<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Why I am an Anarcho-Pluralist, Part Two</title>
	<atom:link href="http://attackthesystem.com/2009/04/why-i-am-an-anarcho-pluralist-part-two/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://attackthesystem.com/2009/04/why-i-am-an-anarcho-pluralist-part-two/</link>
	<description>Pan-secessionism against the empire</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Sep 2010 11:47:07 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Herschel Menton</title>
		<link>http://attackthesystem.com/2009/04/why-i-am-an-anarcho-pluralist-part-two/comment-page-1/#comment-2735</link>
		<dc:creator>Herschel Menton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Feb 2010 20:11:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://attackthesystem.com/?p=997#comment-2735</guid>
		<description>I totally agree - I wonder what Sarah Palin would write on her hand about all this? ;) I don&#039;t mind what she does as long as she keeps wearing skirts!!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I totally agree &#8211; I wonder what Sarah Palin would write on her hand about all this? <img src='http://attackthesystem.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' />  I don&#8217;t mind what she does as long as she keeps wearing skirts!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeremy</title>
		<link>http://attackthesystem.com/2009/04/why-i-am-an-anarcho-pluralist-part-two/comment-page-1/#comment-601</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeremy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2009 16:27:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://attackthesystem.com/?p=997#comment-601</guid>
		<description>With regards to the first question I asked, &quot;How do we define success&quot;, there&#039;s a different way of asking it that may be more useful: has there ever been a successful revolutionary / secessionist movement that only articulated a negative platform?  Is merely being against the state enough, or do we also need to unite around being &quot;for&quot; something as well?  In other words, is there historical evidence for the kind of ideologically-neutral anti-statism you&#039;re proposing, or is there perhaps a need to articulate a positive agenda?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>With regards to the first question I asked, &#8220;How do we define success&#8221;, there&#8217;s a different way of asking it that may be more useful: has there ever been a successful revolutionary / secessionist movement that only articulated a negative platform?  Is merely being against the state enough, or do we also need to unite around being &#8220;for&#8221; something as well?  In other words, is there historical evidence for the kind of ideologically-neutral anti-statism you&#8217;re proposing, or is there perhaps a need to articulate a positive agenda?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeremy</title>
		<link>http://attackthesystem.com/2009/04/why-i-am-an-anarcho-pluralist-part-two/comment-page-1/#comment-600</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeremy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2009 16:16:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://attackthesystem.com/?p=997#comment-600</guid>
		<description>Interesting article.

How do we evaluate progress towards the goal of decentralizing power?  This to me is a crucial problem: the coalition must be useful to these different interests.  How much of this anarcho-pluralist idea depends on actual subsidiarity vs. the symbolic dissolutions of the state and other centralized institutions as such?  The former seems much more fundamental but more slippery; the latter serves as a definite milepost, but could be superficial as well.

For example, let&#039;s say that the panarchist lobby achieves a significant amount of local autonomy for communities in America.  How would this be regarded if it did not involve the formal dissolution of the U.S.?  How would we be able to TELL that the decentralization meets the coalition&#039;s requirements?  Or would we require a formal renunciation of central authority to validate our mission?  I see a great deal of possible confusion occurring because preserving but weakening the central state could serve some coalition interests and not others.  I go back and forth on how important it is to smash the state vs. rendering it irrelevant.

It seems to me like the more diverse the cross-ideological coalition, the fuzzier the end goal is.  What does it mean for a particular ideological / ethnic / lifestyle group to have sufficient autonomy, and are there any attendant formalities to achieving that condition?  Otherwise, how do all parties determine their particularist interests are being met by the general mission?

There&#039;s another problem of achieving the big sort on terms that make sense to the anarcho-pluralist project.  How quickly could an even &quot;bigger sort&quot; occur, and how would we handle the quite likely situation where breaking up national state power does not coincide with the self-segregation of different political tendencies into distinct, homogeneous communities?  Decentralizing power right now with the current demographics would very likely just yield hundreds of little status quo Americas over the short and medium term.  How do we build popular support for a position that, essentially, breaks up existing communities filled with the non-ideologically motivated population?  If I don&#039;t give a shit about decentralizing power, I don&#039;t see why I&#039;d be interested in picking up and moving just because some dick comes to power in my community.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting article.</p>
<p>How do we evaluate progress towards the goal of decentralizing power?  This to me is a crucial problem: the coalition must be useful to these different interests.  How much of this anarcho-pluralist idea depends on actual subsidiarity vs. the symbolic dissolutions of the state and other centralized institutions as such?  The former seems much more fundamental but more slippery; the latter serves as a definite milepost, but could be superficial as well.</p>
<p>For example, let&#8217;s say that the panarchist lobby achieves a significant amount of local autonomy for communities in America.  How would this be regarded if it did not involve the formal dissolution of the U.S.?  How would we be able to TELL that the decentralization meets the coalition&#8217;s requirements?  Or would we require a formal renunciation of central authority to validate our mission?  I see a great deal of possible confusion occurring because preserving but weakening the central state could serve some coalition interests and not others.  I go back and forth on how important it is to smash the state vs. rendering it irrelevant.</p>
<p>It seems to me like the more diverse the cross-ideological coalition, the fuzzier the end goal is.  What does it mean for a particular ideological / ethnic / lifestyle group to have sufficient autonomy, and are there any attendant formalities to achieving that condition?  Otherwise, how do all parties determine their particularist interests are being met by the general mission?</p>
<p>There&#8217;s another problem of achieving the big sort on terms that make sense to the anarcho-pluralist project.  How quickly could an even &#8220;bigger sort&#8221; occur, and how would we handle the quite likely situation where breaking up national state power does not coincide with the self-segregation of different political tendencies into distinct, homogeneous communities?  Decentralizing power right now with the current demographics would very likely just yield hundreds of little status quo Americas over the short and medium term.  How do we build popular support for a position that, essentially, breaks up existing communities filled with the non-ideologically motivated population?  If I don&#8217;t give a shit about decentralizing power, I don&#8217;t see why I&#8217;d be interested in picking up and moving just because some dick comes to power in my community.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: News Briefs April 26-May 2/2009 &#124; www.new-right.org</title>
		<link>http://attackthesystem.com/2009/04/why-i-am-an-anarcho-pluralist-part-two/comment-page-1/#comment-584</link>
		<dc:creator>News Briefs April 26-May 2/2009 &#124; www.new-right.org</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2009 11:31:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://attackthesystem.com/?p=997#comment-584</guid>
		<description>[...] Why I am an Anarcho-Pluralist: Part Two, by Keith at AttacktheSystem.com. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Why I am an Anarcho-Pluralist: Part Two, by Keith at AttacktheSystem.com. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.260 seconds -->
