Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00780)

At 01:45 PM 5/13/96 -0400, you wrote:
>In message <2.2.32.19960513073212.0069b708@mail.slip.net>, alexis
>dolgorukii <alexei@slip.net> writes
>>Even anarchic societies (a contradiction no?)
>>have an oligarchic ruling clique.
>
>Back in 1954 [sound if creaking bones] it was very clear that the London
>Anarchist Group (UK) was defintiely not led by a man called Richard
>Sansom - and membership was by invitation ...
>
>Alan :-\
>---------
>THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
>Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
>TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
>http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html
>
>Alan: The thing is: 1. An anarchic group, by definition, cannot ahve a
"leader".
                     2. An anarchic Group, by definition, cannot have "members".
                     3. An anarchic group, by definition, cannot be a "group".
       Most anarchists are simply relatively anti-social radicals, many of
them a confused combination of right-left shibboleths, and, based upon my
own experience of them, terribly elitist as well. Here in San Francisco we
are confronted by a delightful bookshop, a living contradiction in terms,
It's called "The Anarchist Collective". Anarchism cannot be viewed in a
positive light until we get past it's hostile phase.

alexis