Piper: You Mr Stoller are the one who made me break my resolution...
Stoller: I did? Well, wouldn't Skinner be pleased to see you going over to his side.
: Hardly stoller. On a Skinnerian analysis i should be exhibiting avoidance behaviour. If you want to debate skinner (as opposed to taking snide swipes) then go ahead.
You have stated that I 'made' you break your resolution to not post to me. First, that is NOT avoidance, that is engagement. Second, any self-proclaimed anarchist who acknowledges determinism in his own behavior has pretty well deconstructed anarchism. And last, if you've read ONLY Skinnerís pot boiler Beyond Freedom and Dignity, as you imply here, then that would make for a dull debate (for me, anyway).
Stoller: I know the Bolsheviks started a worker's state in 1917. You wanna tell me about any 'anarchist' states I might have overlooked?
Piper: Strictly speaking 'anarchist state' would be an oxymoron.
Yes it would. So would 'anarchist nation,' 'anarchist country,' 'anarchist community,' etc., etc. The point stands: you cannot name an anarchist equivalent to the worker's state of 1917. It's pretty easy criticizing the Bolshevik's failings when the anarchists have never had the challenge of trying the same. REAL easy.
: Nor do i believe that violence will ever bring anything but misery and more violence.
Then, by all means, let's have peace. That is what the capitalists want, after all, peace to fill up young heads with all sorts of 'anarchist' propaganda while raising yet another generation of worker drones to make them rich.
I have an idea. Why don't you and Lark rub together a couple of one-paragraph utopias and letís see if that produces anything as substantial as this.