> Jim writes about the classic Marx v Bakunin battle of > anarchism and intelligent socialism.
right. Though I prefer to use my own words rather than quoting any Master. > I can never disagree with Karl, because he was just too damn > smart. Never took a position based on his own interests and > fudged the rest. of course, he was wrong on some things (as are, I am sure, some of my interpretations of his work). > But in this particular battle of definitions, I agree with > all the Yoshies out there. They call "anarchism" what Mr. > Marx would call "democracy." I think it's useful to avoid mushing concepts together that way. I would distinguish between "democracy from below" (which I see Yoshie and I as advocating) and "democracy from above" (parliamentarism). > And, more than that, they are energized to do something. god, I wish I were. Los Angeles and mediocre Catholic academia are not good places for activism. Nor do the responsibilities of fatherhood encourage activism (at least with my kid). > My experiences, locally, have always been positive in terms > of political action. They "do things." Democrats never do things... Leading Democrats aren't "democrats." They're opportunists, careerists. Oh, I see: "Democrats" is capitalized because it's at the start of a sentence. Grass-roots small-d "democrats" do a lot of things. Pro-democracy movements (sometimes called progressive populism) are a major strain in left-of-center US politics (e.g., ACORN). In any event, I was talking about democracy as a basic political principle. We need such principles to guide our visions for what we want, along with our strategy and tactics. I don't see anarchists as providing those. Jim
