Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org

Neil · Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 6:23 pm Post subject:

That is basicaly the Precautionary principle which is not a bad thing if used in a small way, but is usually used as a Green veto over ever doing anything remotely new.

However in this particular case, while I think any catastrophic change highly improbable cooling appears considerably more likely in light of the lack of a sunspot cycle. Taking action to reduce warming in that case would be counterproductive.

In any case, as even the warmers will quietly admit, the Kyoto treaty, while costing £400 million a day, is not going to have a serious effect on CO2 & is being sold as a way to make us give up £4 billion/£40 billion or whatever next until the eco-fascists are satisfied or we freeze over (I know which I think will come first).

In any case, even if it were going to work, as Bjorn Lomberg has worked out, any credible costs of warming would be far less than the actual costs of fighting warming. If we want to spend the money infinitely better to spend it on providing Africans with clean water.

In any case there are a number of technological proposals to prevent warming. Here is an article in which I explain that the cheapest would solve the entire world problem, at least for a year, for 1/10th the cost of a windfarm on Lewis - & we still souldn't do it till warming has been proven

http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot....eering-politically-incorrect.html

I am entirely in favour of doing more research, so long as it isn't like the IPCC where you write the conclusions first & then complete looking at the evidence.

I am even more in favour (175% minimum) of developing a spacegoing civilisation since, among other things, the easiest place to control our climate from is orbit.

I'm going to have to not live up to your impression. I believe that I do understand not only the warming position but almost every other position the "environmentalist"s hold & that they are false & motivated not by a desire to help the environment, let alone its human inhabitants, but to drag the human race back the caves (as if they were the womb).

The potential of the human race is literally infinite, which I can see is a scary concept to many. I believe if the human species has a meaning it is to do our best to live up to our potential

_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 1093

Alasdair asked "Hasn't the debate moved on from global warming, to climate change"

The debate always WAS about climate change.

Yes, it was also about global warming, but the idea that it was ONLY about a warming effect was a misunderstanding by folk who didn't properly understand what was actually being said.

Yes, the basic premise was that there was at least an initial warming effect caused by human activity. However, the significant word there is an "initial" warming effect. It always was stressed that, while the precise effects of this might prove difficult to predict, we were likely to be in for a bumpy ride.

To give an example of what I mean, fourteen years ago, in 1994, at the University of Dundee, students of Environmental Science were being told by their professors (specialists in meteorology, oceanology, and several other relevant disciplines) that global warming was in fact happening. However, it was also being taught that, so far as us, here in Scotland, were concerned, there was no certainty about this meaning we would actually feel warmer. In fact, there was a very good chance we could feel colder. The reason for this was that if warming melted some of the Greenland ice cap, huge amounts of colder meltwater entering the North Atlantic could disrupt the Gulf Stream/North Atlantic Current.

Ten years after this was being taught at Dundee University, an extreme version of what that possibility could mean was portrayed in the film "The Day After Tomorrow" (2004). It was an extreme version, far more rapid and far more drastic than anything that any environmental scientist was actually predicting, but, nevertheless, it did reflect widespread scientific thinking in suggesting that the effects of global climate change INITIATED by human-induced warming could prove surprising.

Alasdair says "I would contend that 'our' understanding of weather as a science is really very limited and fairly undeveloped as things currently stand and that evidence on either side of the arguement is really fairly difficult to draw any conclusions from".

That implies that there are only two "sides" to the argument. I would say that there is constant argument amongst scientists, and from more than two different positions, but, as long as this is conducted on a rational level, argument is a good thing.

What is not a good thing is when folk start throwing around words like "fascist", "Nazi", etc etc, and suggesting that the idea of human-induced climate change is all part of some huge conspiracy. It is virtually impossible to have a rational discussion in that sort of atmosphere.

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 1093

Cado wrote (about Neil) "my impression is that you are trying to understand the issue - rather than take a particular position on the issue".

That is certainly not the impression I get!

We are being told that there is some sort of global conspiracy, and that anybody who takes a different view from Neil is a "fascist". These are not the words of somebody who is "trying to understand the issue, rather than take a particular position on the issue".

Neil · Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 10:26 am Post subject:

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 1093

I wrote "fourteen years ago, in 1994, at the University of Dundee, students of Environmental Science were being told by their professors (specialists in meteorology, oceanology, and several other relevant disciplines) that global warming was in fact happening. However, it was also being taught that, so far as us, here in Scotland, were concerned, there was no certainty about this meaning we would actually feel warmer. In fact, there was a very good chance we could feel colder. The reason for this was that if warming melted some of the Greenland ice cap, huge amounts of colder meltwater entering the North Atlantic could disrupt the Gulf Stream/North Atlantic Current. Ten years after this was being taught at Dundee University, an extreme version of what that possibility could mean was portrayed in the film 'The Day After Tomorrow' (2004). It WAS an extreme version, far more rapid and far more drastic than anything that any environmental scientist was actually predicting, but, nevertheless, it did reflect widespread scientific thinking in suggesting that the effects of global climate change INITIATED by human-induced warming could prove surprising".

Neil commented "this is the level of 'scientific' discourse we get from the eco-fascists".

The level of discourse that we get from Neil is that he has referred to me personally as a fascist, a Nazi, etc etc etc. Quite a lot of folk on this forum know me personally, and I have had disagreements about various different things with all of them. But they would be more likely to describe me as "anarchist" (that is, as someone whose refusal to accept even legitimate and necessary authority they consider excessive) than as "fascist" (that is, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, a supporter of an authoritarian right-wing nationalist system of government).

To recap: Alasdair asked "Hasn't the debate moved on from global warming, to climate change".

My answer was "The debate always WAS about climate change".

I cited what was being taught on Environmental Science courses at Dundee University fourteen years ago as evidence of this. That sensationalised film, which appeared ten years later, and which I called an extreme version, far more rapid and far more drastic than anything any environmental scientist was actually predicting, "nevertheless did reflect widespread scientific thinking in suggesting that the effects of global climate change INITIATED by human-induced warming could prove surprising".

The point is not that the film was "scientific", it certainly wasn't. The point is that it did at least accurately reflect one thing that environmental scientists had been saying for many, many years, namely, that some of the effects of human-induced climate change could prove surprising. In this sense, to say, a Alasdair did, that the debate "has moved on from global warming to climate change" is not accurate, because it always WAS about disruption of climate patterns arising out of human-induced activity. To think otherwise is simply to misunderstand what was being said.

Neil denies that he has a "conspiracy" view of the world, but his own writings continue to prove the truth of this. For instance, his description of me as being "typical of the eco-fascist movement - a bunch of know-nothing child murdering barbarian savages who don't understand civilisation & wouldn't like it if they did".

It is impossible to have a serious discussion with such a conspiracy nut.

Neil · Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 11:41 am Post subject:

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 1093

Neil wrote that I claim to be an anarchist.

Actually, that’s not strictly true. What I said was that there are quite a few folk who describe me in these terms. As for me, what I claim to be is Dave Coull.

“claiming instead to be an anarchist. It is equally clear he knows nothing about the history & philosophy of anarchism”.

ENEMIES OF THE STATE
by Dave Coull
(an essay on the history of anarchism written in 1997)

The thoughtful student of history learns to take nothing for granted. Received "wisdom" is there to be questioned. Much of what has passed for "history" concerns the activities of kings and lords, and, later, those of professional politicians; much of what has passed for "history" is about the ruling class - about "statesmen". Much history is about states ; and the more that we learn about the history of states, the less loveable the state as an institution seems. There have been many statesmen/politicians who claimed to want to minimise the state. But has there been a historical movement which has sought the complete abolition of all states, both existing and potential, everywhere ? Has there been more than one such movement? Whether singular or plural, how should we describe such a phenomenon? Finally, does such a movement have a future? The intention of this essay is to seek to show that there has indeed been such a movement; that there still is such a movement; that "movement" - singular, not plural - is the appropriate way to describe this phenomenon; that those who are actively involved in this movement refer to it as "the anarchist movement"; and that the confidence with which this movement regards its future is not totally without foundation.

You can find movements with anti-state aspects to them in many different periods of history and in many different cultures: for instance, in ancient Greece, in Taoism, in the history of Buddhism, in early Christianity and in Christian "heresies" of the Middle Ages and 'The English Revolution'; but fully fledged anarchism as a thorough-going alternative world view involving complete rejection of all existing and all possible states first appears in the Nineteenth Century, and has a continuing existence from then on.

The English philosopher William Godwin put forward an anarchist viewpoint in his Enquiry Concerning Political Justice and its Influence on General Virtue and Happiness (1793) but in Godwin's day the word "anarchist" only had a pejorative meaning. Godwin's son-in-law, the poet Shelley, also advanced what would now be considered anarchistic views, yet shied away from the self-description "anarchist". "The word anarchy comes from the Greek and its literal meaning is without government : the condition of a people who live without a constituted authority, without government."1 In the time of Godwin and of Shelley, it was assumed that such a "condition" would automatically be equivalent to chaos.

The first person who actually said "I am an anarchist" was the Frenchman Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1840. " 'I understand, you are being satirical at the expense of government.' Not in the least. I have just given you my considered and serious profession of faith. Although I am a strong supporter of order, I am in the fullest sense of the term an anarchist."2 In a great tirade expressing the anarchist attitude towards the state, Proudhon fumed "To be governed means that at every move,operation or transaction one is noted, registered, entered in a census, taxed, stamped,priced, assessed, patented, licensed, authorised, recommended, admonished, reformed.....exploited, monopolised, extorted, pressured, mystified, robbed; all in the name of public utility and the general good." 3

As well as being against the state in all its forms, Proudhon was (like all anarchists) against capitalism. His most famous saying was "property is theft".By this Proudhon meant property in a capitalistic sense. Like most anarchists ,he did not oppose all private possessions, but only those which were necessarily exploitative of other people. It was okay to own a plough; but to own the factory which produces ploughs was to be a capitalist. To begin with, Karl Marx was a fan of Proudhon, hailing him as "the proletariat become conscious of itself";but later they quarrelled, and Marx called Proudhon "petit bourgeois". This curious change from "proletarian" to "petit bourgeois" had nothing to do with class analysis, and everything to do with the fact that Proudhon opposed Marx on the question of the state ! "The communists in general are under a strange illusion: fanatics of state power, they claim that they can use the state authority to ensure, by methods of restitution, the well being of the workers who created the collective wealth. As if the individual came into existence after society, and not society after the individual." 4

Once Proudhon had breached the taboo on the word "anarchist", many other libertarian-minded people in and around the fledgling socialist and working class movements also started to describe themselves as such. These people were not just philosophers, but men (and women) of action. Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, and many thousands of less well-known anarchists would all see the insides of various states' jails.
Proudhon expressed some unpleasant prejudices which would be unacceptable today; so did Bakunin. But then, Karl Marx's son-in-law Paul Lafargue, who was one-sixteenth Afro-Cuban, had to put up with constantly being called "*****" and "gorilla" by Marx. 5 When Lafargue showed some interest in Proudhon's, rather than Marx's, ideas, Marx commented on the need to "beat some sense into that thick Creole skull of his".6

To anarchists, the failings of supposedly "great" anarchists are merely a source of amusement; while to Marxists, criticism of the great prophets can undermine faith in their religion! Like everyone else, anarchists are the imperfect products of this society; however, as Martha Ackelsberg points out : "Along with contemporary feminists, anarchists insist that those who are defined by others have great difficulty defining themselves". 7

One of the most misunderstood of anarchist writers is the arch-individualist Max Stirner. Here is Max Nettlau on Stirner : "I have elsewhere published some notes to support my judgement of Max Stirner (in Vorfrühling der Anarchie pp. 169-173).His thinking, in substance, was eminently socialist. He wanted the social revolution, but, since he was sincerely anarchist, his so-called 'egoism' represented the protection,the defence which he considered it was necessary to adopt against authoritarian socialism and any statism that the authoritarians might infuse into socialism. His 'egoism' is individual initiative. His 'Verein' is the free association which accomplishes a purpose but which is not converted into an organisation or society. His method is eminently disobedience, the individual and collective negation of authority, and a voluntary association according to what a situation may need. It is the free life as against the life which is controlled and ordered by the usurpers of property and authority." 8

Stirner's "The Ego and Its Own" is an anarchist classic, but Stirner himself, while certainly part of the movement, was not a central player. In contrast, Mikhail Bakunin became a formidable opponent both of all existing states and of the Marxist alternative to them. He led the opposition to Karl Marx in the International Working Men's Association, and, with the other anarchists, was expelled from the International as a result. Very much the man of action, Bakunin only wrote in response to things that other people said, and he wrote articles or pamphlets, not books; yet long after his death, Bakunin's writings would influence the development of the anarchist movements in Spain and South America; and during the resurgence of interest in anarchism of the 1960s, Bakunin was the most influential thinker. However, we must again stress that anarchists are not Bakuninists (as we can be sure Bakunin would have been the first to agree).

