Libertarian Socialism
Proudhon
Libertarian Socialism
Libertarian Socialism is a term essentially synonymous with the word
"Anarchism". Anarchy, strictly meaning "without rulers", leads one to wonder
what sort of system would exist in place of one without state or capitalist
masters... the answer being a radically democratic society while preserving
the maximal amount of individual liberty and freedom possible.
Libertarian Socialism recognizes that the concept of "property"
(specifically, the means of production, factories, land used for profit,
rented space) is theft and that in a truly libertarian society, the
individual would be free of exploitation caused by the concentration of all
means of wealth-making into the hands of an elite minority of capitalists.
Why "Libertarian"?
It is recognised that there are authoritarian systems and behavior, distinct
from libertarian, or non-authoritarian ones. Since capitalism's early
beginnings in europe, and it's authoritarian trend of wage-slavery for the
majority of people (working class) by a smaller, elite group (a ruling, or,
capitalist class) who own the "means of production": machines, land,
factories, there was a liberatory movement in response to capitalism known
as "Socialism". In almost every case, the socialist movement has been
divided along authoritarian, and libertarian lines. The anarchists on the
libertarian side, and the Jacobins, Marxists, Leninists, Stalinists, and
reformist state-socialists on the authoritarian side. (And liberals more or
less split down the middle.)
There was also a movement called "Propaganda by deed", around the late
1800's to early 1900's, in which some anarchists (Such as the Italian
Anarchist Luigi Galleani (1861-1931), believed that violence was the best
strategy for opposing the state. This proved a disaster, alienating
anarchists from the general population and exposing them to negative
characterizations by the press (the "bomb-toting anarchist" is for the most
part a creation of the corporate media- before this stigma anarchism was
recognized as an anti-authoritarian socialist movement). Many anarchist
groups and publications used the word "libertarian" instead of "anarchist"
to avoid state repression and the negative association of the former term.
Libertarian Socialism differentiates itself from "Anarchy" as a movement
only in that it specifically focuses on working class organization and
education in order to achieve human emancepation from the fetters of
capitalism.
Why "Socialism"?
Socialism, in it's traditional and true definition, means "the workers
democratic ownership and/or control of the means of production". Such a
definition implies that rather than a government bureaucracy for managing
such means, there is a focus on highly democratic organization, education
and awareness, and every individual is encouraged to become an active,
rather than passive participant in that which effect their lives. Only the
workers themselves bear the knowledge of what their own freedom and liberty
means, and only they know what is best for themselves, ultimatly. Advocates
of the state, be they on the left, or the right, have repeatedly defined the
meaning of "socialism" to mean arbitrary rule by a set of "leaders", or a
political con-game in which socialism is no more than capitalism with a few
token adjustments for bearability.
What about the American "Libertarian Party"? Don't they already use the word
"libertarian"?
The word "libertarian" has been widely used in conjunction with the word
"anarchist" and anti-authoritarian strands of socialist organizations,
groups, and individuals since the turn of the century. For example, in the
US, Sam Dolgoff started the still-running anarcho-syndicalist publication
"Libertarian Labor Review" in the late 1980's, and Noam Chomsky has
repeatedly spoken about a libertarian socialist solution to the oppression
of workers worldwide. In France (Paris and Bretagne), Italy, Lebanon &
Belgium there are seperate anarchist publications and/or groups all
currently using the name "Libertarian Alternative". In London, England the
Soliderity group published a series of periodicals since 1960, one of the
most recent entitled "Soliderity: A Journal of Libertarian Socialism", and
George Woodcock wrote "Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and
Movements" in 1962 (some 9 years before the creation of the US Libertarian
Party.) In Cuba in 1959 there existed an anti-capitalist, anti-state
organization called the "Libertarian Association of Cuba". In the 1950's
George Fontenis published "The Manifesto of Libertarian Communism". In New
York City, July 1954 Russell Blackwell, Esther and Sam Dolgoff formed the
Libertarian League, of which for a short time Murray Bookchin was a member.
Erlier, in 1949, Gregory P. Maximoff initiated the Libertarian Book Club
just before he died in 1950.
During the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) a coalition group called the United
Libertarian Organisations (ULO) was created with the intent of spreading
truthful information about the revolutionary anarchist activities in Spain.
The organisation consisted of groups publishing Cultura Proletaria
(Spanish), Il Martello (Italian), Delo Truda (Russian anarchist), Il
Proletario (Italian IWW), Freie Arbeiter Stimme (Jewish Anarchist
Federation), the American anarchist publication, Vangaurd, as well as the
Marine Transport Workers Industrial Union and General Recruiting Union of
the IWW, and the the Spanish Labor Press Bureau (administered by the CNT-FAI
representative in the United States and Canada, the Chicago anarchist
Maximilian Olay). The official organ of the ULO was called Spanish
Revolution (now availabe in facsimile from Greenwood Publishing
Corporation). Examples of articles are: Rural Collectives in Graus and
Imposta; Peasants Build a New Economy; Statistics on Industrial
Socialization in Catalonia; Organising the Textile Industry; Industrial
Democracy; Running a Department Store; Telephone System Run by Workers;
Peasant Communes in Aragon; etc. Anyone interested in constructive economic
and social achievements of the CNT-FAI in revolutionary Spain should consult
the pages of Spanish Revolution.
In Spain in 1932 Issac Puente wrote the pamphlet "Libertarian Communism",
and the CNT adopted libertarian communism as its goal at the 1936 Saragossa
conference on the eve of the Spanish Revolution. In France in 1926 the Dielo
Trouda group of anarchists who had fled Russia wrote the hotly debated
"Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists".
"Sebastien Faure, who founded Le Libertaire in 1895, is often
credited with having invented the word 'libertarian' as a
convenient synonym for 'anarchist.' However, Joseph Dejacque's use
of the word as early as 1858 suggests that it may have had a long
currency before Faure adopted it."
[George Woodcock, Anarchism, p. 281 (footnote)]
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first known usage of
"libertarian" was in 1789 as part of "Belsham's Essays", in which he appears
to use the term in opposition to "necessitarian". It's hard to say whether
there was a direct connection with other uses of the term.
The basic socialistic libertarian movement has it's roots at least as far
back as the French Revolution of 1789 in the poor serfs who saw through the
authoritarianism of the Jacobins (and the borgeoise in general) who had used
these serfs to overthrow the first and second estate. [Further information
is available from Peter Kropotkin's History of the French Revolution]
While a number of pro-capitalist "Classical Liberal" or "Libertarian"
organizations and publications tend to have recently appeared in the United
States and a few other countries, these entities serve the interests of
small business owners, landlords, investors and some upwardly-mobile
professionals. Essentially secular neo-conservative organizations, with
strong inspiration from the writings of the ultra-capitalist Ayn Rand,
economist Murray Rothbard, and science-fiction writer Robert Heinlein.
Typical of these advocates of the sacredcy of private property is a
distortion of the theories of the moral individualist philosophers of the
19th century (Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, Josiah Warren, Henry David
Thoreau, etc.) who respected the rights of the individual but were highly
critical of the concentrations of wealth and power which led to capitalism
and economic oppression since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. Due to
the elite privilege for the few over the many inherent in a 'pure'
capitalist system, "libertarian" capitalism is un-democratic and
anti-libertarian. For more information see the essay "Libertarianism: Bogus
Anarchy", by Peter Sabatini, and a TV interview with Noam Chomsky.
The Libertarian or sometimes-called "Anarcho-" capitalist movement was a
reaction from the political right-wing against US president FDR's sweeping
social democratic laws passed as a response to a powerful labor movement in
the 1930's. The libertarian left had little interest in nationalizations or
state-social-programs, arguing that they placed power into the hands of
elite managers and not the workers themselves. The destruction of the
origional libertarian movement in the United States, (by mass deportations
and imprisonment), as well as in Europe (The Fascist victories in Spain,
Italy and Germany) left a vacume in which was possible for one Dean Russell
of the capitalist "Foundation for Economic Education" to write an article in
the FEE publication, "Ideas on Liberty" of May, 1955 entitled "Who is a
Libertarian?" which advocated that the right should "trademark and reserve
for our own use the good and honorable word 'libertarian.'" In other cases,
conservative Science Fiction writers such as Robert Heinlein and Poul
Anderson used the term in their writing to depict fictionaly virtuous forms
of capitalism. (It should be noted that these writers and others like them
supported the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War).
What these people did not know or chose to ignore was that at least two US
libertarian socialist organizations already existed, one formed in July 1954
called the Libertarian League, started by Russell Blackwell, and the other
formed in 1949 and called the Libertarian Book Club, an idea initiated by
Gregory P. Maximoff, and formerlly established by a number of anarchists,
including: Bill & Sarah Taback, Joseph & Hannah Spivack, Joseph Aaronstam,
Ida Pilot (a professional translator) and her companion Valerio Isca, and
Esther and Sam Dolgoff. The Libertarian Book Club is based in New York City,
and is still active today.
(This information is from the book "Fragments: A Memoir", by Sam Dolgoff,
Pub. 1986 Refract Publications, Cambridge, England)
In Webster's New International Dictionary, the definition of 'Libertarian'
is stated to be: "One who holds to the principle of free will; also, one who
upholds the principles of liberty, esp. individual liberty of thought and
action." Clearly, in comparison to the authoritarian Soviet Union and Red
China of the 1940's and 50's, liberal capitalism could be made to appear
more "libertarian" than socialism if one were to accept that China and the
USSR were the definitive examples of "socialism". But, if one were to have
listened to the origional socialistic libertarians (the anarchists) all
along, it would have been clear that both the "socialism" of so-called
"Communist" countries, and the idea of a "libertarian (or anarcho-)
capitalism" were a farce.
Unlike right-wing Libertarians, Liberals and Social Democrats, libertarian
socialists reject participation in the mainstream representaive voting
process. Libertarian socialism is, in effect, a revolutionary theory and
approach to political life. Libertarian Socialism's anti-state stance might
even give it the label "Laissez-fair socialism"- if a politician (or
capitalist) were to aproach some anarchist workers in France and ask them
what it was he could do for them, they would reply, "Laissez-nous faire."-
essentialy, "leave us alone". Libertarian socialists understand that it is
the workers who create and maintain everything in the world, and they do not
need leaders to direct them in the affairs of their lives. What is the least
a government could do for workers? Keep the Government and capitalists off
their back-- but it is far better to avoid the need for "politricksters" and
capitalist rulers in the first place.
What about individual liberty?
Libertarian Socialism is an anti-authoritarian form of socialism and the
main principles are liberty, freedom, the right for workers to fraternize
and organize democratically, the absence of illegitimate authority and the
resistance against force. Libertarian Socialists hold that the people can
make the best judgments for themselves when given enough information and
therefore stress education rather than regulation. In current society, the
individual worker is seperated from her or his fellow workers and not
permitted to organize against his or her own exploitation... the state is
the force which permits this lack of freedom to continue.
Libertarian Socialists see humankind divided in a struggle between different
social classes: the property-owning class, and the working class.
Libertarian socialists are against all forms of coercion, state and
capitalist, and do not seek to regulate human behaviors by way of the state,
including such issues as possession of firearms, drugs, sexual conduct
between consenting individuals, and related issues.
Libertarian Socialists see such things as gun control, "speech codes", drug,
alcohol, pornography and prostitution prohibition as a waste of time, and an
unnecessary violation of individual choice. Most of humanities woes arise
from the inherently coercive, undemocratic and un-libertine capitalist and
state systems which human society is currently forced to follow. The answer
is not regulation or limitation, but organization and education with a
working-class emphasis. Libertarian Socialists reject the "social
democratic" solution of keeping the state & military apparatus around but
raising taxes to support social programs. These are merely "band-aids" for
problems which under capitalism will never go away, and always threaten to
get worse. World problems will not be solved by "professionals", free-market
entrepreneurs, the ruling capitalist class, politicians or statist
bureaucrats. Only the people, organized and educated, can solve their own
problems.
What do Libertarian Socialists feel about Racism, Sexism, and Homophobia?
It has always been impossible for workers to challenge capitalism effectivly
so long as divisions of people based on gender, skin color, or sexual
orientation have continued. Racism in perticular has been used from the
start as a way of dividing workers along an arbitary basis and weakening any
chances for solid organization. So long as there is always someone being
looked down upon, someone forced to accept lower wages because of their low
status in society, wages in a competative system can always be pushed to
what the lowest and most desperate will accept. It should also go without
saying that there is no scientific proof of the existance of seperate human
"races" which are truly incapable of getting along, nor is there scientific
proof that women are inherently physicaly weaker or less intellectualy
capable than men. The issue of "hate speech" and pornography must always
take into account the importance of artistic freedom and the neccesity to
criticize what one disagrees with. When it is clear that a conscious effort
is being made to denigrade or divide a group of people from another, with
some economic or political goal as it's motivation, libertarian socialists
would resist such actions on the basis that they would divide and weaken any
chance for eventual liberation from capitalism. Finaly, so long as any group
is predjudiced against, humanity will wage war against itself for irrational
reasons, using such divisions as a means to an end when seen fit. If people
understand that they too can be discriminated against, based on ANYTHING
about them, it should be obvious that such discrimination, like any other
human activity, has potential to be self-destructive in it's consequences.
What libertarian socialist organizations exist?
Currently the most prominent organizations along libertarian socialist lines
are the International of Anarchist Federations (IFA), and the syndicalist
union known as the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), the
anarcho-syndicalist International Workers Association (IWA), and various
anarchist organizations & groups world-wide.
Are there any major libertarian socialist theorists?
Aside from the significant number of anarchist communist theorists such as
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin and Alexander
Berkman, some important contributors to libertarian socialist theory and
philosophy would be Noam Chomsky, Daniel Guerin, and Murray Bookchin.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(This article was origionaly written in mid-late 1995 and later updated.)
Further Info:
"Libertarian Socialism" (article)
http://www.tigerden.com/~berios/libsoc-sac95.html
"Libertarians - What's in a Word?" (article)
http://www.tigerden.com/~berios/libword.html
Liberty for the People
http://www.tigerden.com/~berios/liberty.html
Prominent Anarchists and Left-Libertarians
http://www.tigerden.com/~berios/libertarians.html
jamu...@vela.acs.oakland.edu
This was a good observation. Libertarianism has a lot of similarities
to anarchy, and even to Marxism (Marx also advocated the eventual elimination
of the state). However, there is a difference between the US Libertarian
party of today and the anarchists and marxists: the US Libertarians
advocate free markets without government influence which would enable the
rich to rule the world. The anarchists and marxists advocate some form of
worker power or power to the people (eventually in the case of marxism).
That's a material difference.
Sincerely,
Dr. Austin Murphy (Professor of Finance, Oakland University)
Gail Thaler
Well, that sounds right, but...
What the heck is "libertarian socialism?"
Thant Tessman
I missed the original post, but the juxtaposition of near
opposites in the title caught my eye.
jamu...@vela.acs.oakland.edu wrote:
> This was a good observation. Libertarianism has a
> lot of similarities to anarchy, and even to Marxism (Marx
> also advocated the eventual elimination of the state).
Marx did not "advocate" the eventual elimination of the
state. He claimed that once communism was achieved, that
there would no longer be a need for the state and it would
"whither away." Marx absolutely did advocate the use of
state force in achieving communism.
The idealogical difference between socialist anarchism
and capitalist anarchism is that socialist anarchism
(along with more orthodox Marxism) posits a mythical
pseudo-religious transformation whereby the wants of
the individual become indestinguishable from the wants
of society.
The methodological difference between socialism
and capitalism (which is what really matters) is that
capitalism recognizes property rights and the right to
voluntarily contract. Socialism, independent of any
attempt to justify it idealogically, is simply the
institutionalization of aggression against property.
> However, there is a difference between the US
> Libertarian party of today and the anarchists and
> marxists: the US Libertarians advocate free markets
> without government influence which would enable the
> rich to rule the world. [...]
In a purely capitalist society, people get rich based
on their ability to produce most efficiently for the
most urgent wants of voluntary consumers. In other
words, in a capitalist society, you get rich only by
making your customers at least a little better off than
they would have been had they not been able to buy your
goods.
There are people who claim to be defending capitalism,
but who are really defending the institutionalization
of coercive policies designed to keep them rich
regardless of their ability to provide consumers with
goods that they want. This is the "rule of the rich"
that you talk about. But it is not capitalism. It
is more accurately described as "conservative
socialism" or "socialism of the bourgeois
establishment." It is the idealogical heir of
feudalism.
The argument among libertarians is whether at least
a minimum government is necessary to defend individuals
and their property against force and fraud or whether
even the services of the police and courts would be
better provided by private means. The former position
is that of most libertarians and the latter is that
of the anarchist wing of the libertarians.
-thant
"The Bolshevists persistently tell us that religion is
the opium for the people. Marxism is indeed opium for
those who might take to thinking and must therefore be
weaned from it." -- Ludwig von Mises, Socialism
Fyodor Karamazov
You have sex with animals.
Fyodor
--
Which side is my bread buttered on?
psychopomp
Geeze! I finish off James and here comes another wave of psudo-anarchists. When can I
rest?
Thant Tessman wrote:
>
> I missed the original post, but the juxtaposition of near
> opposites in the title caught my eye.
>
> jamu...@vela.acs.oakland.edu wrote:
>
> > This was a good observation. Libertarianism has a
> > lot of similarities to anarchy, and even to Marxism (Marx
> > also advocated the eventual elimination of the state).
>
> Marx did not "advocate" the eventual elimination of the
> state. He claimed that once communism was achieved, that
> there would no longer be a need for the state and it would
> "whither away."
Right, in other words "the eventual elimination of the state".
> Marx absolutely did advocate the use of
> state force in achieving communism.
Yes he did, and that is why Anarchists don't support Marx's State means to Anarchist
ends.
>
> The idealogical difference between socialist anarchism
> and capitalist anarchism is that socialist anarchism
> (along with more orthodox Marxism) posits a mythical
> pseudo-religious transformation whereby the wants of
> the individual become indestinguishable from the wants
> of society.
Right. Althogh it could do without the, "mythical pseudo-religious transformation",
which unfairly deminishes a perfectly good idea. I'd also add, "or visa versa", after
"the wants of the individual become indestinguishable from the wants of society".
>
> The methodological difference between socialism
> and capitalism (which is what really matters) is that
> capitalism recognizes property rights and the right to
> voluntarily contract.
Correct.
> Socialism, independent of any
> attempt to justify it idealogically, is simply the
> institutionalization of aggression against property.
Wrong. True Socialists don't believe in property. It simply doesn't exist.
Unfortunately all of the socialist societies to come to full power so far have been
State Socialists, who kept the capitalist property myth, and so the state became the
private owner of all property in those nations. So far Spain has been the one large
scale exception, but they were partialy coopted and partialy destroyed by Stalinists and
completely destroyed by Fascists.
>
> > However, there is a difference between the US
> > Libertarian party of today and the anarchists and
> > marxists: the US Libertarians advocate free markets
> > without government influence which would enable the
> > rich to rule the world. [...]
>
> There are people who claim to be defending capitalism,
> but who are really defending the institutionalization
> of coercive policies designed to keep them rich
> regardless of their ability to provide consumers with
> goods that they want. This is the "rule of the rich"
> that you talk about. But it is not capitalism. It
> is more accurately described as "conservative
> socialism" or "socialism of the bourgeois
> establishment." It is the idealogical heir of
> feudalism.
It is not Socialism. They own "property". As we both know, true Socialists don't
believe in property. It would be more corect to say that the so called socialist
nations that have arrisen are actualy State Capitalist. That is, the State becames the
ultimate capitalist monopoly, owning all property(which Socialists don't believe in).
> "The Bolshevists persistently tell us that religion is
> the opium for the people. Marxism is indeed opium for
> those who might take to thinking and must therefore be
> weaned from it." -- Ludwig von Mises, Socialism
Good thing Anarchists aren't Bolshevists. ;,)
gggggggggggggggggggggggggggg ggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg
ggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg
gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg gggggggggggggggggg ggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg
gggggggggggggggggggggggggg gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg gggggggggggggg
gggggggggggggggggggggggg gggggggggggggggggggggg ggggggggggggggggggggggg gggggggg ggggg
gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg ggggggggggggggggggggggg gggggggggggggggggggggggg
G*rd*n
Thant Tessman <th...@nospam.acm.org>:
| ...
| The methodological difference between socialism
| and capitalism (which is what really matters) is that
| capitalism recognizes property rights and the right to
| attempt to justify it idealogically, is simply the
| institutionalization of aggression against property.
But property is already fundamentally aggressive, so this
amounts to a distinction without a difference. Furthermore,
most of the socialist theory I have read seems to accept
liberal ideas of property, reserving its revolutionary
intention only for the means of production, that is,
property used to implement social domination -- a
twice-aggressive form of property.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
-----------------------------------------------
NOTE: if your ISP permits junkmailing, you will
probably not be able to reach me by email.
Thant Tessman
I wrote:
> Socialism, independent of any
> attempt to justify it idealogically, is simply the
> institutionalization of aggression against property.
psychopomp wrote:
> Wrong. True Socialists don't believe in property.
> It simply doesn't exist. [...]
Our lot as humans is to live in a world where resources
are scarce. Conflicts can arise over goods whose use
by one person precludes its use by another person.
Property is a concept designed to make a conflict-free
interaction between individuals possible by stipulating
mutually binding rules of conduct regarding scarce
resources.
To "not believe in property" is either to deny the need
to resolve conflicts over resources (which is simply
aggression), or to claim that such conflicts over resources
don't, can't, or won't occur (which is simply delusional).
There is no methodological difference between socialism
and what some socialists call "State Capitalism" (which
is not capitalism even by Marx's definition). The only
difference between them is the small matter of who is
stealing from whom.
-thant
G*rd*n
dter...@students.wisc.edu:
| You have sex with animals.
Well, it's animals or vegetables, or possibly machines. What
do _you_ have sex with?
Thant Tessman
I wrote:
> The methodological difference between socialism
> and capitalism (which is what really matters) is that
> capitalism recognizes property rights and the right to
> voluntarily contract. Socialism, independent of any
> attempt to justify it idealogically, is simply the
> institutionalization of aggression against property.
G*rd*n wrote:
> But property is already fundamentally aggressive, so this
> amounts to a distinction without a difference. [...]
Property rights are an expression of the idea that
exclusive ownership rights can be assigned based on an
objective, intersubjectively ascertainable link between
owner and the property owned. Claims to property must
be backed by the objective fact of an original
appropriation, or of a voluntary transfer of those
rights from a previous owner. All other claims
to property which can invoke only subjective evidence
are an expression of aggression.
As I have said elsewhere, to argue that *all* claims to
property amount to aggression is to imply one of two
things:
The first implication is that peaceable resolutions
over conflicting uses of limited resources is
impossible. This is nothing more than arguing that
might makes right. And in fact the only reason for
trying to persuade other people into this position
is that it is easier to commit theft en masse.
The alternative implication is that conflicts over
limited resources won't occur, for example, once a
`true' state of communism is achieved. This
position is simply delusional.
-thant
scwi...@home.com
G*rd*n wrote:
>
> Thant Tessman <th...@nospam.acm.org>:
> | ...
> | The methodological difference between socialism
> | and capitalism (which is what really matters) is that
> | capitalism recognizes property rights and the right to
> | voluntarily contract. Socialism, independent of any
> | attempt to justify it idealogically, is simply the
> | institutionalization of aggression against property.
>
> But property is already fundamentally aggressive, so this
> amounts to a distinction without a difference.
Nonsense. Would you like to explain exactly how you arrived at this
conclusion?
Furthermore,
> most of the socialist theory I have read seems to accept
> liberal ideas of property, reserving its revolutionary
> intention only for the means of production, that is,
> property used to implement social domination -- a
> twice-aggressive form of property.
Here's a classic example of a socialist attempt to dominate a debate
through the use use of ambiguous language. Firstly, what does "liberal"
connotate here? Are you using it in the classical sense or in the
contemporary sense? Further, what is socialism's "revolutionary intent"
other than to install a few dictactors in power via the means of a coup
d'etat? How is property used to "implement social domination"?
Secondly, what does "social domination" mean? You commies have a bad
habit of inserting the word "social" into every sentence, and thus
render your terms completely meaningless. At least to me they are. Do
you know what you're referring to? If so, explain, because I have no
idea what the hell you're talking about.
Lastly, what's this "twice-agressive" business?
What we must demand from the socialists is the clarification of their
principles.
---
CJW
Mike Wooding
G*rd*n wrote:
>
> Thant Tessman <th...@nospam.acm.org>:
> | ...
> | The methodological difference between socialism
> | and capitalism (which is what really matters) is that
> | capitalism recognizes property rights and the right to
> | voluntarily contract. Socialism, independent of any
> | attempt to justify it idealogically, is simply the
> | institutionalization of aggression against property.
> | ...
>
> But property is already fundamentally aggressive, so this
> most of the socialist theory I have read seems to accept
> liberal ideas of property, reserving its revolutionary
> intention only for the means of production, that is,
> property used to implement social domination -- a
> twice-aggressive form of property.
by which we agree upon what is and is not agression. If you
take what is mine you have acted agressively. If you take what
is yours or what is not owned or what an owner permits, then
you have not acted agressively.
Such conventions are absolutely essential to human inter-action.
It is necessary before I build a house or plant a crop or what-
ever that I have a reasonable expectation that those efforts
will not be interrupted by someone else co-opting that space
and resource for another use. My use of a field for corn is
incompatible with your use of it as a parking lot. No?
--
mi...@wse.com (Mike Wooding)
psychopomp
Thant Tessman wrote:
> Property rights are an expression of the idea...
Yes, that about sums it up. It is an idea, and one of many.
psychopomp
Thant Tessman wrote:
> Property is a concept designed to make a conflict-free
> interaction between individuals possible by stipulating
> mutually binding rules of conduct regarding scarce
> resources.
No, it's a concept designed to make sure those with power and influence can gain more of
those resources and keep them for themselves. It's like cats marking their teritory.
You can't tell me for a second that the concept of property was made by some group of
wise and knowing beings who said, "it is now time for us to prevent conflict over scarce
resources".
>
> To "not believe in property" is either to deny the need
> to resolve conflicts over resources (which is simply
> aggression), or to claim that such conflicts over resources
> don't, can't, or won't occur (which is simply delusional).
This is called, "putting your own bull shit in some one elses mouth". Naturaly I spit
it in your face. It doesn't mean any of those things. It means property is subjective,
and is a system of distribution(which is what this is all about) that does not benifit
most people.
>
> There is no methodological difference between socialism
> and what some socialists call "State Capitalism" (which
> is not capitalism even by Marx's definition).
Well then screw Marx. Do you think Anarchists worship him or something?
Iain McKay
In article <33C412...@wse.com>, Mike Wooding <mi...@wse.com> writes:
> G*rd*n wrote:
> >
> > Thant Tessman <th...@nospam.acm.org>:
> > | ...
> > | The methodological difference between socialism
> > | and capitalism (which is what really matters) is that
> > | capitalism recognizes property rights and the right to
> > | voluntarily contract. Socialism, independent of any
> > | attempt to justify it idealogically, is simply the
> > | institutionalization of aggression against property.
> > | ...
> >
> > But property is already fundamentally aggressive, so this
> > amounts to a distinction without a difference. Furthermore,
> > most of the socialist theory I have read seems to accept
> > liberal ideas of property, reserving its revolutionary
> > intention only for the means of production, that is,
> > property used to implement social domination -- a
> > twice-aggressive form of property.
>
> Property doesn't constitute agression. Rather it's a convention
> by which we agree upon what is and is not agression. If you
> take what is mine you have acted agressively. If you take what
> is yours or what is not owned or what an owner permits, then
> you have not acted agressively.
Yes, and what actually happened is that originally the land was
held in common, but individuals (usually by force) turned it into
individual property. Originally, individuals used what they needed
(i.e. some form of possession) then, by force, that right was
destroyed in favour of property (by which "this right of use . . .
became. . . converted his right to personally use
the thing into the right to use it by his neighbour's labour.
Then property changed its nature and this idea became complex."
[Proudhon, _What is Property?_, pp. 395-6]
In other words, possession is not the same thing as property.
Possession is a social convention, property is theft.
(I quote Proudhon not as an appeal to authority, but because
he sums the point up well - but _What is Property?_ is recommended
for an anarchist analysis of property - which is both "theft"
and "despotism").
> Such conventions are absolutely essential to human inter-action.
Yes, for possesion, but once possession become property it is
by nature a source of exploitation and oppression. As governing
another is a source of aggression, thus property is aggression and
invasion.
The first work of the state was to crush the social conventions on
usufructuary (use rights) recognised by a community and replace
them with property rights wanted by the few.
> It is necessary before I build a house or plant a crop or what-
> ever that I have a reasonable expectation that those efforts
> will not be interrupted by someone else co-opting that space
> and resource for another use.
And I should have a reasonable expectation that the fruits of my
labour are not stolen from my by the landlord, backing up by
either a public or private state. However, under capitalism
the worker is exploited as non-income labour is protected by
force. In addition, the wage worker is under the control of
the boss, thus property creates despotism and denies liberty.
> My use of a field for corn is
> incompatible with your use of it as a parking lot. No?
Very true, but no defence of property can be produced by it.
For more information on anarchism and why it thinks capitalism
is "theft" and "despotism" (and our alternatives to it), check
out the anarchist FAQ at:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931
also has links to over 200 other anarchist webpages.
