Stateless University, Registration Begins Tomorrow.
Stateless University Registration begins January 16th for its first term of 2011.
I would like to offer the prospective “student” a taste-test of some of the issues and questions that we will wrestle with in Stateless University’s Bravo Section.
1. According to Karl Hess’ Anarchism without Hyphens, “Anarchism is not normative. It does not say how to be free. It says only that freedom, liberty, can exist.”
Do you agree with Hess’ position on “anarchism” and what distinction, if any, can be made between the “anarchist” and the “anarchism?”
2. According to Karl Hess’ the Left/Right spectrum, the traditional “left/right spectrum” was a tool for analyzing regimes, policies and allies with regard to their relative tendencies towards centralized or de-centralized power.
Do you think this is a helpful tool for analysis, “relative tendencies towards centralized or de-centralized power”? If not, then what could be used in its place for evaluating “regimes, policies and allies?”
3. In “Big Business and the Rise of American Statism” Roy Childs describes the paradigmatic nature of historiography.
How does this help us explain the modern, inaccurate description of how State-Capitalism accumulates and condenses resources; and can it help us understand why free-market principles and dynamics are misdiagnosed and misapplied as the contributing factor to the economy we experience today?
4. Less Antman takes inventory of the peaks and valleys of the perennial debate on property theory. And he dares to hint at the question, “Is property valued for ‘peace’ or ‘status;’ are property norms consumer goods or producers goods?”
What do you think? Are property norms consumer goods or producer goods?
5. Melanie “Broadsnark” Pinkert offers a sober, yet needed, revaluation of resistance culture and its effectiveness.
If Protest is made illegal and virtually impossible, then what can we do to influence the dominate culture in any meaningful way?
6. In this interview (start @ 28:30), Derrick Jensen, the everything man, describes the terrifying fact that in most military organizations it is only 2% of the members that actively participate in violence. The vast, 98%, majority of the organization is mission support. If we, also, take into consideration institutional maintenance, then we would have to include every member of adjacent populations that support violent institutions by respecting or regarding its very existence as legitimate.
Add the former realization to the accelerating rate that natural resources, captial and wealth are being systematically and permanently destroyed by the “Political Class.” Could these observations be regarded as a compelling argument for “everything,” by way of tactics and strategy, to be reexamined?
ALL the best.