Bakunin's attitude towards the state was : "The State denotes violence, oppression, exploitation, and injustice raised into a system and made into the cornerstone of the existence of any society. The State never had and never will have any morality. Its morality and only justice is the supreme interest of self-preservation and almighty power - an interest before which all humanity has to kneel in worship. The State is the complete negation of humanity, a double negation: the opposite of human freedom and justice, and the violent breach of the universal solidarity of the human race." 9 Bakunin's alternative to the state was libertarian socialism, which for him was synonymous with anarchy : "Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice, and Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality". 10

Another Russian who had considerable influence on the anarchist movement was Pyotr Kropotkin. As well as being a revolutionary anarchist, Kropotkin was a geographer/environmental scientist. "It was Darwin himself, said Kropotkin, who had shown that 'sociability' conferred an important evolutionary advantage. Therefore Thomas Huxley's insistence that mankind must struggle against a harsh,competitive 'law of nature' was unnecessary. To Kropotkin, it was social co-operation that gave a species its competitive edge. As he grew older, Kropotkin became an anarchist-nihilist, doing everything he could to undermine a social system he saw as unjust, inhumane and 'unnatural'." 11 After spells in Russian and French prisons, Kropotkin moved to London in 1886, where he helped set up the Freedom Press Group, which still exists today.

A century after being set up by Kropotkin, Freedom Press republished his essay on The State , which concludes :
"Either the State for ever, crushing individual and local life, taking over in all fields of human activity, bringing with it its wars and its domestic struggles for power, its palace revolutions which only replace one tyrant by another, and inevitably at the end of this development there is.....death! Or the destruction of States, and new life starting again in thousands of centres on the principle of the lively initiative of the individual and groups and that of free agreement. The choice lies with you !" 12

Despite having seen that the State was the bringer of war, Kropotkin was disastrously wrong about the First World War, in effect supporting the allies against Germany, and allowing the nationalistic press in both Britain and France to crow "even the anarchists say our cause is just". Yet in fact the vast majority of anarchists disagreed with Kropotkin and opposed the war. Prominent amongst opponents of the war was Errico Malatesta, the great Italian anarchist. Having fled South America with most of the governments of that continent pursuing him, Malatesta spent some years in London, where he met Kropotkin. During sixty years as an active anarchist, Malatesta wrote many articles and pamphlets. Unlike Kropotkin, between earning his living as an electrician and being involved in revolutionary activity, Malatesta never had time to write a book; yet nobody has ever had more influence on the international anarchist movement. "Uniting his theory and action with rare consistency, he combined idealism with common sense, philosophical rigour with practical experience." 13

Since we are still living in a world of states, by definition, there has never been a successful anarchist revolution. But four years after Malatesta's death came one of the closest things to it, the Catalan Revolution of 1936. Here is George Orwell's 'Homage to Catalonia' : "I had come to Spain with some notion of writing newspaper articles, but I had joined the militia almost immediately, because at that time and in that atmosphere it seemed the only conceivable thing to do.The Anarchists were still in virtual control of Catalonia and the revolution was in full swing". 14 Spain is one of a handful of countries (so far) where anarchism achieved the status of a mass movement, through the FAI (Federación Anarquista Ibérica) and the anarcho-syndicalist union CNT (Confederación Nacional del Trabajo).