Iain
G*rd*n
Thant Tessman <th...@nospam.acm.org>:
| > | ...
| > | The methodological difference between socialism
| > | and capitalism (which is what really matters) is that
| > | capitalism recognizes property rights and the right to
| > | voluntarily contract. Socialism, independent of any
| > | attempt to justify it idealogically, is simply the
| > | institutionalization of aggression against property.
| > | ...
G*rd*n wrote:
| > But property is already fundamentally aggressive, so this
| > amounts to a distinction without a difference.
| Nonsense. Would you like to explain exactly how you arrived at this
| conclusion?
Certainly. Property comes about as people appropriate
pieces of the world (given to all in common, as far as I
know) for themselves. Generally, property has been
established through successive waves of aggression and
conflict. Did I really have to explain this?
G*rd*n:
| > Furthermore,
| > most of the socialist theory I have read seems to accept
| > liberal ideas of property, reserving its revolutionary
| > intention only for the means of production, that is,
| > property used to implement social domination -- a
| > twice-aggressive form of property.
| Here's a classic example of a socialist attempt to dominate a debate
| through the use use of ambiguous language. Firstly, what does "liberal"
| connotate here? Are you using it in the classical sense or in the
| contemporary sense? Further, what is socialism's "revolutionary intent"
| other than to install a few dictactors in power via the means of a coup
| d'etat? How is property used to "implement social domination"?
| Secondly, what does "social domination" mean? You commies have a bad
| habit of inserting the word "social" into every sentence, and thus
| render your terms completely meaningless. At least to me they are. Do
| you know what you're referring to? If so, explain, because I have no
| idea what the hell you're talking about. ...
I guess I don't feel like digging up this pile of canards.
I don't think what I wrote is unclear.
G*rd*n
Thant Tessman <th...@nospam.acm.org>:
| > | ...
| > | The methodological difference between socialism
| > | and capitalism (which is what really matters) is that
| > | capitalism recognizes property rights and the right to
| > | voluntarily contract. Socialism, independent of any
| > | attempt to justify it idealogically, is simply the
| > | institutionalization of aggression against property.
| > | ...
G*rd*n wrote:
| > But property is already fundamentally aggressive, so this
| > amounts to a distinction without a difference. ...
Mike Wooding <mi...@wse.com>:
| Property doesn't constitute agression. Rather it's a convention
| by which we agree upon what is and is not agression. If you
| take what is mine you have acted agressively. If you take what
| is yours or what is not owned or what an owner permits, then
| you have not acted agressively.
Come on, Mike. The stuff is just there -- it doesn't have
anyone's name on it. Then some human or proto-human comes
along (or maybe a bunch of them) and grabs it or sits on
it. Then another group come along and they fight over it --
and so on. After awhile the aggression and conflict are
conventionalized so as to reduce some of the harm; where
the conventions don't exist, the physical harm reappears,
as in the genocidal seizure of North America by Europeans.
Let's not pretend that the conventions don't encapsulate
aggression.
| Such conventions are absolutely essential to human inter-action.
| ...
Maybe. But unless the conventions are formed without the
use of force and fraud, which never has happened, they're
as essentially aggressive as the original seizures.
Paddy Joe Shannon
A word or two in your collective earholes....
In article <33C3B3...@nospam.acm.org>, Thant Tessman
<th...@nospam.acm.org> writes
>
>Our lot as humans is to live in a world where resources
>are scarce.
Allow me to stop you right there. The whole argument of common ownership
relies on the premiss of *abundance*, not scarcity. 200 years ago this
argument would have been academic, because scarcity was the norm. The
20th century however is a different case.
>Conflicts can arise over goods whose use
>by one person precludes its use by another person.
>Property is a concept designed to make a conflict-free
>interaction between individuals possible by stipulating
>mutually binding rules of conduct regarding scarce
>resources.
>
Precisely. Property concepts evolved because of scarcity, and should die
because in a society of abundance they are no longer relevant.
>To "not believe in property" is either to deny the need
>to resolve conflicts over resources (which is simply
>aggression), or to claim that such conflicts over resources
>don't, can't, or won't occur (which is simply delusional).
>
Again, you're arguing from an out-of-date position, ie that scarcity is
the social norm. If this was really the case, it would not be possible
to argue for common ownership (given that if there's not enough to go
round then humans will fight each other) and we would just have to make
the best of capitalism. But scarcity is obsolete, thanks to the
productive forces of capitalism itself. The only scarcity which still
exists is being artificially maintained (think of food mountains, and
land set-asides). In view of this, a continued allegiance to a property-
based trading regime is silly and anachronistic. In view of the millions
who starve as a result, it is criminal.
There is, according to the World Health Organisation, enough food
presently on the planet to make every human being *fat*. But perhaps you
don't agree that natural scarcity (as opposed to deliberate scarcity) is
a thing of the past?
Regards =:)
~ Paddy Sha...@patchwork.demon.co.uk ~~
c(@@) (@@)o
(.) Hear all evil, see all evil, and gossip! (.)
Paul D. Lanier
Thant Tessman <th...@nospam.acm.org>:
The methodological difference between socialism
and capitalism (which is what really matters) is that
capitalism recognizes property rights and the right to
voluntarily contract. Socialism, independent of any
attempt to justify it idealogically, is simply the
institutionalization of aggression against property.
...
G*rd*n wrote:
But property is already fundamentally aggressive, so this
amounts to a distinction without a difference. ...
So, basically you're saying socialism and capitalism are
fundamentally the same, because both recognize property (though socialism
refuses to recognize private individuals as owners of property )?
Paul Lanier
Proudhon
In article <33C23E...@best.com>, Gail Thaler <scri...@best.com> wrote:
>jamu...@vela.acs.oakland.edu wrote:
>>
>> This was a good observation. Libertarianism has a lot of similarities
>>to anarchy, and even to Marxism (Marx also advocated the eventual elimination
>> party of today and the anarchists and marxists: the US Libertarians
>> advocate free markets without government influence which would enable the
>> worker power or power to the people (eventually in the case of marxism).
>> That's a material difference.
>> Sincerely,
>> Dr. Austin Murphy (Professor of Finance, Oakland University)
>
>
>Well, that sounds right, but...
>
>
>What the heck is "libertarian socialism?"
Mike Wooding
G*rd*n wrote:
> G*rd*n wrote:
> | > But property is already fundamentally aggressive, so this
> | > amounts to a distinction without a difference. ...
>
> | Property doesn't constitute agression. Rather it's a convention
> | by which we agree upon what is and is not agression. If you
> | take what is mine you have acted agressively. If you take what
> | is yours or what is not owned or what an owner permits, then
> | you have not acted agressively.
>
> Come on, Mike. The stuff is just there -- it doesn't have
> anyone's name on it. Then some human or proto-human comes
> along (or maybe a bunch of them) and grabs it or sits on
> it. Then another group come along and they fight over it --
> and so on. After awhile the aggression and conflict are
> conventionalized so as to reduce some of the harm; where
> the conventions don't exist, the physical harm reappears,
> as in the genocidal seizure of North America by Europeans.
> Let's not pretend that the conventions don't encapsulate
> aggression.
So if one sits down, one is being agressive because someone
else might come along and fight for that spot? Aren't those
humans or proto-humans going to get really tired standing
forever and ever being on the alert in case someone else
comes along and wants to stand where they are?
This sort of definition of agression stands that term on its
head. Most rational people understand that the late comer who
"fights" for the spot on which you are sitting is the agressor.
BTW ... I was reading that there may be evidence of caucasian
men in NorthAmerica perhaps even before the so-called Native
Americans, and evidence (like stone arrowheads embedded in
the skull) that those earlier NativeAmreicans were exterminated
much more thoroughly than the European's genocide upon the
current NAs. Which wasn't really a genocide in any meaningful
sense of the term.
--
mi...@wse.com (Mike Wooding)
G*rd*n
Thant Tessman <th...@nospam.acm.org>:
| The methodological difference between socialism
| and capitalism (which is what really matters) is that
| capitalism recognizes property rights and the right to
| voluntarily contract. Socialism, independent of any
| attempt to justify it idealogically, is simply the
| institutionalization of aggression against property.
| ...
G*rd*n wrote:
| But property is already fundamentally aggressive, so this
| amounts to a distinction without a difference. ...
"Paul D. Lanier" <lan...@email.uah.edu>:
| So, basically you're saying socialism and capitalism are
| fundamentally the same, because both recognize property (though socialism
| refuses to recognize private individuals as owners of property )?
Socialism means "the ownership or control of the means of
production by the people generally, or by the working
class." It doesn't mean an arrangement where no one owns
property of any kind, or where there is no individual
ownership of property.
lam...@nospam.washington.edu
"scwi...@home.com" <scwi...@home.com> writes:
>> But property is already fundamentally aggressive, so this
>> amounts to a distinction without a difference.
>
>conclusion?
i'd honestly like an explanation of this as well. i don't see how owning
shoes is inherantly aggressive (assuming they weren't made by nike, etc)
> Furthermore,
>> most of the socialist theory I have read seems to accept
>> liberal ideas of property, reserving its revolutionary
>> intention only for the means of production, that is,
>> property used to implement social domination -- a
>> twice-aggressive form of property.
>
>Here's a classic example of a socialist attempt to dominate a debate
>through the use use of ambiguous language.
well you just posted a classic example of a capitalist trying to dominate
the debate through the use of overgeneralization, misinterpretations and
false accusations. so nyeah.
>Firstly, what does "liberal"
>connotate here? Are you using it in the classical sense or in the
>contemporary sense? Further, what is socialism's "revolutionary intent"
>other than to install a few dictactors in power via the means of a coup
>d'etat?
the "revolutionary intent" is to eliminate private ownership of the means
of production. this was made quite clear and you either did not, or more
likely, chose not, to understand it. instead you assert that socialism
is about installing dictators in power, which is not the case in
democratic socialist countries and is not the case in libertarian socialism.
it was marx, engels, et al. who believed in strength through a central
power, this is not a universal trait of socialism.
>How is property used to "implement social domination"?
the capitalists own the means of production, they drive down wages and
drive up profits since this is in their best interests, and they used the
concentrated wealth that results from their profits to influence the
government in order to insure continued low wages and high profits.
simplistically, property is power and power corrupts.
>Secondly, what does "social domination" mean? You commies have a bad
>habit of inserting the word "social" into every sentence, and thus
>render your terms completely meaningless.
well, the domiantion isn't purely physical (although history contains many
cases where it came down to this) but it's in the social sector of
interaction. hence, "social domination." again, it should be obvious
why this choice of words is made, but you choose not to understand.
>At least to me they are. Do
>you know what you're referring to? If so, explain, because I have no
>idea what the hell you're talking about.
just because you don't want to.
>Lastly, what's this "twice-agressive" business?
that ties into your first question and therefore i can't give an answer.
i don't think owning shoes is inherantly agressive, therefore i think that
private capital is just "agressive" -- no "twice."
>What we must demand from the socialists is the clarification of their
>principles.
well unlike those dogmatic capitalists, us socialists don't always agree
on what 'our' principles are.
--
Lamont Granquist (lamontg at u dot washington dot edu) ->note spamfilter<-
"First consider a spherical chicken..." ICBM: 47 39'23"N 122 18'19"W
unsolicited commercial e-mail->contacting your ISP to remove your net.access
Roger Dapson
G*rd*n wrote:
>
> | [...someone calling themselves Proudhon posted much nonsense...]
>
> Thant Tessman <th...@nospam.acm.org>:
> | I guess some socialists aren't satisfied to merely co-opt
> | and pervert the term "liberal" but must now go after the
> | term "libertarian" as well.
> | ...It is extremely difficult to carry on a rational discussion with
communists since their philosophy does not provide moral imperatives to
tell the truth. Of course, they don't find this problematic. If your
recognition of their lies and deceit causes you difficulty, that's you
problem. You'll have better success arguing with the wall. At least, it
will echo accurately. Just for grins, review their responses for
distortions.
>
> The term _pervert_ suggests that you believe you are in
> possession of some kind of pure _Ursprach_, which can be
> polluted on earth by improper use. However, both _liberal_
> and _libertarian_ usually mean "interested in freedom" and
> socialists are free to be interested in freedom. In fact,
> I would say the major socialist criticism of capitalism is
> focused on the ways in which property can be used by some
> to dominate and subjugate others. "Libertarian" would apply
> to such people.
Thant Tessman
[...someone calling themselves Proudhon posted much nonsense...]
I guess some socialists aren't satisfied to merely co-opt
and pervert the term "liberal" but must now go after the
term "libertarian" as well.
Throughout history there has been a small and intermittent
chorus of people who suggest that law as the embodiment of
ethics was not the product of "divine inspiration" or the
whim of authority, but was instead revealed through the
process of rational thought to be self-evident. The
advocates of this idea called such law "natural law," and
these advocates were known as "liberals." It is the
liberals who first posited that the operation of the state
and societey were separate, and although liberalism and
anarchism are not synonymous, it is upon these liberal
foundations that anarchism was originally founded.
At the turn of the century in the the United States, the
social democrats (the non-revolutionary branch of the
socialist movement) co-opted the term "liberal" in order
to distance themselves from the obvious creulty and
economic failures of more overt forms of socialism (which
they now call "State Capitalism" in an attempt to confuse
the issue even further).
Since the term "liberal" no longer meant what it used to
mean, the advocates of "natural law" had to refer to
themselves with new terms such as "libertarian" and
"classical-liberal" (to distinguish themselves from
"conservatives" who wish to use the power of the state
to preserve whatever advantages they perceive themselves
enjoying in the status quo).
Socialists consider society to be not an association
of free-willed individuals but a single maleable
whole of which individuals are only a mechanistic
and subservient part. For socialists the purpose of
words is not as a tool of logic but a tool of
persuasion. Consequently, what's important about a
word is not its denotation, but its emotional
connotation. In their confusion socialists have
continued and will continue to attempt to manipulate
social reality by manipulating words. The most extreme
(if admittedly flippant) examples of this are all the
"politically correct" terms that we are so familiar
with. But calling a handicapped person "differently
abled" will do nothing by itself to aleviate the
difficulties of being handicapped.
Attempts to co-opt the term "libertarian" by
juxtaposing it with "socialism" may succeed in
changing its common meaning, but the ideas behind
the concept of "libertarianim" are of stronger
stuff and won't be brushed aside so easily.
-thant
G*rd*n
| [...someone calling themselves Proudhon posted much nonsense...]
Thant Tessman <th...@nospam.acm.org>:
| I guess some socialists aren't satisfied to merely co-opt
| and pervert the term "liberal" but must now go after the
| term "libertarian" as well.
| ...
Proudhon
In article <5q6dqc$sum$1...@gte1.gte.net>, Roger Dapson <rda...@gte.net> wrote:
>G*rd*n wrote:
>>
>> | [...someone calling themselves Proudhon posted much nonsense...]
>>
>> Thant Tessman <th...@nospam.acm.org>:
>> | I guess some socialists aren't satisfied to merely co-opt
>> | and pervert the term "liberal" but must now go after the
>> | term "libertarian" as well.
If you even READ ther article in question you would see that it gave ample
proof that the word "libertarian" was in fact stolen from the left
by the right. Not the other way around. Go back and read something for
a change.
>> ...It is extremely difficult to carry on a rational discussion with
>communists since their philosophy does not provide moral imperatives to
>tell the truth. Of course, they don't find this problematic. If your
>recognition of their lies and deceit causes you difficulty, that's you
>problem. You'll have better success arguing with the wall. At least, it
>will echo accurately. Just for grins, review their responses for
>distortions.
Blah, blah... all youre saying is that people you disagree with
are liars. It's been said before. As for moral imperatives to tell
the truth... those come from the individual, not the ideology they follow.
The moral imperative to tell the truth DOES exist for leftists because
if they expect anyone to listen to them they must tell the truth.
Stalin lied becauise he was a bastard who had all the power after the
opposition was killed. All youre doing is saying everyone you dont like
fits into thew category of perticular people who lied at some
given point in time. Big deal.
>> The term _pervert_ suggests that you believe you are in
>> possession of some kind of pure _Ursprach_, which can be
>> polluted on earth by improper use. However, both _liberal_
>> and _libertarian_ usually mean "interested in freedom" and
>> socialists are free to be interested in freedom. In fact,
>> I would say the major socialist criticism of capitalism is
>> focused on the ways in which property can be used by some
>> to dominate and subjugate others. "Libertarian" would apply
>> to such people.
>> --
>> }"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
>> -----------------------------------------------
Good point Gordon, as usual.
- Proudhon
Alexander J Russell
In article <5q54r9$7...@panix2.panix.com>, g...@panix.com says...
>
>Thant Tessman <th...@nospam.acm.org>:
>| The methodological difference between socialism
>| and capitalism (which is what really matters) is that
>| capitalism recognizes property rights and the right to
>| voluntarily contract. Socialism, independent of any
>| attempt to justify it idealogically, is simply the
>| institutionalization of aggression against property.
>| ...
>
>G*rd*n wrote:
>
>"Paul D. Lanier" <lan...@email.uah.edu>:
>| So, basically you're saying socialism and capitalism are
>| fundamentally the same, because both recognize property (though socialism
>| refuses to recognize private individuals as owners of property )?
>
>Socialism means "the ownership or control of the means of
>production by the people generally, or by the working
>class." It doesn't mean an arrangement where no one owns
>property of any kind, or where there is no individual
>ownership of property.
> }"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
>-----------------------------------------------
>NOTE: if your ISP permits junkmailing, you will
>probably not be able to reach me by email.
If I don't hire any workers, but fully automate my factory, will I be allowed
to own it? I am no longer 'exploiting' anyone. Of course they are all out of
work now, but better that than being a 'wage slave', right?
--
The AnArChIsT! Anarchy! Not Chaos!
aka
Alex Russell
ale...@uniserve.com
G*rd*n
G*rd*n:
| >> But property is already fundamentally aggressive, so this
| >> amounts to a distinction without a difference.
"scwi...@home.com" <scwi...@home.com> writes:
| >Nonsense. Would you like to explain exactly how you arrived at this
| >conclusion?
| i'd honestly like an explanation of this as well. i don't see how owning
| shoes is inherantly aggressive (assuming they weren't made by nike, etc)
| ...
I'm truly mystified at everyone's mystification. Here's
what I wrote a few days ago, which you must have missed --
nothing very mysterious.
We're starting with the pre-human world.
... The stuff is just there -- it doesn't have
anyone's name on it. Then some human or proto-human comes
along (or maybe a bunch of them) and grabs it or sits on
it. Then another group come along and they fight over it --
and so on. After awhile the aggression and conflict are
conventionalized so as to reduce some of the harm; where
the conventions don't exist, the physical harm reappears,
as in the genocidal seizure of North America by Europeans.
Let's not pretend that the conventions don't encapsulate
aggression. ... [U]nless the conventions are formed without
the use of force and fraud, which never has happened,
they're as essentially aggressive as the original
seizures.
It's possible that human property relations were established
more consensually than in my little story, but given what I
see around me and what I've read of history I doubt it.
JMH
Proudhon wrote:
>
> In article <5q6dqc$sum$1...@gte1.gte.net>, Roger Dapson <rda...@gte.net> wrote:
> >G*rd*n wrote:
> >>
> >> | [...someone calling themselves Proudhon posted much nonsense...]
> >>
> >> Thant Tessman <th...@nospam.acm.org>:
> >> | I guess some socialists aren't satisfied to merely co-opt
> >> | and pervert the term "liberal" but must now go after the
> >> | term "libertarian" as well.
>
> If you even READ ther article in question you would see that it gave ample
> proof that the word "libertarian" was in fact stolen from the left
> by the right. Not the other way around. Go back and read something for
> a change.
The only thing I find really interesting about this comment
is the choice of the word "stolen." It seems strange to see
an anarchist arguing some prior property rights in something
that falls into the general category of social capital, i.e.
language.
There are historical reasons why liberal and libertarian
have different menaing to different people and why these
differences seem to be more pronouced as you cross the Atlantic.
Yes, it is. And it also suggests that those a-cer using the
term(s) can also be using it accurately.
> - Proudhon
JMH
--
"Once conform, once do what others do because they do it, and
a kind of lethargy steals over all the finer senses of the soul."
Montaigne
JMH
I think a lot of those guestioning you story are wonding why
the first two groups started fighting while there--I presume--
was still plenty of other locations equally well suited to they're
needs.
Making the assumption that violence is a costly activity vis-a-vis
non-violent interaction amidst abundance one might think that
the violence of property relations and seizures arose latter.
It is possible that the concept of property didn't arise until
that period of violent interaction occurred. On the other hand,
the concept of property might well have arises because new-comers
acted as if the first group had such property rights. Here property
rights arise out of non-violent interactions and violencec relating
to property only arose when some groups had stronger incentives to
violate these rights than they had incentives to honour property rights.
I suppose the most interesting aspect of these types of
state of nature explanations/assumptions is how everyone
chooses the story best convinient for their broader position,
and seems to believe they actualy have some real truth about a
subject of which we really cannot know. It kind of reminds me
of the God/Creation debated which show up now and again.
Bill Reid
In article <5q70h8$gq9$1...@neptune.uniserve.com>, ale...@uniserve.com
(Alexander J Russell) wrote:
>In article <5q54r9$7...@panix2.panix.com>, g...@panix.com says...
>>
>>Thant Tessman <th...@nospam.acm.org>:
>>| The methodological difference between socialism
>>| and capitalism (which is what really matters) is that
>>| capitalism recognizes property rights and the right to
>>| voluntarily contract. Socialism, independent of any
>>| attempt to justify it idealogically, is simply the
>>| institutionalization of aggression against property.
>>| ...
>>
>>G*rd*n wrote:
>>| But property is already fundamentally aggressive, so this
>>| amounts to a distinction without a difference. ...
>>
>>"Paul D. Lanier" <lan...@email.uah.edu>:
>>| So, basically you're saying socialism and capitalism are
>>| fundamentally the same, because both recognize property (though socialism
>>| refuses to recognize private individuals as owners of property )?
>>
>>Socialism means "the ownership or control of the means of
>>production by the people generally, or by the working
>>class." It doesn't mean an arrangement where no one owns
>>property of any kind, or where there is no individual
>>ownership of property.
>>--
>> }"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
>>-----------------------------------------------
>>NOTE: if your ISP permits junkmailing, you will
>>probably not be able to reach me by email.
>
>If I don't hire any workers, but fully automate my factory, will I be allowed
>to own it? I am no longer 'exploiting' anyone. Of course they are all out of
>work now, but better that than being a 'wage slave', right?
Yes, but good luck fully automating that factory independent of the
previous productive efforts of others.
Bill Reid
In article <5q677q$e...@nntp4.u.washington.edu>,
lam...@nospam.washington.edu wrote:
>"scwi...@home.com" <scwi...@home.com> writes:
>>What we must demand from the socialists is the clarification of their
>>principles.
>
>well unlike those dogmatic capitalists, us socialists don't always agree
>on what 'our' principles are.
I recently watched a speech on cspan by someone involved with the
Republican party (I think it was some GOPAC clown) in which he referred to
one aspect of bipartisan conflict as being between "our conservative
principles and their ideas." I remember thinking how I'd rather be on the
side that gets to generate ideas and is allowed to think and question.
Then I remember thinking how this, sadly, weakens your side.
Alexander J Russell
In article <5q7ssk$a...@panix2.panix.com>, g...@panix.com says...
>
>G*rd*n:
>| >> But property is already fundamentally aggressive, so this
>| >> amounts to a distinction without a difference.
>
> }"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
>-----------------------------------------------
>NOTE: if your ISP permits junkmailing, you will
>probably not be able to reach me by email.
What about the stuff that was built/created via labour. shouldn't that be owned
be who ever created it?
I can see some valid points to the view that natural resources should be shared
out equally, but not things made by people.
G*rd*n
ale...@uniserve.com (Alexander J Russell):
|What about the stuff that was built/created via labour. shouldn't that be owned
|be who ever created it?
|
|I can see some valid points to the view that natural resources should be shared
|out equally, but not things made by people.
I read about a hunting tribe in the backwoods of South
America who divided up each kill in a prescribed manner even
when it was accomplished by an individual. The theory was
that to some extent the kill was effectuated by certain gods
who had to be rewarded. The gods also ordained that other
portions of the kill had to be given to certain relatives
and in-laws, including the mother(s) of one's children.
However, only the larger, more desirable game were covered
by this rule -- smaller animals along the lines of rats or
squirrels were fully at the disposal of the hunter.
One can see how these rules would keep the tribe going.
In the case of industrial labor, the processes are so highly
social that it's difficult to pull them apart to the extent
that everyone's contribution will be distinct. Into every
widget goes the labor of many individuals, various capital
investments, the financial and protective powers of local
government, the customs of the people, and the appetites of
the consumer.
vicl...@ican.net
G*rd*n <g...@panix.com> wrote in article <5qapj2$9...@panix2.panix.com>...
> ale...@uniserve.com (Alexander J Russell):
>
>> What about the stuff that was built/created via labour. shouldn't that be
>> owned be who ever created it?
>>
>> I can see some valid points to the view that natural resources should be
>> shared |out equally, but not things made by people.
>
> I read about a hunting tribe in the backwoods of South
> America who divided up each kill in a prescribed manner even
> when it was accomplished by an individual. The theory was
> that to some extent the kill was effectuated by certain gods
> who had to be rewarded. The gods also ordained that other
> portions of the kill had to be given to certain relatives
> and in-laws, including the mother(s) of one's children.
> However, only the larger, more desirable game were covered
> by this rule -- smaller animals along the lines of rats or
> squirrels were fully at the disposal of the hunter.
>
> One can see how these rules would keep the tribe going.
>
> In the case of industrial labor, the processes are so highly
> social that it's difficult to pull them apart to the extent
> that everyone's contribution will be distinct. Into every
> widget goes the labor of many individuals, various capital
> investments, the financial and protective powers of local
> government, the customs of the people, and the appetites of
> the consumer.
Hey, if you can get everyone's VOLUNTARY cooperation to produce widgets
and other good stuff by offering the promise of an equal share of the
output, and it works.......then more power to you.
I mean, you wouldn't consider anything but voluntary cooperation, would
you?
Victor Levis
Freedom of Choice......Responsibility for Actions......Respect for Others
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Thant Tessman
Paddy Joe Shannon wrote:
> [Y]ou're arguing from an out-of-date position, ie that
> scarcity is the social norm. If this was really the case,
> it would not be possible to argue for common ownership
> (given that if there's not enough to go round then humans
> will fight each other) and we would just have to make
> the best of capitalism. But scarcity is obsolete, thanks
> to the productive forces of capitalism itself.
This is "Star Trek" socialism.
> The only scarcity which still exists is being artificially
> maintained (think of food mountains, and land set-asides).
Those food mountains are the product of socialist central
planning. They are created when the free market isn't
allowed to direct resources via prices toward the most
efficient satisfaction of the most urgent wants of
consumers.
Prosperity is not simply the product of technology.
Nor will resources ever be unlimited. Our time,
for example, is a very precious and inherently
limited resource.
> In view of this, a continued allegiance to a property-
> based trading regime is silly and anachronistic. In view
> of the millions who starve as a result, it is criminal.
You've got it backwards. The vast majority of human
suffering is associated with war and oppressive
governments--in other words, with the blatant disregard
for property rights, which is the exact opposite of
capitalism.
> There is, according to the World Health Organisation,
> enough food presently on the planet to make every human
> being *fat*.
And farmers all over the world are forced by their
socialist governments to grow cash crops for export
to pay off international debt while the locals go
starving.
I remember long ago reading about the starvation in
(Marxist) Ethiopia. Apparently there were two factions
who would wage war on each other by attacking
international food shipments heading into the other's
territory. This image, although disturbing, was an
enlightening one.
-thant
--
thant at acm dot org
G*rd*n
ale...@uniserve.com (Alexander J Russell):
| >> ...
| >> What about the stuff that was built/created via labour. shouldn't that be
| >> owned be who ever created it?
| >>
| >> I can see some valid points to the view that natural resources should be
| >> shared out equally, but not things made by people.
G*rd*n:
| > ...
| > In the case of industrial labor, the processes are so highly
| > social that it's difficult to pull them apart to the extent
| > that everyone's contribution will be distinct. Into every
| > widget goes the labor of many individuals, various capital
| > investments, the financial and protective powers of local
| > government, the customs of the people, and the appetites of
| > the consumer.
|
| Hey, if you can get everyone's VOLUNTARY cooperation to produce widgets
| and other good stuff by offering the promise of an equal share of the
| output, and it works.......then more power to you.
|
| I mean, you wouldn't consider anything but voluntary cooperation, would
| you?
I think Alexander was talking about who ought to own the
fruits of production. I was just saying that most
production is highly social, which makes it difficult to
assign just shares based on responsibility for production.
There is also the problem that, even given the same data,
people's ideas of what constitutes justice vary
considerably.
Of course one can dispense with justice, and if it's
incomputable maybe it's a good idea to do so. But then it
seems illogical to use it as a defense for the system one
wants to promote.
G*rd*n
Thant Tessman <th...@nospam.acm.org>:
| >> | I guess some socialists aren't satisfied to merely co-opt
| >> | and pervert the term "liberal" but must now go after the
| >> | term "libertarian" as well.
anon...@nyx.cs.du.edu (Proudhon):
| If you even READ ther article in question you would see that it gave ample
| proof that the word "libertarian" was in fact stolen from the left
| by the right. Not the other way around. Go back and read something for
| a change.
Actually, I think _libertarian_ used to mean _libertine_.
But onward....
Roger Dapson <rda...@gte.net> wrote:
| > ...It is extremely difficult to carry on a rational discussion with
| >communists since their philosophy does not provide moral imperatives to
| >tell the truth. Of course, they don't find this problematic. If your
| >recognition of their lies and deceit causes you difficulty, that's you
| >problem. You'll have better success arguing with the wall. At least, it
| >will echo accurately. Just for grins, review their responses for
| >distortions.
anon...@nyx.cs.du.edu (Proudhon):
| Blah, blah... all youre saying is that people you disagree with
| are liars. ...
I think it's more a confession of inability to carry on a
theoretical argument. People who use lies and deceit weaken
their own arguments and are rather easy to trap, unless, of
course, they own the means of communication and can
inundate and efface their opponents with a great sea of
misinformation, disinformation, and mystification. But
nobody we know would do that, would they?
However, the implication that there are true-believing
Communists about intrigues me. Are there any in the house?
Loren Petrich
In article <33C948...@signature.below>,
Thant Tessman <add...@signature.below> wrote:
>Those food mountains are the product of socialist central
>planning. ...
Examples, please?
>You've got it backwards. The vast majority of human
>suffering is associated with war and oppressive
>governments--in other words, with the blatant disregard
>for property rights, which is the exact opposite of
>capitalism.
What do you call illness and crime and accidents, Mr. Tessman? Or
do you prefer to indulge in dreaming of some Capitalist Utopia of virtuous
anarchists -- complete with focusing on a certain set of villains as
supposedly the cause of all the trouble in the world???
And predatory behavior is completely consistent with the practice
of capitalism. Slaveowners, for example, practice capitalism as they buy
and sell slaves.
Also, what distinguish real property rights from fake ones?
Slaveowners claim their slaves as their property; claiming that slavery
is illegitimate would indicate that the slaveowners are wrong in their
claims.
>> There is, according to the World Health Organisation,
>> enough food presently on the planet to make every human
>> being *fat*.
>And farmers all over the world are forced by their
>socialist governments to grow cash crops for export
>to pay off international debt while the locals go
>starving.
Mr. Thant Tessman, do you have any better ideas on how that debt
is to be repaid? Or would you prefer that that debt be repudiated? Of
course, the creditors will not like that...
>I remember long ago reading about the starvation in
>(Marxist) Ethiopia. Apparently there were two factions
>who would wage war on each other by attacking
>international food shipments heading into the other's
>territory. This image, although disturbing, was an
>enlightening one.
I'd hardly call that Real Marxism, or even Stalinism for that
matter. Gangsterism is more like it.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
pet...@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html
G*rd*n
| ...
| I think a lot of those guestioning you story are wonding why
| the first two groups started fighting while there--I presume--
| was still plenty of other locations equally well suited to they're
| needs. ...
Under such circumstances property in land would probably not
arise, or would be vague, as with nomadic people even in
recent times. My little story centered on the origins of
property, not prehistoric life in general.
| I suppose the most interesting aspect of these types of
| state of nature explanations/assumptions is how everyone
| chooses the story best convinient for their broader position,
| and seems to believe they actualy have some real truth about a
| subject of which we really cannot know. It kind of reminds me
| of the God/Creation debated which show up now and again.
Surely the connection between property and violence in
history is more than an individual prejudice, or "nonsense"
as one of my interlocutors stated. On the Net, the
prevailing theology seems to be that property as understood
in the West is given by Nature and is an eternal order.
JMH
G*rd*n wrote:
>
> | ...
>
> jmh...@erols.com:
> | I think a lot of those guestioning you story are wonding why
> | the first two groups started fighting while there--I presume--
> | was still plenty of other locations equally well suited to they're
> | needs. ...
>
> Under such circumstances property in land would probably not
> arise, or would be vague, as with nomadic people even in
> recent times. My little story centered on the origins of
> property, not prehistoric life in general.
I wasn't making a comment on prehistoric life in general
but one specifically about the origins of property rights
and the attitudes of variours posters regarding the arguments
and explanations relating thereto.
> | I suppose the most interesting aspect of these types of
> | state of nature explanations/assumptions is how everyone
> | chooses the story best convinient for their broader position,
> | and seems to believe they actualy have some real truth about a
> | subject of which we really cannot know. It kind of reminds me
> | of the God/Creation debated which show up now and again.
>
> Surely the connection between property and violence in
> history is more than an individual prejudice, or "nonsense"
> as one of my interlocutors stated. On the Net, the
> prevailing theology seems to be that property as understood
> in the West is given by Nature and is an eternal order.
There clearly is a connection between property and
violence, both now and historically. That however I
not the same evidence that violence was some source or
proximate cause of property rights. However, quite a
few people would agree with you on this but disagree
that property is the manfestation of violence claiming that
it was the solution to certain violent conflicts.
I'm merely pointion out an alternative origination of
the concept of property and rights there to in social
setting or in peoples minds which doesn't have any
original violence associated with it.
Since we hardly have the means of establishing which
hypothesis is correct (neither are testable, IMO) the
claim that property is violence is entirely moot.
JMH
> --
> }"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
> -----------------------------------------------
> NOTE: if your ISP permits junkmailing, you will
> probably not be able to reach me by email.
--
Thant Tessman
I haven't been able to catch all of the participation in
this thread.
I'm assuming G*rd*n wrote in response to my objection to
Proudhon's use of the term "libertarian":
> The term _pervert_ suggests that you believe you are in
> possession of some kind of pure _Ursprach_, which can be
> polluted on earth by improper use.
Words are just words, but one would hope that the point is
to use words to help accurately communicate ideas.
> However, both _liberal_ and _libertarian_ usually mean
> "interested in freedom" and socialists are free to be
> interested in freedom. In fact, I would say the major
> socialist criticism of capitalism is focused on the ways
> in which property can be used by some to dominate and
> subjugate others.
At the heart of Marxism is this idea of alienation. The
idea is capitalism and the division of labor forces
people into exclusive spheres of activity and "alienates"
them from their work. Marx blames the "angst" that many
people feel on this.
But Marx was full of shit. Life is, was, and always will
be a struggle. The angst he is so eager to blame on
capitalism is part of the human condition. As I said,
we live in a world of limited resources, and in order
to survive we must make the best we can from what we
have. Talent, resources and information are inhomogenous.
There will always be somebody who is better off than you
are, and there will always be a tension between wanting
to act civil and respect other people's property, and the
desire to simply use force to take it away from them. (And
there will always be a fear that someone will take away
your property.)
When a socialist talks of "freedom" he means it in a
purely materialistic sense. The socialist wants, for
example, to be free from having to work for a living
for a jerk who, if there was any justice in the world,
wouldn't be so much better off than he is. Or the
socialist wants the "freedom" to eat in a restaurant
without being bothered by other people's cigarette
smoke despite the fact that such a freedom can
only be granted by restricting restaurant owners'
freedom to decide whether they will allow smoking
or not in their own restaurant.
By contrast, the libertarian concept of freedom is based
on free will. For example, the libertarian stipulates
that people are free to ignore or not ignore consumer
advertising as they choose. The socialists, rejecting
such notions of freedom, claim for example that the blame
for a cigarette smoker's addiction must lay at least in
part with the cigarette company and its advertisements,
regardless of how well-informed the smoker is on the
effects of smoking.
And in fact socialists want to control as much of our
lives as they can get away with, from what medical
goods and services we should be allowed to buy to how
our kids are educated to what kind of art we should be
forced to subsidize.
Clearly "libertarian" as in an "advocate of the doctrine
of free will" has ZERO to do with "socialism", and clearly
the bullshit posted by Proudhon was nothing more than
attempt to confuse the issue.
Patrick Alessandra, Psy.D.
Hello,
Economics & Freedom www page is
http://users.aol.com/aprioripa/ecofree.html
Cheers,
Patrick
---
*** A.Priori / 1441C Bellevue Way NE / Bellevue, WA 98004 USA
*** apri...@aol.com / http://users.aol.com/aprioripa/ecofree.html
*** (425) 455-9259
Thant Tessman
[...followups trimmed somewhat...]
G*rd*n wrote:
> I find it hard to believe that you're equating the Marxist
> notion of alienation with having a hard time in the world.
But that is exactly the attraction of Marxism. Marx gave
what sounded like a rational explanation for what people
perceive to be inherent injustices in society. And his
argument was especially attractive in that it claimed that
the game was rigged *even if* everybody played fairly by
the same rules. This argument laid the groundwork for his
proposed cure to which anything and anyone could be
sacrificed since anything else was merely oppression
justified by bourgeois logic.
Marxism is what you get when you take to an extreme the
goal of rationalizing your own sorry state of affairs.
> And I find it hard to believe you're equating socialism
> with some kind of pallid social democratic Welfare-statism
> -- the bourgeois state as nanny. Socialism is about will
> and power.
Socialism can be divided into at least two schools of
thought. One school said that any means to achieve
communism are justified. This is the revolutionary
or Marxist branch of socialism. Another school of thought
was repulsed by the violence of revolution argued that
socialism could be brought about by more peaceful
democratic means. Overtly, the goal of the social-
democratic socialists is to socialize only those
industries "too important" to leave to the "chaos"
of capitalism. Such industries include banking,
transportation, education, and more recently the
medical industry. But the political goals of these
social-democratic socialists are really no different
than those outlined by Marx's Ten Point Plan.
And to such socialists, (who as I said, are known as
"liberals" or "progressives" in the United States), there
is no sphere of human activity that can't in some way
be viewed as being "public" and therefore rightly subject
to democratic control. (Including smoking!)
It's merely another aspect of the desire for that
mythical pseudo-religious transformation whereby the
wants of the individual become indistinguishable from
the wants of society.
[...]
> Cigarette advertising is fraud; one could attack the
> tobacco companies on the most libertarian principles.
> This has very little to do with socialism in particular.
Although there are libertarian objections to some of the
practices of the the cigarette industry, no libertarian
would state that cigarette advertising is categorically
fraud. Again, this is because libertarianism posits
that people have free will to choose to smoke or not
to smoke.
Your claim to the contrary shows that you hold the
position that cigarette advertising is a part of
what you later describe as the control the bourgeoise
have over our lives. And in this sense the attack
on the cigarette industry has everything to do with
socialism.
> | And in fact socialists want to control as much of our
> | lives as they can get away with, from what medical
> | goods and services we should be allowed to buy to how
> | our kids are educated to what kind of art we should be
> | forced to subsidize.
>
> Maybe, but that's not what they say. What they say is not
> that _they_ want to control as much of our lives as they
> can get away with, but that they don't see why the
> bourgeoisie should control as much of our lives as _it_ can
> get away with, which is the current state of affairs.
It is important to categorize socialism not by what its
advocates claim is their goal (i.e. e.g. "social justice")
but by the means they advocate for achieving that goal and
their real as opposed to their "theoretical" effects. The
real effects of the "socialization of the means of
production" are poverty and oppression.
And your point that socialists "don't see why the
bourgeoisie should control as much of our lives as
_it_ can get away with" is exactly what I'm talking
about.
> [...] Socialism is precisely a way of confronting the
> collectivizing tendencies of capitalism. Remember that
> alienation?
Marx's theory that capital has an inherent tendency
to accumulate has been thoroughly discredited not only
by logic but by history.
In a free market, money capital does indeed have a
tendency to accumulate, but only to the degree that
the accumulator is successful at satisfying the wants
of voluntary consumers.
(Note: The claim that the current stagnation in real
wages in the U.S. is proof of the Marxist critique of
capitalist economics ignores that real wages are
measured *after taxes* and that the stagnation of
real wages can more than be accounted for by the
fact that the government is relieving us of an ever-
increasing portion of our paychecks.)
G*rd*n
Thant Tessman <add...@signature.below>:
| I haven't been able to catch all of the participation in
| this thread.
|
| I'm assuming G*rd*n wrote in response to my objection to
| Proudhon's use of the term "libertarian":
(G*rd*n:)
| > The term _pervert_ suggests that you believe you are in
| > possession of some kind of pure _Ursprach_, which can be
| > polluted on earth by improper use.
|
| Words are just words, but one would hope that the point is
| to use words to help accurately communicate ideas.
|
(G*rd*n:)
| > However, both _liberal_ and _libertarian_ usually mean
| > "interested in freedom" and socialists are free to be
| > interested in freedom. In fact, I would say the major
| > socialist criticism of capitalism is focused on the ways
| > in which property can be used by some to dominate and
| > subjugate others.
|
| At the heart of Marxism is this idea of alienation. The
| idea is capitalism and the division of labor forces
| people into exclusive spheres of activity and "alienates"
| them from their work. Marx blames the "angst" that many
| people feel on this.
|
| But Marx was full of shit. Life is, was, and always will
| be a struggle. The angst he is so eager to blame on
| capitalism is part of the human condition. As I said,
| we live in a world of limited resources, and in order
| to survive we must make the best we can from what we
| have. Talent, resources and information are inhomogenous.
| There will always be somebody who is better off than you
| are, and there will always be a tension between wanting
| to act civil and respect other people's property, and the
| desire to simply use force to take it away from them. (And
| there will always be a fear that someone will take away
| your property.)
I find it hard to believe that you're equating the Marxist
notion of alienation with having a hard time in the world.
| When a socialist talks of "freedom" he means it in a
| purely materialistic sense. The socialist wants, for
| example, to be free from having to work for a living
| for a jerk who, if there was any justice in the world,
| wouldn't be so much better off than he is. Or the
| socialist wants the "freedom" to eat in a restaurant
| without being bothered by other people's cigarette
| smoke despite the fact that such a freedom can
| only be granted by restricting restaurant owners'
| freedom to decide whether they will allow smoking
| or not in their own restaurant.
And I find it hard to believe you're equating socialism
with some kind of pallid social democratic Welfare-statism
-- the bourgeois state as nanny. Socialism is about will
and power.
| By contrast, the libertarian concept of freedom is based
| on free will. For example, the libertarian stipulates
| that people are free to ignore or not ignore consumer
| advertising as they choose. The socialists, rejecting
| such notions of freedom, claim for example that the blame
| for a cigarette smoker's addiction must lay at least in
| part with the cigarette company and its advertisements,
| regardless of how well-informed the smoker is on the
| effects of smoking.
I have never seen a socialist opinion about smoking. Where
did you find one? You must peruse the most esoteric Left
literature assiduously; I envy you your time, energy, and
enthusiasm for this pursuit. Perhaps you could also reveal
to us socialist plans for dog breeding and stamp
collecting.
Cigarette advertising is fraud; one could attack the tobacco
companies on the most libertarian principles. This has very
little to do with socialism in particular.
| And in fact socialists want to control as much of our
| lives as they can get away with, from what medical
| goods and services we should be allowed to buy to how
| our kids are educated to what kind of art we should be
| forced to subsidize.
Maybe, but that's not what they say. What they say is not
that _they_ want to control as much of our lives as they
can get away with, but that they don't see why the
bourgeoisie should control as much of our lives as _it_ can
get away with, which is the current state of affairs. The
socialist alternative -- which to me is problematical -- is
to replace bourgeois authority with some sort of democratic
alternative. I can see an argument that this won't be much
of an improvement, but I certainly can't see one that denies
that our present social institutions are owned and operated
by an elite minority for its own pleasure and benefit.
| Clearly "libertarian" as in an "advocate of the doctrine
| of free will" has ZERO to do with "socialism", and clearly
| the bullshit posted by Proudhon was nothing more than
| attempt to confuse the issue.
Only when you rewrite socialist theory as you please.
Socialism is precisely a way of confronting the
collectivizing tendencies of capitalism. Remember that
alienation?
Bill Reid
In article <33CBEF...@signature.below>, Thant Tessman
<add...@signature.below> wrote:
>G*rd*n wrote:
>> [...] Socialism is precisely a way of confronting the
>> collectivizing tendencies of capitalism. Remember that
>> alienation?
>
>Marx's theory that capital has an inherent tendency
>to accumulate has been thoroughly discredited not only
>by logic but by history.
>
>In a free market, money capital does indeed have a
>tendency to accumulate, but only to the degree that
>the accumulator is successful at satisfying the wants
>of voluntary consumers.
Then I guess since so many folks are forced to struggle and choose between
health care or college for their kid or between food for the kids and heat
in the Winter, means there must not be a whole lot of accumulating going
on.
Loren Petrich
In article <33CA95...@signature.below>,
Thant Tessman <add...@signature.below> wrote:
>At the heart of Marxism is this idea of alienation. The
>idea is capitalism and the division of labor forces
>people into exclusive spheres of activity and "alienates"
>them from their work. Marx blames the "angst" that many
>people feel on this.
That's the big argument against taxation and government, however
-- a lot of American right-wing "libertarians", at least, seem very
alienated from their government.
>But Marx was full of shit. Life is, was, and always will
>be a struggle.
Says who?
Gary Dale
tt>Clearly "libertarian" as in an "advocate of the doctrine
tt>of free will" has ZERO to do with "socialism", and clearly
tt>the bullshit posted by Proudhon was nothing more than
tt>attempt to confuse the issue.
On the contrary it is a prerequisite that individuals can
act and think for themselves before there can be any
social change.
You should ask yourself why Marx wrote the communist
manifesto if he thought history was such an inevitability
where everyone was relegated to dumb spectators.
In contrast, passivity and cynicism are friends of 1990s
capitalism.
Gary Dale
tt>But Marx was full of shit. Life is, was, and always will
tt>be a struggle. The angst he is so eager to blame on
tt>capitalism is part of the human condition. As I said,
tt>we live in a world of limited resources, and in order
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is very limp from an ideologue of capitalism which is
supposed to *champion* material development but has turned
on us demanding self-sacrifice in the name of some phoney
green morality!
On the issue of tabacco and advertising there's nothing
for socialists to celebrate in the current bashing of big
cigarette Cos, it is certainly nothing to do with any
progressive challenge to capitalism. See the website:
http://www.informinc.co.uk/interaction$/forum/freeSpeech?s=4101751
Mike Wooding
G*rd*n wrote:
> G*rd*n wrote:
> | > But property is already fundamentally aggressive, so this
> | > amounts to a distinction without a difference.
>
> | Nonsense. Would you like to explain exactly how you arrived at this
> | conclusion?
>
> pieces of the world (given to all in common, as far as I
> know) for themselves. Generally, property has been
> established through successive waves of aggression and
> conflict. Did I really have to explain this?
Suppose we're visited by an extra-terrestial sentience.
Do they share in the deed? If not, why not?
--
mi...@wse.com (Mike Wooding)
Mike Wooding
G*rd*n wrote:
> G*rd*n wrote:
> | > But property is already fundamentally aggressive, so this
> | > amounts to a distinction without a difference.
>
> scwi...@home.com:
> | Nonsense. Would you like to explain exactly how you arrived at this
> | conclusion?
>
> Certainly. Property comes about as people appropriate
> pieces of the world (given to all in common, as far as I
> know) for themselves. Generally, property has been
> established through successive waves of aggression and
> conflict. Did I really have to explain this?
Given by whom? And how is it determined that it was given
to all in common? Is it written on the deed? Perhaps it is
given to whomever finds it first? That seems to have more
precedence in law/custom/tradition. No?
--
mi...@wse.com (Mike Wooding)
Libertarius
I just finished seeing Don Feder of the BOSTON HERALD on C-Span's
"Higher Education and Journalism", sposored by "Accuracy in Academia".
(July 18, 1997).
An apparent short-term Libertarian, who became a born-again Statist,
Feder delivered one of the most vicious attacks on the Cato Institute,
Reason Magazine, and the Libertarian Party I have ever heard. A
Communist could not have done any worse, except that Feder's tirade
came from a "Judeo-Christian" so-called "conservative" point of view.
Some of his statements, such as "Conservatives do not hate the State",
and "Too much freedom can kill you" illustrate that some people who
call themselves "conservatives" are nothing less thgan the RIGHT WING
of the STATIST, COLLECTIVIST movement that also includes, on the
left, all the Statist Liberals, Socialists, Communists, etc.
Those who still believe that we are all born with indivinual rights,
such as Life, Liberty, The Persuit of Happiness, and the Righ/Duty
to crerate, control, alter and abolish governments, better watch
out for such "conservatives" as Mr. Don Feder!
=====================================================
FREE LIVES! FREE MINDS! FREE MARKETS!
*****************************************************
THE LOVE OF POWER OVER OTHERS IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL
*****************************************************
Libertarius
Thant Tessman
I wrote:
> Clearly "libertarian" as in an "advocate of the doctrine
> of free will" has ZERO to do with "socialism", and clearly
> the bullshit posted by Proudhon was nothing more than
> attempt to confuse the issue.
Gary Dale wrote:
> On the contrary it is a prerequisite that individuals can
> act and think for themselves before there can be any
> social change.
>
> You should ask yourself why Marx wrote the communist
> manifesto if he thought history was such an inevitability
> where everyone was relegated to dumb spectators.
According to Marx, you were free to the degree that you
had "proletariat insight" into the economic laws governing
the historic process. In other words, you were free to
the degree that you agreed with Marx.
> In contrast, passivity and cynicism are friends of 1990s
> capitalism.
The cynicism I see is a product of the failures of "The
Great Society" to deliver on its promises. What people
have lost faith in is the ability of the government to
engineer a better society. The folks who don't define
themselves in terms of their relationship to the state
are doing fine, thank you very much.
G*rd*n
G*rd*n wrote:
| > I find it hard to believe that you're equating the Marxist
| > notion of alienation with having a hard time in the world.
Thant Tessman <add...@signature.below>:
| But that is exactly the attraction of Marxism. Marx gave
| what sounded like a rational explanation for what people
| perceive to be inherent injustices in society. And his
| argument was especially attractive in that it claimed that
| the game was rigged *even if* everybody played fairly by
| the same rules. This argument laid the groundwork for his
| proposed cure to which anything and anyone could be
| sacrificed since anything else was merely oppression
| justified by bourgeois logic.
I haven't Marx thoroughly, but my spies tell me that Marx's
concerns were somewhat more limited. The dissatisfaction
out of which socialism arose in the mid-19th century was a
liberal critique of liberalism, and it might be phrased,
"Why hasn't liberalism worked for the rest of us?" (This
is somewhat short of trying to solve every possible
injustice.) Marx was one of the people who worked on
giving a rational answer to this question. I don't know
where you get "anything and anyone could be sacrificed" as
Marx's cure; it's capitalism that sacrifices anything and
anyone in the sense that it puts the accumulation of
capital ahead of everything else. Of course, Marx may have
admired this -- he admired a good many things about
capitalism. Capitalism has the virtues of destroying
feudalism and classical slavery, for instance.
| Marxism is what you get when you take to an extreme the
| goal of rationalizing your own sorry state of affairs.
My state of affairs is about probably better than that of
99.9% of the human race; I've become interested in Marx
for other reasons -- mainly the fear he seems to elicit.
There must be _something_ there, right?
G*rd*n:
| > And I find it hard to believe you're equating socialism
| > with some kind of pallid social democratic Welfare-statism
| > -- the bourgeois state as nanny. Socialism is about will
| > and power.
Thant Tessman <add...@signature.below>:
| Socialism can be divided into at least two schools of
| thought. One school said that any means to achieve
| communism are justified. This is the revolutionary
| or Marxist branch of socialism. Another school of thought
| was repulsed by the violence of revolution argued that
| socialism could be brought about by more peaceful
| democratic means. Overtly, the goal of the social-
| democratic socialists is to socialize only those
| industries "too important" to leave to the "chaos"
| of capitalism. Such industries include banking,
| transportation, education, and more recently the
| medical industry. But the political goals of these
| social-democratic socialists are really no different
| than those outlined by Marx's Ten Point Plan.
|
| And to such socialists, (who as I said, are known as
| "liberals" or "progressives" in the United States), there
| is no sphere of human activity that can't in some way
| be viewed as being "public" and therefore rightly subject
| to democratic control. (Including smoking!)
Well, mainstream liberals seem quite comfortable with
bourgeois domination. That being the case, I don't think
we can assign them to the socialist camp. I don't know
what "progressive" means so I must forego comment on them.
Thant Tessman <add...@signature.below>:
| It's merely another aspect of the desire for that
| mythical pseudo-religious transformation whereby the
| wants of the individual become indistinguishable from
| the wants of society.
Sounds like the way certain people talk about The Market!
[ ... skipping over the cigarettes (boring) ... ]
Thant Tessman <add...@signature.below>:
| > | And in fact socialists want to control as much of our
| > | lives as they can get away with, from what medical
| > | goods and services we should be allowed to buy to how
| > | our kids are educated to what kind of art we should be
| > | forced to subsidize.
G*rd*n:
| > Maybe, but that's not what they say. What they say is not
| > that _they_ want to control as much of our lives as they
| > can get away with, but that they don't see why the
| > bourgeoisie should control as much of our lives as _it_ can
| > get away with, which is the current state of affairs.
Thant Tessman <add...@signature.below>:
| It is important to categorize socialism not by what its
| advocates claim is their goal (i.e. e.g. "social justice")
| but by the means they advocate for achieving that goal and
| their real as opposed to their "theoretical" effects. The
| real effects of the "socialization of the means of
| production" are poverty and oppression.
I never rewrite people's theories for them. Once we start
to do that, we can say anything, and so we are playing
tennis without a net. Anyway, the real effects of
socialization of the means of production are war (cold,
hot, or medium) with the major capitalist states; what
follows is not likely to be happy for the socializers.
Thant Tessman <add...@signature.below>:
| And your point that socialists "don't see why the
| bourgeoisie should control as much of our lives as
| _it_ can get away with" is exactly what I'm talking
| about.
Well, you're not making yourself clear. Why should people
accept domination by an elite? (That's a rhetorical
question -- I know in fact a good many people seem to slaver
for it. I'm asking on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Socialist.)
| > [...] Socialism is precisely a way of confronting the
| > collectivizing tendencies of capitalism. Remember that
| > alienation?
|
| Marx's theory that capital has an inherent tendency
| to accumulate has been thoroughly discredited not only
| by logic but by history.
|
| In a free market, money capital does indeed have a
| tendency to accumulate, but only to the degree that
| the accumulator is successful at satisfying the wants
| of voluntary consumers.
I'm talking about the alienation of the products of labor
from the laborer. The laborer's labor is taken from her
life. The more of it she gives up, the less individual
life she has and the more she's collectivized into the
purposes of capital, usually instantiated by either a
corporation or an agency serving corporations. And in
recent capitalism, even after she gets off the job, she's
immersed in a sea of propaganda instructing her to work
hard at selecting and consuming the outputs of (over)
production. The degree to which individuality,
particularity, and locality are eaten up and destroyed
by this system is truly astonishing and absolutely
disindividuating -- the worker because cog in a wheel of
production/consumption which exists only for its own sake
and is spread uniformly across the landscape.
| (Note: The claim that the current stagnation in real
| wages in the U.S. is proof of the Marxist critique of
| capitalist economics ignores that real wages are
| measured *after taxes* and that the stagnation of
| real wages can more than be accounted for by the
| fact that the government is relieving us of an ever-
| increasing portion of our paychecks.)
Not according to some statistics I found and published
several months ago; they showed taxes as remaining pretty
level. Anyway, the current stagnation in wages is not
accompanied, as far as I know, by falling profits, which is
another part of the Marxist _Kapitaldaemmerung_, in fact,
the force which is supposed to drive the immiseration of
the working class.
I think we've entered on a phase of capitalism which Marx
didn't foresee -- one in which capitalism not only works on
constantly raising production but at raising consumption as
well. As long as consumption can be driven as hard as
production, other forms of capital destruction like war and
imperialism can be sidelined, yet bourgeois power will be
maintained. I'd expect wages to _rise_ in this system, as
they start to represent not earned freedom from toil but a
new form of it.
Loren Petrich
In article <5qo2ht$9...@panix2.panix.com>, G*rd*n <g...@panix.com> wrote:
... Capitalism has the virtues of destroying
>feudalism and classical slavery, for instance.
Though at the expense of creating a new ruling class, it must be
said. It's a ruling class something like the ruling class of high-level
government bureaucrats.
>| In a free market, money capital does indeed have a
>| tendency to accumulate, but only to the degree that
>| the accumulator is successful at satisfying the wants
>| of voluntary consumers.
Or involuntary ones or suckered ones, let us not forget. I'm sure
that a lot of drug dealers will brag about how they were just giving what
their customers had freely chosen to buy.
>I'm talking about the alienation of the products of labor
>from the laborer. The laborer's labor is taken from her
>life. The more of it she gives up, the less individual
>life she has and the more she's collectivized into the
>purposes of capital, usually instantiated by either a
>corporation or an agency serving corporations. ...
A good way of curing that would be to turn businesses into
worker-owned and worker-run cooperatives. But too many labor unions are
unwilling to conceive of that alternative.
... Anyway, the current stagnation in wages is not
>accompanied, as far as I know, by falling profits, which is
>another part of the Marxist _Kapitaldaemmerung_, in fact,
>the force which is supposed to drive the immiseration of
>the working class.
One thing that's going on, at least in the US: consumer debt is
going up, up, up. As are consumer bankruptcies, which have become
something different from the emotional equivalent of Debtor's Prison. So
money to sustain corporate profits is ultimately coming from those
plastic loansharks that the banks keep sending us. This seems like an
unstable situation -- eventually either the banks will have to slow down
or they will collapse from their load of unpaid debt.
>I think we've entered on a phase of capitalism which Marx
>didn't foresee -- one in which capitalism not only works on
>constantly raising production but at raising consumption as
>well. As long as consumption can be driven as hard as
>production, other forms of capital destruction like war and
>imperialism can be sidelined, yet bourgeois power will be
>maintained. I'd expect wages to _rise_ in this system, as
>they start to represent not earned freedom from toil but a
>new form of it.
One thing that can be done is to refuse forms of consumption that
one decides are unnecessary. For example, I am automotively challenged.
However, any serious effort to do that will undoubtedly generate
charges that this is another example of liberal economic sabotage.
Mike Wooding
G*rd*n wrote:
> I'm truly mystified at everyone's mystification. Here's
> what I wrote a few days ago, which you must have missed --
> nothing very mysterious.
Mr. Gordon Fitch must have missed my rejoinder that the below
merely turns the concept of agression on its head. I.e. no
one can do anything whatsoever as someone else (whom you may
not even know exists) might come along and fight for your
space or resources. I.e. if you kill a deer with your stone
spear, now maybe someone else wants that deer, and now will
fight for it. It's not the original taker who's the agressor,
but rather the late-comer/usurper. This is the take on
agression that has precedence in tradition and law and is
commonly understood by everyone ... hell, it even seems to
be understood in non-human species.
> We're starting with the pre-human world.
>
> ... The stuff is just there -- it doesn't have
> anyone's name on it. Then some human or proto-human comes
> along (or maybe a bunch of them) and grabs it or sits on
> it. Then another group come along and they fight over it --
> and so on. After awhile the aggression and conflict are
> conventionalized so as to reduce some of the harm; where
> the conventions don't exist, the physical harm reappears,
> as in the genocidal seizure of North America by Europeans.
> Let's not pretend that the conventions don't encapsulate
> aggression. ... [U]nless the conventions are formed without
> the use of force and fraud, which never has happened,
> they're as essentially aggressive as the original
> seizures.
>
> It's possible that human property relations were established
> more consensually than in my little story, but given what I
> see around me and what I've read of history I doubt it.
Perhaps not, but since by Mr. Gordon Fitch's criterion, it
would require at least consultation with every possible
usurper of some resource (food, tools, domicile, territory)
those clever protos opted for the more viable option of
first come. Note that by Mr. Gordon Fitch's criteria, it
seems even access to a mate wold require universal consent.
I iterate ... NO ONE has any claim on everything in the
Universe. Claiming property is theft doesn't change this,
but it make a hypocrite of those who make that claim if they
partake in the fruits of any property. No?
--
mi...@wse.com (Mike Wooding)
Giovanni 8
> Loren Petrich wrote:
>> Gordon wrote:
>> ...Capitalism has the virtues of destroying
>> feudalism and classical slavery, for instance.
> Though at the expense of creating a new ruling class...
No. Laissez faire capitalism would rule out rulers.
If there were rulers, i.e. if force and fraud are initiated,
then that is not the capitalism to which Libertarians refer.
"Money is the material shape of the principle that men who
wish to deal with one another must deal by trade & give
value for value." --- Ayn Rand 1957 "The Meaning of Money"
in _Atlas Shrugged_
--
copyright 1997 jgo all rights reserved
Permission to down-load solely for purposes of reading
once and responding via usenet news is hereby granted.
Licenses available at reasonable rates.
FORTRAN C++ UNIX Macintosh
G*rd*n
Gordon wrote:
| >> ...Capitalism has the virtues of destroying
| >> feudalism and classical slavery, for instance.
Loren Petrich wrote:
| > Though at the expense of creating a new ruling class...
gio+van+no+ni+8@tal+star+spam.com (Giovanni 8):
| No. Laissez faire capitalism would rule out rulers.
| If there were rulers, i.e. if force and fraud are initiated,
| then that is not the capitalism to which Libertarians refer.
| ...
Jefferson's idea was that a "natural aristocracy" would
emerge to guide a liberal society. He probably didn't
guess the degree to which it would progress toward the
plutocracy we see around us today, however.
I guess I have to remind everybody, once again, that force
and fraud have _already_ been initiated. For example, a
person who has no capital _must_, is compelled, to find
employment. Such people may be better off than they would
be scrabbling roots in a state of nature, but they don't
have the choice. I've recently referred to the large-
scale violence which went into establishing this state of
affairs, so I won't go over it again.
In order to put a truly voluntary basis under human affairs,
including its politics and its markets, we'd have to
institute some kind of communism, at least for basic
necessities, so that nobody would be coerced into trade (of
either goods or labor). But that's not likely to happen.
Perhaps it's impractical, or unaesthetic -- there's another
article current in this newsgroup in which a worker is the
butt of humor which portrays him as complaining because the
boss makes him wear a clean T-shirt. Obviously the author
thinks coercion is good in _his_ case -- and I suspect this
spirit is far more prevalent in capitalist fandom than one
of idealized freedom from rulers.
T.Asquith
On 20 Jul 1997 03:49:33 GMT, gio+van+no+ni+8@tal+star+spam.com
(Giovanni 8) wrote:
>> Loren Petrich wrote:
>>> Gordon wrote:
>>> ...Capitalism has the virtues of destroying
>>> feudalism and classical slavery, for instance.
>
>> Though at the expense of creating a new ruling class...
>
>No. Laissez faire capitalism would rule out rulers.
>If there were rulers, i.e. if force and fraud are initiated,
>then that is not the capitalism to which Libertarians refer.
It would create new rulers (nature abhors a vacuum). In those
past cases (such as Depression-era Chicago) where laws
were lax, and capitalism was allowed to prosper more or less
unchecked, competitors frequently resorted to force to ensure
that their competition didn't get the upper hand. I'm sorry but
up til now true laissez-faire capitalism has been a utopian vision and
will probably remain so.
>"Money is the material shape of the principle that men who
> wish to deal with one another must deal by trade & give
> value for value." --- Ayn Rand 1957 "The Meaning of Money"
> in _Atlas Shrugged_
But she doesn't say whether the two values would be equivalent. ;-)
----
Tom Asquith
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
University of Alberta
tasquith 'at' gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
To reply: kill the "SPAMBOT" in the replyto address
*************************************************************************
* "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent *
* suffer." *
* -- Sir William Blackstone *
*************************************************************************
Paul Brizant
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>In order to put a truly voluntary basis under human affairs,
>including its politics and its markets, we'd have to
>institute some kind of communism, at least for basic
>necessities, so that nobody would be coerced into trade (of
>either goods or labor). But that's not likely to happen.
>Perhaps it's impractical, or unaesthetic -- there's another
>article current in this newsgroup in which a worker is the
>butt of humor which portrays him as complaining because the
>boss makes him wear a clean T-shirt. Obviously the author
>thinks coercion is good in _his_ case -- and I suspect this
>spirit is far more prevalent in capitalist fandom than one
>of idealized freedom from rulers.
That's an awful lot to assume on the basis of one Usenet post.
What I was mocking in that post - and what I also mock in yours - is the idea
that Capitalism can be denegrated on the basis of the fact that it doesn't let
people just sit around and yank their crank.
No working system on the planet will allow otherwise able people to not
participate in the economy without some form of punishment. Under a free
market, it means that you have to either take a serious cut in lifestyle, or
find able employment that allows you to yank your crank. Many people do make
a job of that anyway - night watchmen, people in the sex industries, and
newspapers columnists being three obvious examples.
The difference is that in a free system you choose your form and level of
coercion, as is evidenced in the popular film "Take This job and Shove It."
One can imagine Robert Hays being sent to the gulag for re-education if he had
taken a similar approach in any centrally-planned economies.
Come on. The truth is, there is no coercion at work. There is participation
in the process, or there is non-participation. Participate in the economy,
and you are rewarded. I don't feel coerced when I work - even if I do have to
occasionally put on a clean shirt and tie - just like my boss doesn't feel
coerced when, at the end of the week, he turns over a large sum of money to
me. It is a free arrangement, a free exchange. Fail to participate in the
society, as an able-bodied able-minded member of it, and the society does not
owe you a life.
Thant Tessman
G*rd*n wrote:
> [...] I guess I have to remind everybody, once
> again, that force and fraud have _already_ been
> initiated. For example, a person who has no
> capital _must_, is compelled, to find employment.
> Such people may be better off than they would be
> scrabbling roots in a state of nature, but they don't
> have the choice. [...]
This is about as pure an expression of the motivation
for socialism as it gets. We are forced by our
circumstances to work together for survival, and
yet we are in control only of our own actions. Some
become so obsessed with this tortuous little practical
joke god has played on us that they delude themselves
into believing that there must be a solution--a
*political* solution to this problem if only we were
smart or strong or determined enough to find it.
G*rd*n
G*rd*n wrote:
| > [...] I guess I have to remind everybody, once
| > again, that force and fraud have _already_ been
| > initiated. For example, a person who has no
| > capital _must_, is compelled, to find employment.
| > Such people may be better off than they would be
| > scrabbling roots in a state of nature, but they don't
| > have the choice. [...]
Thant Tessman <add...@signature.below>:
| This is about as pure an expression of the motivation
| for socialism as it gets. We are forced by our
| circumstances to work together for survival, and
| yet we are in control only of our own actions. Some
| become so obsessed with this tortuous little practical
| joke god has played on us that they delude themselves
| into believing that there must be a solution--a
| *political* solution to this problem if only we were
| smart or strong or determined enough to find it.
But liberal bourgeois capitalism is precisely such a
solution. There's quite a bit of elegant political
theory associated with it.
The socialist idea is that the "coercion" imposed by Nature
is amplified or exacerbated by the political arrangements
socialism criticizes, including of course capitalism, and
that something ought to and can be done about it by the
people in general -- usually through rational public
discourse and democratic procedures. This is why I've said
elsewhere that socialism is concerned with consciousness,
as well as will and power.
My previous remarks, though, were too general to promote
socialism in particular; they serve only to remove the
false halo of alleged nonviolence from liberalism. I feel
that our argument as to how the 20th century should have
been implemented can be improved by eschewing this and
other now unnecessary propaganda.
Roger Dapson
The difference between capitalism and socialism/communism is the degree of force. The
latter obviously carries the largest degree of force. Under socialism/communism there
is a single power structure controlled by power elite that is not held or constrained.
Throughout history, it has been clearly demonstrated that recipients of power lust for
increased power. Eventually, they start usurping power not authorized to them. The
powerless public can only yield to their demands.
Capitalism is also a power structure. The key is to maintain other power structures
which hold and constrain its power. To believe that any one power structure can remain
uncorrupted is defies history. A system of checks and balances is the best hope for the
general public. The worst is to blindly trust in the benevolence of government.
Chris Cantor
In article <33C3B3...@nospam.acm.org>, Thant Tessman <th...@nospam.acm.org> writes:
|> I wrote:
|>
|> > Socialism, independent of any
|> > attempt to justify it idealogically, is simply the
|> > institutionalization of aggression against property.
|>
|> psychopomp wrote:
|>
|> > Wrong. True Socialists don't believe in property.
|> > It simply doesn't exist. [...]
|>
|> Our lot as humans is to live in a world where resources
|> are scarce. Conflicts can arise over goods whose use
|> by one person precludes its use by another person.
|>
|> Property is a concept designed to make a conflict-free
|> interaction between individuals possible by stipulating
|> mutually binding rules of conduct regarding scarce
|> resources.
Property is protected by an overarching organization known as government,
in that OWNERSHIP is a right guaranteed by the state.
That is where "property" differs from a mere possession or resource.
The rules surrounding property are not rules negotiated or
contracted soley by the parties involved, but by a society as a
whole. Often these rules are insensitve to the needs of individuals,
and often they are engineered to provide advantage to the wealthy or the
ruling class.
|> To "not believe in property" is either to deny the need
|> to resolve conflicts over resources (which is simply
|> aggression), or to claim that such conflicts over resources
|> don't, can't, or won't occur (which is simply delusional).
Wrong.
To not believe in property is to believe that the conflicts
that inevitably occur surrounding shared resources can be resolved
without a governmental influence.
-aboy
PS. please forward replies to me if you post a reply as my nessgroup
may not receive your response.
|> -thant
Mike Wooding
G*rd*n wrote:
> I guess I have to remind everybody, once again, that force
> and fraud have _already_ been initiated. For example, a
> person who has no capital _must_, is compelled, to find
> employment.
And I must continually remind Mr. Gordon Fitch that the compulsion
to find employment is not the initiation of force or fraud. It's
the price the Universe extracts in exchange for your existence. If
this bargain doesn't sit right with you, then take it up with the
Universe. In any case, your desire to live at the expense of others
should in no way cause those others any sense of obligation to
accomodate your desire.
--
mi...@wse.com (Mike Wooding)
Giovanni 8
> Mike Wooding wrote:
>> G*rd*n wrote:
>>> Mike Wooding
>>>> G*rd*n wrote:
>>>> But property is already fundamentally aggressive, so this
No. The creation of property is not an initiation of force or
fraud.
>>> Property doesn't constitute agression. Rather it's a convention
>>> by which we agree upon what is and is not agression.
No. Property is not "a convention". The procedures for settling
disputes over property ownership are conventions.
>>> If you take what is mine you have acted agressively. If you
>>> take what is yours or what is not owned or what an owner permits,
>>> then you have not acted agressively.
>> Come on, Mike. The stuff is just there -- it doesn't have
>> anyone's name on it.
Like he said, if it's not owned property rather than "stuff that's
just there", then transforming it into property is not theft but
creation of value.
>> ...Let's not pretend that the conventions don't encapsulate
>> aggression.
> So if one sits down, one is being agressive because someone
> else might come along and fight for that spot? Aren't those
> humans or proto-humans going to get really tired standing
> forever and ever being on the alert in case someone else
> comes along and wants to stand where they are?
> This sort of definition of agression stands that term on its
> head. Most rational people understand that the late comer who
> "fights" for the spot on which you are sitting is the agressor.
The person who creates property from valueless stuff is a
creator. He who tries to wrest it from him is the initiator
of force (or fraud).
"I know a place that offers shelter.
A city of justice, a city of love, a city of peace, for every 1 of us.
We all need it, can't live without it." --- R. Kelly
Proudhon
But it is the worker who supports the parasitical capitalist
in our Universe... and the only thing keeping the worker from
shrugging off the exploiter is their own fear, lack of organization,
and lack of soliderity.
-Proudhon
Krist van Besien
On 22 Jul 1997 20:14:36 -0600, anon...@nyx.cs.du.edu (Proudhon)
wrote:
>But it is the worker who supports the parasitical capitalist
>in our Universe... and the only thing keeping the worker from
>shrugging off the exploiter is their own fear, lack of organization,
>and lack of soliderity.
