Thanks Michel and Kevin, perhaps I felt like finding out how to handle such kind of challenging situation, not only one a one to one basis conversation as when hitch hiking, but between larger frameworks of people finding overlapping fields of interest ( whether or not there is an agreement on the approach ). How much depends on communication ? What is it like "on some other side" ? I realize that different approaches of some kind of political spectrum seem to use very similar approaches. How much is played on "fear" ? How much is played on "blaming" ? On victimizing ? What happens where there is increased understanding ? What happens when there is increased "empathy", or even when there is a potential for mutual respect ? What happens when feelings on both sides are listened to ? Or even in the case of not specifically trying reconciliation, how to use the game the other is playing in a way that goes in the direction of the , at first, potentially opposed approach ? Is there a non-violent possible approach, even if the other party may not be intentionally developing a non-violent approach to communication ? And how much does public image play on this ? "The Yes Men" approach seems interesting... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Yes_Men http://theyesmen.org/lab <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Yes_Men>yet did not fully go into depth in understanding its effects. Increased resistance ? Or greater communication ? More public awareness ? And for whom ? Is it possible to talk to the audience of some , at first, apparently opposing approach ? Is it possible to use their discourse as to lead and open a multi-perspectival approach ? So it was about checking if any of us has some experience in this ... ? On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Kevin Carson < [email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 7:54 AM, Dante-Gabryell Monson <[email protected]> wrote:
Has any one of you experience in dialog between syndicalist and libertarian lobbies ? I noticed, in the documentary "Marx Reloaded" @ 5 min 29, that Eamonn Butler, one of the founders of the "Adam Smith Institute" think thank, based in London, to my understanding, seems to say that "Government" has control on money, while not noticing him mention that, as I understand it, it is the Central ( private ) Bank that has control on the monetary monopoly.
The ASI, so far as I can tell, is a dead end. Among right-leaning libertarian think tanks, it's one of the most dumbed down -- just warmed over Reaganism/Thatcherism. They're much closer to a British counterpart of Heritage or AEI than to Cato.
-- Kevin Carson Center for a Stateless Society http://c4ss.org Mutualist Blog: Free Market Anti-Capitalism http://mutualist.blogspot.com The Homebrew Industrial Revolution: A Low-Overhead Manifesto http://homebrewindustrialrevolution.wordpress.com Organization Theory: A Libertarian Perspective http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/12/studies-in-anarchist-theory-of.html
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation