Re: [Marxism] evolution

["Barry Brooks" <durable@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The past wasn't designed, but the future must be.

Leadership in some occult form must exist in any movement. The refusal
to accept government, a possibly accountable force, just leaves
the unavoidable use of force to outlaws. They may be warlords, the local bully,
your big brother, the ruling class, or fake democracy, it doesn't matter. Any
form of leadership that is unaccountable is bad, but accountable leadership
is trying to evolve, but evolution is too slow. We need accountable leaders
now.

Anarchists can't have a leader, by definition, so they must try to
function with an limitation on their movement. Aren't they unlikely to
be prepared to make the next move after they convert the
whole world to their views? Isn't having a leader required to have a
functional organization, or a functional government? Can we drive
the bus by committee? One driver is best, but the passengers should
choose the destination.

Barry

>Seeing Mike's post reminded me I wanted to recommend a piece in this
>week's Science Times on how biologists can learn from physicists' in
>arguing in favor of evolution; i.e., that evolution is a science --
>which "intelligent" design is not -- because like physics it's always
>open to new and better theories or refinements of old theories.
>Which, of course, real Marxism is as well...
>
>http://nytimes.com/2005/07/05/science/05essa.html
>
>
>-- Mike Friedman <mikedf@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Doesn't this position on Cuba have something in common with the ISO's
>position -- noted by Carlos -- of refusing to accept leadership in
>movements, of preferring to remain in the opposition? It's an
>anarchist position, for sure.
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Marxism mailing list
>Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism




_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism