The document discusses different traditions and movements that could be considered authentically anarchist, such as pacifist, eremitic, monastic traditions and Dorothy Day's work. It asks for examples of good contemporary anarchist responses and criteria for identifying them. It also discusses the relationship between anarchism, libertarianism, and classical liberalism, arguing that distributism is a progression towards classical liberalism and anarchism as an eschatological goal.

1. When I affirmed "the voices of prophetic protest and the lives
of prophetic witness," I conceived of the "voice & witness" as
an integral reality, which is to say that it was a distinction
that was not also a dichotomy or not 2 different approaches or
strategies. And I think @Tim well described the undesirable
consequences that ensue when voice is divorced from witness.
Tim also nailed it in describing some of the dysfunctional
dynamics that invite critique from Assange et al.
More concretely, I was thinking of different pacifist,
eremitic and monastic traditions & movements, even of what I
like to call anabaptist "sensibilities." Do any of you
consider any historical manifestations of such traditions &
sensibilities to be authentically anarchist in character?
(e.g. Dorothy Day) and which may have otherwise missed the
mark? and what would you consider to be some good examples of
good concrete, well-conceived & well-executed anarchist
responses in today's world? and what criteria would one use in
identifying them?
Also, for all the fun people have drawing distinctions between
anarchists and libertarians (
http://www.stumbleupon.com/group/anarchy/forum/81874/ ),
still, there are many (First Things & The Acton Institute,
Cato & their ilk) who subscribe to classical liberalism as an
ideal consistent with the Gospel & I'd be more sympathetic to
their view if we were designing political & economic
strategies for the choirs of angels. Of course, anarchist
strategies have been critiqued for their impracticality but
that's often from those who are committing category errors by
applying criteria & methods that Christian anarchism, properly
understood, would not recognize vis a vis its own ways & means
from its vantage point "on the margins." As it is, the only
reason the classical liberal approach has enjoyed any level of
practical success is because it has been attenuated by
distributist strategies? but the best that might be said about
either is that it enjoys its existence as a necessary evil?
and that the goal of distributism is a progression into
classical liberalism which would progress further into
anarchism? which as a sort of eschatological reality has
thankfully broken through proleptically in various
anticipatory realizations (discussed in the above paragraph).
I apologize for an density here as I am grappling with some of
this for the first time and more clarity & brevity would be
the fruit of better understanding, which I lack but strive
for. This has been a cool thread and I thank everyone who has
contributed.
1