ations and Nationalism (journal)

I'm not expecting you to write my essay for me or tell me the arguments, I was h
oping maybe you might be able to direct me towards some useful readings for the
question, but if you could offer a counter-argument to the assertion that, no, y
ou don't have to be syndicalist to be anarchist, I would much appreciate it.
(I'm looking at anarchist convergence/overlap of ideologies, labour movements, d
irect action, etc., but nothing jumps out at me other than syndicalism is just a
branch of mass anarchism and is not a defining feature of anarchism itself). An
y help is much, much appreciated. Thanks in advance!
4 commentsshare
7. t.7. ? es?p??e?? : ap? t?? aas??e?t? d????at?a st? d??tat???a t?? 4?? ?????st??
8. t.8. ? ep??e? ????da, 1940-1949 : ??a???? ?p?? - ?at??? ?a? a?t?stas? - ef????
?
9. t.9. ????t?? ?a? ?tt?????, 1949-1974 : ???? e???????? p??sat???s?? : a?as???
??t?s? ?a? a??pt???
10. t.10. ? ????da t?? ?a??t?ta?, 1974-2000 : ?????at???? ?ata?t?se??, ?????????
a??pt??? ?a? ????????? sta?e??t?ta.
(2003-2004) ?st???a t?? ???? e?????s?? 1770-2000 - ???? 01

(2003-2004) ?st???a t?? ???? e?????s?? 1770-2000 - ???? 02

(2003-2004) ?st???a t?? ???? e?????s?? 1770-2000 - ???? 03

about
blog
about
source code
advertise
jobs
help
site rules
FAQ
wiki
reddiquette
transparency
contact us
ap
t? s??????? p?a?at???t?ta ?a? ? ep?st??????
a?a??t?s? ?????ete? t? ???s? t?? Bartholdy
(1803-04), e t? ???? p?? ????e ??p????? epa-
?ap??sa?at???s??? s??
p???t?s???? p??se???se??
t?? ????pa??? t??
a?des??tat? e?d??? st??
????t?????a Clarke (1801),
e t?? a???s?e??te? se??de?
??a t? ????????? ?a?
??f?t??? ep?ped? t??
??????? t?? a????ast?
t?p????f? a??a??????
Gell (1801,... 1811) t? ??af???
?p??? Galt (1809-
10) t? Hughes (1812-14), e ta a??????a pe??
??? pas?- st?? Byron ta ????, t???: Holland
(1812-13) e t?? p????ste?? p?a?ate?a ??a
t? ?? t?? ??????? ?a? t? d??s???????? a?a??t?
t?? ast???? ???t??? ?a? ???e?? ?p?st????t?
t?? ????a Hobhouse (1809-10) ?a???
?a? t?? p?t?s??? e t? ??a?t??? ?d?a e??t?ta?
f?s??, ???? ?a? t????? Stackeiberg
(1810-13), p?? ap?t?p?se e??ast??? t?? a?t?????
t?? ep???? ??a ta ??e?a ?a? t??? s?-
??????? a????p???.
????t?? ?d??? ??a ?????
[ ]bright_viragomarch weather, lousy[S] 2 points 5 years ago
Graeber, quoted in the interview linked by WB2 below: "[in many societies throug
hout history] it's really important to remain in debt to people because debt in
a way is sociology, it is social relationships....There are plenty of societies
where people are giving each other gifts but you always give them back something
a little bit more or a little bit less than they gave you because if you give t
hem an exact equivalent you're really saying I don't want to have anything to do
with you any more."
permalinkembed
[ ]Leg-iron 1 point 5 years ago*
Pssst...
Just outside the text-box, lower right.
"Formatting help".
It da shnizzle, yo.
Edit back:
Yer welcome!
permalinkembed
[ ]WB2 3 points 5 years ago
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnOqanbHZi4
The author is interviewed by Thom Hartman.
permalinkembed
[ ]bright_viragomarch weather, lousy[S] 2 points 5 years ago
Thank you for that link! I checked the book out of the library and don't have a
copy handy to refresh my memory on some key points.
permalinkembedparent
[ ]davetoWhat? 3 points 5 years ago
Observation.
Imagine 'botf' as a society.
And then think of the comment of overpaying or underpaying instead of exactly pa
ying the debt, in order to have a reason to remain tethered to your transaction
partner.
This is exactly what we do here. Our tribal instincts (but with posts instead of
chickens and goats).
[e.g. Leg-iron (felt) overpaid you for your post, later felt bad and apologized
for it (i.e. the obligation he left you). Snolly (felt) he underpaid, showed a m
ild bit of embarrassment. etc.]
Or not. You know ..
permalinkembed
[ ]bright_viragomarch weather, lousy[S] 2 points 5 years ago