he raises the question of whether the notion of civil society will
help us to tackle State interference and keep our autonomy. And I
think it's a very good question (i've only recently come to this term
civil society and don't really know what it means). So, tony here's
the beginning of a debate....he says:

"Somewhere down the line it would be good to debate with NCIA
activists their adoption of the notion of 'civil society' as
significant and useful in mounting resistance. Speaking off my own
bat, 'civil society' seems to take us up a cul-de-sac. It perpetuates
in common with 'representative democracy' our separation from the
State and the economy, accepting as given our lack of control over the
State and the Market. Thus, even if social networking revives, the
best civil society can expect is that it will be encouraged to put
forward insightful suggestions to the State and the Ruling Class. Then
the real decision-makers will step in and weigh up whether to take
cognisance of civil society's supplications.  It would be stimulating
to develop a debate about this question."

Now, this is interesting because this question was raised with us when
we recently talked to edinburgh academics, Mae Shaw and Ian Martin: is
the State part of the people or is it separate? should the struggle be
to make it ours or to accept it is not part of us and provide checks
and balances.

My response to this is pragmatic. I've yet to experience a State that
acted as if it were part of the people (I'm 58, so I'd hope I might
have seen some glimpse of this by now). Even if you take the view that
in theory it's part of us, so what? if it doesn't act like this then
it's purely an academic construct. and the theory takes up a large
part of our time, by coopting our efforts and resources in an attempt
to have a productive dialogue or even an attempt to influence it. we
end looking up to them, not down & across to ourselves - the result: a
stiff neck and injury from falls because you've not noticed the crack
in the pavement.

I've always taken the view that the State is to be watched like a
hawk, that it is not benign, even when it might act a tiny bit benign
- it will revert to it's nature, which is to look after it's own
interests not mine. hence the critical importance of a space that is
NOT the State and where I can live without hostile interference and
can challenge, harass and impede the acts of a State which I don't
like.

Now, I have no idea where this will lead. I'm ignorant about political
science and the machinations of global capitalism. But on a personal
level, in my small domestic world, I hope to create a power base and
inspiration where we can get on with our agendas and as a side show
make the state's agendas, where we don't like them (spoilt for
choice), bend to new wind.

so thanks tony for starting this debate - what do others think?