Here is a report of the CNT congress of 1936 : "Tolerance of diversity was one of the keynotes of the Congress. Every attempt was made to incorporate the many shades of anarchist opinion, from the collectivist to the individualist. It was recognised that the communes would take on many different forms, and opponents of industrial technology and advocates of nudism would be free to create their own" 15

This spirit of tolerance of diversity amongst anarchists continues to this day, as those of us who attended the Glasgow Anarchist Summer Schools of 1993 and 1996 can testify. While most emphatically not claiming any anarchist equivalent of "apostolic succession", it is a fact that this writer first came in contact with active anarchists in 1963, and came to know such veterans as Tom Brown and Albert Meltzer quite well; they knew Emma Goldman, Emma knew Malatesta, Malatesta knew Kropotkin, Kropotkin knew Bakunin, and Bakunin knew Proudhon; so the historical continuity of the anarchist movement is complete. Some of those who organised the campaign of non-payment of the poll tax, and who rioted against Margaret Thatcher's "flagship policy" in 1990, were not a "new" anarchist movement; they were the same one !

Of course, anarchist groups and organisations come and go; but the movement has a continuing existence. "A libertarian organisation is not some tool acting in obedience to orders emanating from on high or from some central point, but rather a theater for the implementation of mutual aid and a way of blending individual endeavours, so as to bestow upon them, in so doing, greater social impact. Should that organisation be permanent, ad hoc, specific or broadly-based ? Let us answer with a statement of the obvious : it all depends on the aim." 16

The anarchist movement in Scotland dates back to around 1880, when some French refugees from the post-Paris Commune repression settled in Glasgow, and one Frenchman set up home with a Scottish woman with the surname MacTavish, and their flat in London Road became the focus of the first Glasgow Anarchist Group. While we can speak of "the anarchist movement in Scotland" or "the anarchist movement in Argentina", the movement has from its very beginnings always been consciously and deliberately internationalist. Sometimes communication has been difficult, but at all times anarchists have seen themselves as being part of one movement. Today, anarchists are organising internationally via the internet, through various groupings such as the Anarchy-List (open to absolutely anyone) and the Organise-List (not quite so open). The 1997 speaking tour of many European cities (including Dundee), by the black American revolutionary anarchist Lorenzo Komboa Ervin, was arranged through the Organise-List.

Recently, there has been some discussion on "History of Anarchism" on the Anarchy-List. There was general agreement that Peter Marshall's Demanding the Impossible is the best history of anarchism - "far better than Woodcock's Anarchism , and better referenced, too"; and more up to date than, and certainly easier to read than, Max Nettlau's monumental 9-volume History of Anarchism ! Marshall's book is "an excellent resource - until such time as activists can write their own history - which may be easier with the net". 17

Another recent discussion on the Anarchy-List, involving people from many countries, has concerned the American anarcho-socialist Noam Chomsky's ideas on "expanding the floor of the cage". 18 We know the welfare state is a cage; but removing the bars while we are weak just invites the capitalist wolves to dinner. We should make living space for ourselves by "expanding the floor of the cage", until such time as we are strong enough to tear down the bars and deal with the wolves. Some anarchists agree with Chomsky; many disagree; and some just dislike Chomsky because he has become too prominent.

But, it may be objected, so far we have only considered "left-wing" or socialistic anarchists. Even arch-individualists like Stirner turn out to be in favour of solidarity and mutual aid. What about other forms of anarchism ?
What other forms of anarchism ? Oh, there are many variations, but,
essentially, we have now described the historical anarchist movement - rebels who are opposed to the state and to all forms of authority, including the authority of the capitalist boss. What, it may be objected, about "anarcho-capitalists" like David Friedman and Murray Rothbard ? The answer is that they are not anarchists. Their ideas are really those of the so-called minimal state - a state which always turns out, on closer examination, to be not-so-minimal-after-all . Peter Marshall says "Anarcho-capitalism overlooks the egalitarian implications of traditional individualist anarchists like Spooner and Tucker. In fact, few anarchists would accept the 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp." 19 It should be added that anarchists throughout the world, whether they call themselves individualist-anarchists, anarchist-communists, anarcho-syndicalists, or just plain anarchists, are virtually unanimous in regarding the so-called anarcho-capitalists, not as friend or allies, not as fellow travellers along the road to anarchy, but as capitalists first, foremost, and always, and therefore as the sworn enemies of anarchy. The "anarcho"-capitalists' obsession with protection of property rights means that they are prepared to defend the legalistic "rights" of the rich, so they have to think in terms of "law and order"; they have to come up with some means of defending the indefensible, and essentially that means the state. Their "minimal state" would lock up the true anarchists who would be seeking to take the opportunity of a weak state to expropriate the capitalistic property of the rich.

The so-called "anarcho"-capitalists are latter-day frauds and charlatans who pretend to some spurious connection with historical anarchism in order to give a false impression of being libertarians who oppose the state. Financially, the "anarcho"-capitalists are quite rich, especially in the USA, and can well afford to spread their misrepresentations ; but in terms of numbers, they are insignificant.The anarchist movement has historically shown itself capable of becoming, in some countries, during favourable circumstances, a mass movement; that could never be said about the "anarcho"-capitalists.

This brief look at the history of anarchism shows that a movement of principled opposition to the State - to all states, and to all possible states - first appeared in the Nineteenth Century. Though there were many religious and other movements with anti-state aspects to them in earlier centuries, these can be seen as preludes to anarchism. Since its beginning, the anarchist movement has been, as well as anti-State, also anti-capitalist ; indeed , anti- all forms of authority ; and since its beginning the movement has been internationalist.

There are many different groups and factions within the anarchist movement - sometimes it can seem there are as many anarchisms as there are anarchists - but they all consider themselves to be part of one movement. "Movement" is also the correct term for non-anarchists to use, because, even if there might appear to be little actual "motion" for considerable periods of time, nevertheless, the word fits better than any other. The anarchist movement is not just a "school" of philosophical or political thought, but the sum of all those who actively seek, individually and collectively, to put that thought into practice. Nor is the anarchist movement a political "party" in the sense that the SNP or the Liberal Democrats are parties, because it does not seek governmental power, it does not have leaders, and it does not have a manifesto.

As to the future, with the failure of Marxist communism (as predicted by Bakunin as long ago as 1870), the greatest challenge to the untrammelled power of the capitalistic states comes from the anarchist movement. Anarchists are constantly adapting to changing circumstances, have established a formidable intellectual and organisational presence on the internet, and are the fiercest opponents of all attempts to control the net. The new International which is evolving consists not just of talk, but of action too, for it consists of activists involved in a wide variety of struggles. While a census is of course quite impossible (one hundred per cent non-co-operation guaranteed) there are probably more anarchists world-wide today than at any previous time in history. In short, people in the anarchist movement feel that they have some reasons for looking to the future with a certain amount of confidence. Anarchists are proud of the fact that, at all times, in all countries, they are "enemies of the state" . So far as they are concerned , history most definitely remains (to quote the title of a 1990s Class War pamphlet) "Unfinished Business" .

Footnotes to “Enemies of The State”

1. Errico Malatesta, Anarchy, (London : Freedom Press, 1974), p. 11.
2. Pierre Joseph Proudhon, Stewart Edwards (ed.), translation Elizabeth Fraser, Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, (London : Macmillan, 1969), p. 88.
3. Daniel Guerin (quoting from Proudhon's "Idée Générale de la Révolution au 19ieme Siècle") Anarchism : From Theory to Practice, (New York : Monthly Review Press, 1970), pp. 15-16.
4. Edward Hyams, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon : His Revolutionary Life, Mind and Works, (London : John Murray, 1979), pp. 85-86.
5. Robert Payne, Marx, (London : W.H. Allen, 1968), p. 391.
6. Franz Mehring, Karl Marx : The Story of His Life, (London : Allen and Unwin, 1951), p. 345.
7. Martha Ackelsberg, Free Women of Spain : Anarchism and the Struggle for the Emancipation of Women, (Bloomington : Indiana University Press, 1991), p. 20.
8. Max Nettlau, A Short History of Anarchism, (London : Freedom Press, 1996), pp. 54-55.
9. Michael Bakunin (ed. G.P. Maximoff), The Political Philosophy of Bakunin: Scientific Anarchism, (New York : Free Press, 1953), p. 224.
10. Michael Bakunin (as above, pp. 373, 269)
11. Richard Milner, The Encyclopaedia of Evolution : Humanity's Search for its Origins, (New York , Oxford : Facts on File, 1990), p. 259.
12. Peter Kropotkin, The State : Its Historic Role, (London : Freedom Press, 1987),p. 56.

13. Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible : A History of Anarchism, (London : Fontana Press, 1993), p. 361.

