Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 18:42:03 +0200
Subject: Re: whither -AT- list


At 16:33 18/4/01 , john bechtel wrote:
 >I also think that
 >having a 'military' does indeed infer having a state.

Depends what you mean by military. Is a bunch of people fighting for a 
common cause 'military'? Or is it only when you have sergeants, captains, 
lieutenants etc? (Note ascending order) Or is it something else entirely 
that makes a group of people organised for fighting a 'military'? See below 
about hierarchy, please, before you jump in.

 >Armies must be paid
 >for and maintained by some heirarchial structure, defendeing some ethereal
 >idea like nation or state. Of course, this could lead to a matter of 
semantics.

Even ad-hoc quasi-military groupings need some common sense of purpose. 
It's only when that sense of purpose takes on a life of its own, beyond the 
circumstances that gave rise to it, that you end up with patriotism and a 
nation. But that isn't the only way that states are born.

And on the topic of my favourite rant: I think that it's not the fact of a 
hierarchy that's central to the problem. More important, I believe, is to 
establish what it is about a particular hierarchy (about from it's very 
obvious tree structure) that makes it effective, that traps people inside 
of it, that makes people "just do their job", or "just follow orders". Only 
once the answer to these questions is known will it (maybe) be possible to 
break apart a hierarchy, rather than strengthening it by direct opposition 
to its ostensible raison d'etre - the cops (for example) will in some 
situations use any handy excuse to "clamp down".

A family can be a hierarchy. That doesn't mean therefore that it's 
necessarly a Bad Thing (tm). It can be, if you're in a social milieu which 
grants Grandfather (Grandmother, for matriarchies) the license to rule with 
an iron fist and stifle the creativity, self-determination and self respect 
of other family members.

bye
John