I think either from Anarchy Radio or Free Radical Radio, I recall a media project I have unfortunately forgotten how to find on the internet.
The show had video if I remember correctly. I believe FRR interviewed him. It had a lot of humor and confrontational rant style to it. I think the guy had a hispanic sounding name. He had alter-ego(s) he named something like "the instigator". I'm not sure how deep the archives go on this show, but at least a dozen or so.
Sorry I can't remember more. Any ideas?
I am currently reading http://www.crimethinc.com/texts/r/democracy/ again to see the primary areas of disagreement I have while at the same time observing the many other positions held by others here. My definition of "maximalist" would be those that can't support the framework concepts proposed by Crimethinc AND can't accept the democratic framework as proposed by those that vote union.
I think most people are confused about anarchist uses of democracy. Just as the constitution of the United States has a bill of rights, so too does most any instance of democracy also need, implicit or explicit, understood common principles upon which all are expected to uphold. This is the foundation for all voluntary associations and an anarchist democracy is one that is voluntary, that focuses on direct action to make change and one that simplifies process to empower self-initiative. An anarchist democracy is one that can exist now and is one that can grow.
So, anarchy in the middle of the greatest empire the world has ever known has proven to of been thwarted and not capable of coming back as a force powerful on its own. The human animal can dream, can desire, but is also satisfied with relative autonomy and relating with others in informal hierarchies as well as within institutions. The maximalists often frown on the heavy leftism of those willing to accept a role for institutions or to view this struggle in political terms.
I'm usually just a lurker on anarchistnews for the articles, so hopefully I don't sound too much like someone who doesn't know anything about the culture here. I always feel uncomfortable about advertising shit like this, so I'll try not to do that. There's a wider discussion to be had here anyways about online anarchist spaces - or the apparent lack thereof, and whether they have any value.
Well, anon, this is a bit off the cuff, though long-ish. This is why I thought it better suited to the forum.
I may be mistaken but I do sense that it was JZ responding to me. It sounds so much like his wording and his tactic of trivializing the words of another via verbiage the other party never used, no matter how carefully worded it may have been. I've listened to his show and read a fair amount of his work (as well as others in the AP set) to pick out the tune. That logic = thinking, that joy = fun is simply another verse to his life-negating dirge.
I'm definitely for dismantling the state; and I have no use for police. They are instruments or state represson, only.
Jeremy Seabrook, writing in the first issue of the online e-journal "Globalization" demystifies some things about neocolonialism that I think strikes at the heart of our difficulties. Input invited!
does the author draw a false distinction between whether the question is philological or historical?
or why have humans come to be born and bred in bondage, anyway?
can "the public" be convinced of the Natural Order and the "unity of human needs" within "complete solidarity"?