: DDN: Well, I've been told by several people that my political views are essentially Marxist. I'm not well read up on Marxism so its difficult for me to assess the accuracy of this label. If I had to align myself with any particular party at this point it would probably be the Greens. Perhaps I'm a Green Marxist? The majority of Greens consider themselves at least partially inspired by Marx. (A surprising number of Christians do to, by the way, ask Lark or any of the Lib. Theo Catholics.)
:I'm not moderate on ANYTHING as far as I can tell and hence have been labeled a radical, an extremist, and even an anarchist.
A sign of superior intelect, IMHO. anybody that's taking flack from all sides must be onto something useful!
: I tend to reject the radical and anarchist labels in favor of the "extremist" label being inclined to see the human condition as extreme and in need of correspondingly extreme measures.
Alright, so in what way(s) is eliminating centralized decision-making authority and arbitrary heirarchy (i.e. anachism) not "extreme?"
: I don't consider extreme measures to be "radical" ones if they are in response to extreme circumstances nor do I condone anarchy as a final solution to ANYTHING (although it certainly may have its place in a grander scheme).
Mightn't it be a solution to the problem of the monopolization of coercive force?
: I think humanity is suffering from a spiritual/intellectual crisis that transcends politics, sociology, and economics.
Agreed. So perhaps the solution must also question the validity of these decision-making heirarchies?
:Until this crisis is addressed (or allowed to be addressed) humanity, by definition, is, and will continue to be, a failure. By "failure" I mean that suffering will continue to be the rule instead of the exception. I support pretty much any political movement or cause that would signifigantly increase the probability that humanity will have a true spiritual and intellectual awakening.
Agreed again. The next question is do any of us have the authority to determine what "true spiritual and intellectual awakening" are for anyone other than ourselves?
:Modern, organized religion (particularly Christianity) is, at best, a cure that is worse than the disease. It serves primarily to stand in between humanity and divinity.
Even Robert is going to agree with you on this one.
:Technology promised us a freedom that would have (or could have) been highly condusive to an enviroment that promoted spiritual and intellectual evolution, but instead has been used mostly to subjegate the many to the whims and greedy desires of the few (fossil fuels as opposed to solar/wind power to site just one example).
True. The use to which technology has been put has often been questionable, but that clearly isn't the fault of the technology, but the fault of the users. Agreed?
: I feel strongly that we could and should establish a Utopian society on this planet and that a firmly rooted spiritual foundation is the primary prerequisite for such a society.
Once again, I bet Robert would be in full agreement. The question, then, is on what basis should this spiritual foundation be built? Robert will argue for Christianity. Others (you?) will argue against it. I only offer that it might be best to let each adult decide for her/himself, and then form and/or voluntarily join communities that support the same basic precepts. But of course I'm just a bomb-throwing anarchist. ;-)
:I see that there are some very specific institutions and activities that stand firmly in the way of humanities spiritual progress and I am rather militant in my approach as to how they should be dealt with. I think of these institutions as pillars supporting what I consider to be an evil and barbaric empire (with the US as its heart and cardiovascular system) that has a death grip on this planet and the souls that inhabit it.
Agreed, but is it wise to eliminat the spcific representatives of centralized decision-making authority, and simply replace them with new representatives of a new authority, or mightn't it be more condusive to freedom to eliminate the structure of institutionalized heirarchy altogether?
: Based on these beliefs, I feel that we could do a lot worse than to obliterate and replace the following:
: Public education (in its current form, particularly in the US).
: All fossil fuel industries.
: All destructive agricultural practices.
: US withdrawal from foreign nations and from the personal lives of US citizens (I speak here primarily of victimless crime legislation which is basically aimed at turning the US into one giant labor camp at our own phenomenal expense).
: The western medical establishment (accept for reattaching severed arms and legs).
: I would have us make what I think are pretty obvious substitutions for all of the above systems, alternatives that struggle 24-7 under the suffacating weight of evil, irresponsible, greed ridden capitalist empires:
: Community organized home schooling
Assuming the communities are voluntarily constructed, rather than based on the caprice of current location, OK, I can see this (althogh I still concede to SDF on education reform, as he's obviously spent some time thinking about the issue, and besides, he's a fellow Slug! {Cowell, 1994, FYI})
: Alternative energy technologies: wind, solar, cold fusion, etc.
Viable.
:
: Sustainable, decentralized agriculture: organic, biodynamic, community supported farming (CSFs).
Viable.
: Alternative medical technologies: Dietary approaches, Homeoapthy, Herbology, etc.
Problematic. Granted that most "illnesses" are environmentally (sensu lato) induced, and therefore the sickness industry does more harm than good, but those few remaining maladies that medical technology can assist, those raise ethical issues that will make a simple elimination of the medical establishment problematic. I'm not saying it can't or shouldn't be done, only that there exist some problematic repercussions from doing so.
: So how am I measuring up so far?
Well enough that the first pint is on me next time you visit Seattle.
: A few more clues: I'm a great admirer of Wilhelm Reich,
Fascinatig psychiatrist, and victim of an unwarranted and illegal smear campaign, but...well...not quite the most methodical of researchers.
: Howard Zinn,
Also very eloquent; took the historical establishment by the huevos and shook, hard, but the time was right for that, I suppose. A good guy.
:Zacharia Sithcin, John Judge, Eugene Debs,
I have questions about the whole gold standard approach, as it would be an attempt to legitimize monopolization of currency, but Debs was a very ethical man, so O.K.
:Louis Farakan
I have trouble with anti-semitism in general, and Black vs. Jew strikes me as a punch and Judy show with rich white males pulling the strings. Farakahn's other ideas intrigue me (although separatism is no more valid from the NOI than it is from the KKK). I get the sense that the man is trying a bit too hard to live up to Minister Malcolm. Still, he is clearly a man of principles, and I admire that.
:and Dennis Lee. I haven't owned a motor vehicle in nine years,
Good for you!
: I don't eat cows and pigs,
A friend of mine, a Buddhist monk, once asked me (when I told him I am a vegiterian) "If animals are our brothers, wy ca't we eat them?" (He was, of course, also a vegiterian...goddam Koans! ;-)
:I like women that are at least 12 years older than me and of dark skinned races, I read alot, I drink lots of beer and I'm bigger than a bread box. So what am I?
:
Deserving of at least the first pint, on me, next time you're in Seattle is what you are. By the way, you're also an anarchist. ;-)
-Floyd