14. George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia, (London : Secker & Warburg, 1967), p. 2.
15. Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible : A History of Anarchism, (London : Fontana Press, 1993), p. 460.

16. Alexandre Skirda, Autonomie Individuelle et Force Collective : Les Anarchistes et L'Organisation de Proudhon a Nos Jours (Paris : Skirda, 1987) Chapter 20.

17. David Barsamian, "Expanding the Floor of the Cage : An Interview with Noam Chomsky"from the pages of Z magazine , available on-line at:
http://www.lol.shareworld.com/zmag/articles/mar97barchom.htm
18. Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible : A History of Anarchism,(London : Fontana Press, 1993) 565.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ackelsberg, Martha
Free Women of Spain : Anarchism and the Struggle for the Emancipation of Women
Bloomington : Indiana University Press, 1991.
Bakunin, Michael (ed. G.P. Maximoff)
The Political Philosophy of Bakunin : Scientific Anarchism
New York : Free Press, 1953.
Barsamian, David
"Expanding the Floor of the Cage: An Interview with Noam Chomsky"
Z Mag (March 97)
Boston : Z Magazine, 1997.
Godwin, William
An Enquiry Concerning Political Justice
and its Influence on General Virtue and Happiness
London : G.G. & J. Priestley, 1793.
Goldman, Emma
Anarchism and Other Essays
New York : Dover, 1969.
Guerin, Daniel
Anarchism : From Theory to Practice
New York : Monthly Review Press, 1970.
Hyams, Edward
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon : His Revolutionary Life, Mind and Works
London : John Murray, 1979.
Kropotkin, Peter
The State : Its Historic Role
London : Freedom Press, 1987.
Malatesta, Errico
Anarchy
London : Freedom Press, 1974.
Marshall, Peter
Demanding the Impossible : A History of Anarchism
London : Fontana Press, 1993.
Mehring, Franz
Karl Marx : The Story of His Life
London : Allen & Unwin, 1951.
Meltzer, Albert
The Anarchists in London, 1935-1955
Sanday, Orkney : Cienfuegos Press, 1976.
Milner, Richard
The Encyclopaedia of Evolution : Humanity's Search for its Origins
New York, Oxford : Facts on File, 1990.
Nettlau, Max
A Short History of Anarchism
London : Freedom Press, 1996.
Orwell, George
Homage to Catalonia
London : Secker & Warburg, 1967.
Payne, Robert
Marx
London : W.H. Allen, 1968.
Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph (ed. Stewart Edwards, trans. Elizabeth Fraser)
Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
London : Macmillan, 1969.
Rothbard, Murray N.
For a New Liberty : The Libertarian Manifesto
New York : Collier, 1978.
Skirda, Alexandre
Autonomie Individuelle et Force Collective :
Les Anarchistes et L'Organisation de Proudhon a Nos Jours
Paris : Skirda, 1987.
Stirner, Max (trans. Steven T. Byington)
The Ego and its Own
London : Rebel Press, 1982.
Woodcock, George
Anarchism : A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements

Neil · Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 2:05 pm Post subject:

Fair enough. I will even acknowledge that I checked & Google shows your name on it when previously published.http://www.geocities.com/djwatermelon/Politics/enemies.htm

A trfle dry for my tastes - just a recitation without any conclusions or personal thoughts but at least that shows you can do facts when you feel they won't destroy your case.

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 1093

Neil wrote “I will even acknowledge that I checked & Google shows your name on it when previously published."
http://www.geocities.com/djwatermelon/Politics/enemies.htm

That wasn’t the first publication of it, I think that’s the website of some guy in Australia, or it might have been New Zealand, who asked my permission to reproduce my essay on his website.

“A trifle dry for my tastes”.

And mine.

But then, academic essays written as part of a history degree course, and within the constraints laid down as part of that history degree course, usually are.

“You must be the first anarchist”

The only thing I claim to be is Dave Coull. It’s other people who describe me as an anarchist.

“not to believe the state is conspiring against us”

Conspiracies do happen. For instance, it’s a statement of fact that Guy Fawkes and others conspired to blow up the House of Lords during the state opening of parliament, at a time when King James the Sixth, his wife, and family, and all the assembled bigshots, would be there. However, although it is a fact that conspiracies do exist, that doesn’t prove that any PARTICULAR conspiracy exists.

