to view the matter. With ANSWER, the issue is not simply them "stealing" credit, it's about the way they relate to the rest of the left, the manner in which they use their resources to bully and dominate by for example grabbing up all the permits in an area to prevent "rival" events, or issuing press releases denouncing other events literally based upon whether the event conflicts with their own scheduled events.

When ANSWER seeks to take credit for the hard work of grassroots people of color from oppressed communities, like they did with the immigration marches etc recently, that IS relevant and beyond the mere issue of bickering. All of this is a symptom of their obsession with trying to create a hierarchy on the left, to see which way the crowd is marching and then run to get at the front of it and convince everyone they are leading it. Traditionally, such white-led leftist groups always do this sort of thing and it always fractures the left and holds back any large broad-based movement.

When we seek to understand the failures of the left in the past to gain any mass following that is sustainable, we usually need look no further than the white left and specifically the most prominent white-leftist groups and we will find our culprit.

On the other matters about experts etc, I'll try to respond tomorrow, as I am still at work and it's late and that sucks so I'm trying to get finished working and get home so I can perhaps eat before I fall asleep. Solidarity.