by Andy June 19, 2006
by Andy November 11, 2004
by Andy April 18, 2004
A leading anarchist theorist in the nineteenth century, author of classics such as "Mutual Aid", "Factories, Fields and Workshops" and "The State: Its Historic Role". Most of his works are out of copyright and are available online at the Anarchy Archives at dward.pitzer.au.
Kropotkin was an anthropologist by profession, and this is shown by frequent references to this science in his work. "Mutual Aid" is in large part an attempt to rebut Darwinist arguments for the necessity of individualist egoistic action by demonstrating that mutually supportive, cooperative and altruistic actions are common among animals and in human societies. Kropotkin seemed to think that cooperation is part of human nature, so pervasive it is across different cultures and so resilient it is to attacks by the state.
He viewed the state as a force of atomisation because of its tendency to persecute specific associations. He saw it operating in an imperialistic way, colonising everyday life from above and outside and counterposing itself to the force of society and sociability as an everyday factor. The state is based on violence and control, and hierarchic forms and unnatural and oppressive. The state should therefore be overthrown or overcome, and replaced with social relations based on mutual voluntary cooperation in a series of federated associations.
His thought is best located within anarcho-communism. Although dated in some respects, it still holds up as a critique of sociobiology and of theories of the necessity of state power.
I don't know how it could come to mean "a stupid person" - I assume this is a Slavophobe appropriation of this rather amusing-sounding Russian name.
Kropotkin was an anthropologist by profession, and this is shown by frequent references to this science in his work. "Mutual Aid" is in large part an attempt to rebut Darwinist arguments for the necessity of individualist egoistic action by demonstrating that mutually supportive, cooperative and altruistic actions are common among animals and in human societies. Kropotkin seemed to think that cooperation is part of human nature, so pervasive it is across different cultures and so resilient it is to attacks by the state.
He viewed the state as a force of atomisation because of its tendency to persecute specific associations. He saw it operating in an imperialistic way, colonising everyday life from above and outside and counterposing itself to the force of society and sociability as an everyday factor. The state is based on violence and control, and hierarchic forms and unnatural and oppressive. The state should therefore be overthrown or overcome, and replaced with social relations based on mutual voluntary cooperation in a series of federated associations.
His thought is best located within anarcho-communism. Although dated in some respects, it still holds up as a critique of sociobiology and of theories of the necessity of state power.
I don't know how it could come to mean "a stupid person" - I assume this is a Slavophobe appropriation of this rather amusing-sounding Russian name.
Kropotkin's Mutual Aid is a classic text of anarchist theory.
Anti-capitalist groups often unknowingly adopt a model of organisation similar to Kropotkin's, favouring small-scale voluntary groups which come together into larger federations for purposes of mutual support.
Anti-capitalist groups often unknowingly adopt a model of organisation similar to Kropotkin's, favouring small-scale voluntary groups which come together into larger federations for purposes of mutual support.
by Andy April 19, 2004
A large green reptilian monster, often used as a commander of Giak units in the armies of the Darklords in the world of Magnamund (Joe Dever's Lone Wolf). Native to the Maakenmire swamp, and with a frighteningly high Combat Skill (i.e. nearly impossible to beat without cheating).
You see a gourgaz coming towards you. Do you want to:
1. run away (recommended)
2. fight it (you're on something, aren't you?)
3. use your Kai Discipline of Running Away
4. run away even faster
5. faint
turn to page 165 (you're dead anyway).
1. run away (recommended)
2. fight it (you're on something, aren't you?)
3. use your Kai Discipline of Running Away
4. run away even faster
5. faint
turn to page 165 (you're dead anyway).
by Andy April 18, 2004
by Andy September 24, 2003
Corporate journalist (political slang word). aka propagandist.
Journos are scumbags who tape people fighting the cops and stuff like that, knowing damn well that the cops will get the pictures off them and use them to persecute people, but who go ahead regardless, and then act all shocked when their cameras get smashed and they get chased off.
Also responsible for most of the disinformation which people take for "common sense" - for instance, the idea that the US has "liberated" Iraq.
For every one good journalist, there's ten or twenty who are corporate whores.
Journos are scumbags who tape people fighting the cops and stuff like that, knowing damn well that the cops will get the pictures off them and use them to persecute people, but who go ahead regardless, and then act all shocked when their cameras get smashed and they get chased off.
Also responsible for most of the disinformation which people take for "common sense" - for instance, the idea that the US has "liberated" Iraq.
For every one good journalist, there's ten or twenty who are corporate whores.
Some favourite journo tricks:
Make out before a demo that there's going to be loads more people than they will, and that there'll be trouble when there won't - thereby making an excuse for repression - and then when the crisis fails to materialise, attribute this to the repressive policing which was legitimated by the initial scare stories. e.g. London Mayday.
Just ignore events which don't fit your worldview or your story. For instance, only ever cover violent protests and ignore any where there's no trouble. Or don't bother covering the protest itself - just make a fuss about how there was "no violence" and this was all the cops' doing. c.f. non-coverage of the third day of protests at the Gothenburg EU summit (because they were peaceful).
Cut bits from out of interviews so everyone says what you want them to say. For instance, in the Rushdie affair, local news put on an Asian saying the book had stirred controversy and a white guy saying he defended free speech. All very stereotypical. But get the full transcript and you find the Asian guy said he supported the book even though it caused controversy, and the white guy was a Nazi who wanted Asians out of Britain, rambled on forever and just said a little snippet about free speech in the middle. It was cut and pasted to make it fit preconceptions.
Get all your info from a single biased source. For instance, info on protests and on "race relations" comes from the police. If the police are your only source, you end up always tailing their line, without even knowing it. Another example is the "lobby system": in Parliament, some journos are allowed into the inner sanctum of political life... as long as they agree only to report the stuff they're told officially. So they might be able to find out that MP such-and-such is doing coke or that so-and-so admitted that the Iraq war was all about oil, but they aren't supposed to reveal it - yet they sound authoritative because they're in the inner sanctum and can quote "sources close to the prime minister" and stuff like that.
Ask a question such as, "do you think the liberation of the Iraqi people was a good thing?" - if someone says "well yes I suppose", report this as: "such and such says US is right: we needed to overthrow dictator, says such and such in interview".
Divide news up into chunks and don't put together stuff which is similar. For instance, NEVER link economics and politics. This way everything stays confusing.
Use simplifying concepts. For instance, every conflict in Africa is by definition "tribal" and a proof of "their" incivility. Anyone who uses force against a government the west likes must be a "terrorist" and be motivated by an irrational ideology or religion. And so on. That way, everything seems to make sense and nobody asks any questions about what's REALLY going on (e.g. mobile phone companies in the Congo, US support for the mujahideen in Afghanistan, etc. etc.).
Any rumour you like the sounds of is a "fact". Any fact you don't like the sounds of is a "rumour" (make sure to include "rumours" from the other side as well).
Make out before a demo that there's going to be loads more people than they will, and that there'll be trouble when there won't - thereby making an excuse for repression - and then when the crisis fails to materialise, attribute this to the repressive policing which was legitimated by the initial scare stories. e.g. London Mayday.
Just ignore events which don't fit your worldview or your story. For instance, only ever cover violent protests and ignore any where there's no trouble. Or don't bother covering the protest itself - just make a fuss about how there was "no violence" and this was all the cops' doing. c.f. non-coverage of the third day of protests at the Gothenburg EU summit (because they were peaceful).
Cut bits from out of interviews so everyone says what you want them to say. For instance, in the Rushdie affair, local news put on an Asian saying the book had stirred controversy and a white guy saying he defended free speech. All very stereotypical. But get the full transcript and you find the Asian guy said he supported the book even though it caused controversy, and the white guy was a Nazi who wanted Asians out of Britain, rambled on forever and just said a little snippet about free speech in the middle. It was cut and pasted to make it fit preconceptions.
Get all your info from a single biased source. For instance, info on protests and on "race relations" comes from the police. If the police are your only source, you end up always tailing their line, without even knowing it. Another example is the "lobby system": in Parliament, some journos are allowed into the inner sanctum of political life... as long as they agree only to report the stuff they're told officially. So they might be able to find out that MP such-and-such is doing coke or that so-and-so admitted that the Iraq war was all about oil, but they aren't supposed to reveal it - yet they sound authoritative because they're in the inner sanctum and can quote "sources close to the prime minister" and stuff like that.
Ask a question such as, "do you think the liberation of the Iraqi people was a good thing?" - if someone says "well yes I suppose", report this as: "such and such says US is right: we needed to overthrow dictator, says such and such in interview".
Divide news up into chunks and don't put together stuff which is similar. For instance, NEVER link economics and politics. This way everything stays confusing.
Use simplifying concepts. For instance, every conflict in Africa is by definition "tribal" and a proof of "their" incivility. Anyone who uses force against a government the west likes must be a "terrorist" and be motivated by an irrational ideology or religion. And so on. That way, everything seems to make sense and nobody asks any questions about what's REALLY going on (e.g. mobile phone companies in the Congo, US support for the mujahideen in Afghanistan, etc. etc.).
Any rumour you like the sounds of is a "fact". Any fact you don't like the sounds of is a "rumour" (make sure to include "rumours" from the other side as well).
by Andy May 01, 2004