A sensible person looks at the evidence and reaches a rational conclusion as to whether or not, in a particular instance, conspiracy is a significant part of the explanation for events, or not.

A conspiracy nut is somebody who is biased towards seeing conspiracy, on little or no evidence, even where there are perfectly rational explanations for events without hypothesising a conspiracy, and who is suspicious of anybody that contradicts their conspiratorial view of things.

By your own admission, you regard me as part of a “fascist” or “Nazi” conspiracy. That is just plain nuts. Since you have clearly shown yourself to be a conspiracy nut, there isn’t much point in trying to reason with you.

Neil · Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 5:47 pm Post subject:

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 1093

Neil wrote "I regard you as a fascist" and also, apparently because of something to do with DDT, "as a Nazi".

Like I said, there's no point in trying to reason with somebody who is so clearly nuts. All I can do is to continue to point out to anybody else who might happen to read this that the guy is nuts.

Like various other substances, I am vaguely aware of DDT as something with a bad reputation. However, I don't really know very much about it. I have never used this substance. I have never supplied this substance to anybody else to use. On the other hand, I have never tried to stop anybody else from using this substance, and I have never tried to prevent anybody else from supplying this substance. In short, I have never in all of my sixty seven years of life had anything at all to do with this substance in any way, shape, or form whatsoever, and I have never mentioned it in anything that I have ever written, until now, in response to this latest piece of sheer nuttiness from Neil.

Neil · Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 11:27 am Post subject:

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 1093

The follower of Guru Mencken who goes under the name Neil refers to me as liar, fascist, Nazi & barbarian.

Like I said, the guy is just plain nuts.

We are now on the twelfth, or is it the thirteenth, page of this so-called "discussion", and other folk who were making reasoned contributions on the earlier pages have stopped posting; not because Neil has "won" the argument, or anything even remotely like that, but simply because there is no point in continuing to attempt reasoned discussion with such an utter nutter. I wasn't really following the earlier discussion under this topic heading properly, or I would have noticed that a quite lot of other folk realised the pointlessness of trying to reason with the nutter sooner than I did. As Holebender said "Now I remember why I undertook never to respond to Neil some time last year - he's a dick".

I have more interesting things to do with my time, so I am out of this now, and nutty Neil will probably have the last word. But if anybody should think that proves something, I would reccomend taking a look through the previous discussion.

Neil · Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 2:56 pm Post subject:

So come & gone without at any time even trying to discuss a factual point, or he boasted, even look at them.

Typical
_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken

Cado · I Love 'Our Scotland' Joined: 14 May 2006 Posts: 283

Neil, the only State conspiracy I was ever aware of was one in ensured there was a reasonble amount of night clubs, dens of inequity, happy pills, music, freedom to make merry and not worry about who or what was likely to be stalking their kids etc etc - based on the basic, commen sense principal that a happy, safe, positive population is unlikly to be a terrified, revolutionary one constantly behaving like rats in a bag.

However, throw into that pot virtually every other 'conspiracy' on the go - each trying to out do one another - each trying to ensure support for their cause, each trying to swing things their way, you've ultimately got

Anarchy in the UK.

Its nothing new - as long as the Parliamentarians can keep their heads clear then we've got nothing to worry about.

I'll rephrase that - as long as they don't go out of their way to prevent or cause what I mentioned in the top paragraph - and simply leave it to the cops on the ground - then we've got nothing to worry about.

Okay - as long as issues relating to the first paragraph generally don't go beyond District Court level and fines - we've got nothing to worry about.

In fact - as long as the overwhelming bulk of 'fun' related offences are basically nothing more than district court fines etc - then if we've got any problem with the Police - then those 'in the know' will quickly find out and be able to pass the info back up the chain.

That way - if no one is getting done - then we know we have a problem.
If everyone is getting done - we know we have a problem.

Neil · Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 9:45 am Post subject:

Cado · I Love 'Our Scotland' Joined: 14 May 2006 Posts: 283

Neil · Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 4:46 pm Post subject:

Cado · I Love 'Our Scotland' Joined: 14 May 2006 Posts: 283

Cado · I Love 'Our Scotland' Joined: 14 May 2006 Posts: 283

[quote="Cado"]