Yep, his _own_ fear, his _own_ lack of organization, his _own_ lack of
solidarity. But nevertheless the capitalist is to blame ofcourse....
Krist van Besien
--------------------------------------------------------
Krist van Besien besien(at)solair1.inter.nl.net
System Administrator Kuwait Petroleum Benelux bv
--------------------------------------------------------
JMH
Giovanni 8 wrote:
>
> > Mike Wooding wrote:
> >> G*rd*n wrote:
> >>> Mike Wooding
> >>>> G*rd*n wrote:
> >>>> But property is already fundamentally aggressive, so this
> >>>> amounts to a distinction without a difference...
>
> fraud.
>
> >>> by which we agree upon what is and is not agression.
>
> No. Property is not "a convention". The procedures for settling
> disputes over property ownership are conventions.
>
> >>> If you take what is mine you have acted agressively. If you
> >>> take what is yours or what is not owned or what an owner permits,
> >>> then you have not acted agressively.
>
> >> Come on, Mike. The stuff is just there -- it doesn't have
> >> anyone's name on it.
>
> Like he said, if it's not owned property rather than "stuff that's
> just there", then transforming it into property is not theft but
> creation of value.
The distinction here escapes me. If someting is just there and
it has qualities which I am looking for and I use it, it's still
just "stuff that's just therre."
If I now convert this stuff into property, how is this done in
a way not defined by convention?
It seems to me you distinction amounts to property is valued and
"stuff that's just there" isn't. (What's that old joke about
the two economists and the $100 bill on the ground?)
JMH
--
"Once conform, once do what others do because they do it, and
a kind of lethargy steals over all the finer senses of the soul."
Montaigne
Thant Tessman
I wrote:
> We are forced by our
> circumstances to work together for survival, and
> yet we are in control only of our own actions. Some
> become so obsessed with this tortuous little practical
> joke god has played on us that they delude themselves
> into believing that there must be a solution--a
> *political* solution to this problem if only we were
> smart or strong or determined enough to find it.
G*rd*n wrote:
> But liberal bourgeois capitalism is precisely such a
> solution. [...]
This is dead wrong. Classical liberals do not `propose'
capitalism as a `solution' to the inherent division of
the interests of individuals. They take as a given the
fact that only the individual can decide for themselves
how best to pursue happiness. This is in stark contrast
to the socialist's desire to `solve' the problem of
conflicting interests by relegating the role of the
individual to the service of `society' (which in practice
is always the state).
As for capitalism, it is the use in production of
resources made available through differred consumption.
Capitalism isn't a social objective at all. It is a
category of human action. It is one of the things people
do when they are allowed to bring about their own
individually chosen objectives. And this is why
capitalism is the enemy of those who resent the lack
of control they have over others.
G*rd*n
Thant Tessman <add...@signature.below>:
| > We are forced by our
| > circumstances to work together for survival, and
| > yet we are in control only of our own actions. Some
| > become so obsessed with this tortuous little practical
| > joke god has played on us that they delude themselves
| > into believing that there must be a solution--a
| > *political* solution to this problem if only we were
| > smart or strong or determined enough to find it.
G*rd*n wrote:
| > But liberal bourgeois capitalism is precisely such a
| > solution. [...]
Thant Tessman <add...@signature.below>:
| This is dead wrong. Classical liberals do not `propose'
| capitalism as a `solution' to the inherent division of
| the interests of individuals. They take as a given the
| fact that only the individual can decide for themselves
| how best to pursue happiness. This is in stark contrast
| to the socialist's desire to `solve' the problem of
| conflicting interests by relegating the role of the
| individual to the service of `society' (which in practice
| is always the state).
|
| As for capitalism, it is the use in production of
| resources made available through differred consumption.
| Capitalism isn't a social objective at all. It is a
| category of human action. It is one of the things people
| do when they are allowed to bring about their own
| individually chosen objectives. And this is why
| capitalism is the enemy of those who resent the lack
| of control they have over others.
It certainly looks like you're describing a solution to me,
and a social objective too.
Capitalism solves the problem of conflicting interests by
relegating the individual to the service of society, as
embodied in corporations and the government, both operated
by the bourgeoisie. Obviously some socialists have found
this pattern inspiring, but in need of a little adjustment
in the form of a change of the ruling class. Possibly it
is they to whom you refer? I think you're missing others
whose resentments may be more creative.
Well, time to go home -- on my way I must express my
individuality by choosing between Texaco and Exxon.
Matt Hannah
In my opinion, libertarians feel that what separates them for
actual liberals is the fact that they believe that a liberal
takes on forms of socialism and supports it, which libertarians feel
strongly against.
--
|The wind is ruthless |
|The trees shake angry fingers at the sky |
|The people hunch their shoulders |
|Hold their collars over their ears and run by |
|It's a cold rain |
|It's a hard rain |
|Like the kind you find in songs |
|I guess that makes me |
|The jerk with the heartache |
|Here to sing to you about how I been done wrong|
|-Ani DiFranco, "Done Wrong" |
Sean Peck
Proudhon wrote:
>
> In article <33D4F3...@wse.com>, Mike Wooding <mi...@wse.com> wrote:
> >G*rd*n wrote:
> >> I guess I have to remind everybody, once again, that force
> >> and fraud have _already_ been initiated. For example, a
> >> person who has no capital _must_, is compelled, to find
> >> employment.
> >
> > And I must continually remind Mr. Gordon Fitch that the compulsion
> > to find employment is not the initiation of force or fraud. It's
> > the price the Universe extracts in exchange for your existence. If
> > this bargain doesn't sit right with you, then take it up with the
> > Universe. In any case, your desire to live at the expense of others
> > should in no way cause those others any sense of obligation to
> > accomodate your desire.
>
> in our Universe... and the only thing keeping the worker from
> shrugging off the exploiter is their own fear, lack of organization,
> and lack of soliderity.
>
What a bunch of CRUD! Nothing in this world has done more to raise the
human experience than capitalism, that is a historical fact.
Not to mention the predicated assumtions that start this discussion,
that being a person with no capital must seek employment. This is
indeed not the case, a person without capital has other paths available
if he is willing to take the risk and put forth the time to persue
them. However, most are never willing to take the risk, and stay with
the path of least risk and resistance.
Secondly is the unstated but implied assumption that once an employee
always an employee, which again is not true. No where but in a free
capitalist society can a one time Slaughter House worker become an
independently wealthy man, or a small group of people with $3000 to
their name build a company that rivals AT&T. Employment is only a
lifetime situation if the employee chooses it to be.
Also your rediculous statement that the Capitalist is parasitic,
nothing could be honestly more from the truth. Capitalism does not leech
off the backs of workers and investors as you so coyly assume. Parasites
provide no benefit to their host and simply steal from it, which your
myopic viewpoint is that Capitalist steal from the worker and provide no
benefit and evenutally kill the host (workers). Again this is not true,
the worker/capitalist association is symbiotic one, not a parasitic one,
for without one the other cannot exist. Without capital there can be no
work only slavery, for persons do not work simply out of the goodness of
their hearts, and without workers or methods to enhance it, capital is
nothing more than an object that benefits noone. Only through both of
them working together can any benefit occur.
Sean
G*rd*n
ale...@uniserve.com (Alexander J Russell):
|You find some 'stuff that is just there', say bauxite for example. You dig it
|up, process it in a large expensive plant using vast amounts of electricty, and
|end up with aluminum. Now, you start with 'stuff that is just there' and end up
|after much work with a new product. Viola! you have converted a natural
|resource into property.
In the property systems I'm familiar with, if you didn't own
the bauxite, you'd have to turn over the new product to the
original owners, or at least give them something for it,
voluntarily or as determined by a court.
Typically, then, the prospective aluminum producer either
buys the land or the bauxite from someone who owns the land
(and the same may be said of the electricity, the plant
materials, and so forth). But the title to the land almost
always goes back to one or more acts of criminal violence,
and often the means by which labor was obtained to process
its resources are usually suspect as well. Even when the
land was not obtained by violence, it was still arbitrarily
appropriated out of our common heritage; Nature did not
draw property lines on the Earth.
There is no point at which _stuff that is just there_
becomes _property_ by common consent.
Alexander J Russell
In article <33D63D...@erols.com>, jmh...@erols.com says...
>
>Giovanni 8 wrote:
>>
>> > Mike Wooding wrote:
>> >> G*rd*n wrote:
>> >>> Mike Wooding
>> >>>> G*rd*n wrote:
>> >> Come on, Mike. The stuff is just there -- it doesn't have
>> >> anyone's name on it.
>>
>> Like he said, if it's not owned property rather than "stuff that's
>> just there", then transforming it into property is not theft but
>> creation of value.
>
>The distinction here escapes me. If someting is just there and
>it has qualities which I am looking for and I use it, it's still
>just "stuff that's just therre."
>
>If I now convert this stuff into property, how is this done in
>a way not defined by convention?
>
>It seems to me you distinction amounts to property is valued and
>"stuff that's just there" isn't. (What's that old joke about
>the two economists and the $100 bill on the ground?)
>
>JMH
>--
>"Once conform, once do what others do because they do it, and
>a kind of lethargy steals over all the finer senses of the soul."
> Montaigne
You find some 'stuff that is just there', say bauxite for example. You dig it
up, process it in a large expensive plant using vast amounts of electricty, and
end up with aluminum. Now, you start with 'stuff that is just there' and end up
after much work with a new product. Viola! you have converted a natural
resource into property.
You find a lump of clay in the bed of a local stream, you take it home, throw
it on your wheel, form it, fire it, and produce a vase. TaDa! You have taken a
natural resource and created a small piece of property which you proudly own,
and may use your self, or sell for the mutual benefit of yourself and the
purchaser.
Pretty straight forward realy.
Where it gets murky:
I find a natural spring, build a fence around, and claim it as my own.
Hmmm.... you are not adding any of your own work to the water, just claiming
it. I for one would be inclined to NOT accept this as an example of property.
--
The AnArChIsT! Anarchy! Not Chaos!
aka
Alex Russell
ale...@uniserve.com
JMH
Fine, you articulate a labor theory of property. I'm not sure that
this theory suffices as an explanation of property which is not
based ultimately on existing or emerging (depending on what assumptions
you want to place on the state of social relations) conventions.
I'd also note, that bauxite is valued, if only because it can be
made into aluminum. So the buxite wasn't just valuless "stuff"
lying around. I think the implication of the initial claim made
above is that the buxite is the property of those who value the
end product aluminum. In short consumers are the implied owners
not the producers.
Now, one possible response consistent with Giovanni 8's general
position might be that this is simply another case of separation of
ownership and control. Only in a much more subtle form. This would
be the general analysis flowing from the soveriegn consumer view
point.
> You find a lump of clay in the bed of a local stream, you take it home, throw
> it on your wheel, form it, fire it, and produce a vase. TaDa! You have taken a
> natural resource and created a small piece of property which you proudly own,
> and may use your self, or sell for the mutual benefit of yourself and the
> purchaser.
>
> Pretty straight forward realy.
I don't think it's straightforeward at all since is it
a replay of the original acquisition problem.
> Where it gets murky:
> I find a natural spring, build a fence around, and claim it as my own.
>
> Hmmm.... you are not adding any of your own work to the water, just claiming
> it. I for one would be inclined to NOT accept this as an example of property.
And someone added something to the buxite? I was assuming you
were implying the person had s ome control over mining the
buxite. Perhaps not, are you land value taxers?
Mike Wooding
T.Asquith wrote:
> On 20 Jul 1997 03:49:33 GMT, gio+van+no+ni+8@tal+star+spam.com
> (Giovanni 8) wrote:
> >No. Laissez faire capitalism would rule out rulers.
> >If there were rulers, i.e. if force and fraud are initiated,
> >then that is not the capitalism to which Libertarians refer.
>
> It would create new rulers (nature abhors a vacuum). In those
> past cases (such as Depression-era Chicago) where laws
> were lax, and capitalism was allowed to prosper more or less
> unchecked, competitors frequently resorted to force to ensure
> that their competition didn't get the upper hand. I'm sorry but
> up til now true laissez-faire capitalism has been a utopian vision and
> will probably remain so.
Well, I don't think anyone proposes a free-market, laissez-faire
capitalism which allows/permits the resort to violence. We just
don't see that fetter as justification for say the state dictating
what color socks you can wear to work. (I believe it was NYC which
made it illegal for cab drivers to wear white socks a few years
back?)
So is it possible to get something in-between? If we accept the
need to proscribe violence/force in bsuiness dealings, will the
opposition to free-market, laissez-faire capitalism suggest in
principle if not in practice a limit to those fetters? Or are
we to assume if any fetters whatsoever are allowed, then the
fetterer is un-fettered? Now which are you more afraid of, an
un-fettered gov't or an un-fettered market?
--
mi...@wse.com (Mike Wooding)
Alexander J Russell
In article <33D79B...@erols.com>, jmh...@erols.com says...[snip - all property agressive, no it isn't, how does property come to exist,
I add my labour to it]
>Fine, you articulate a labor theory of property. I'm not sure that
>this theory suffices as an explanation of property which is not
>based ultimately on existing or emerging (depending on what assumptions
>you want to place on the state of social relations) conventions.
>
>I'd also note, that bauxite is valued, if only because it can be
>made into aluminum. So the buxite wasn't just valuless "stuff"
>lying around.
Nothing is valueless, but the point is labour, work, etc... was added to it.
I think the implication of the initial claim made
>above is that the buxite is the property of those who value the
>end product aluminum. In short consumers are the implied owners
>not the producers.
No the producers are, then they offer it for sale, and the consumers then
decide if they want to buy it.
>
>Now, one possible response consistent with Giovanni 8's general
>position might be that this is simply another case of separation of
>ownership and control. Only in a much more subtle form. This would
>be the general analysis flowing from the soveriegn consumer view
>point.
>
>> You find a lump of clay in the bed of a local stream, you take it home,
throw
>> it on your wheel, form it, fire it, and produce a vase. TaDa! You have taken
a
>> natural resource and created a small piece of property which you proudly
own,
>> and may use your self, or sell for the mutual benefit of yourself and the
>> purchaser.
>>
>> Pretty straight forward realy.
>
>I don't think it's straightforeward at all since is it
>a replay of the original acquisition problem.
>
>> Where it gets murky:
>> I find a natural spring, build a fence around, and claim it as my own.
>>
>> Hmmm.... you are not adding any of your own work to the water, just claiming
>> it. I for one would be inclined to NOT accept this as an example of
property.
>
>And someone added something to the buxite? I was assuming you
>were implying the person had s ome control over mining the
>buxite. Perhaps not, are you land value taxers?
You don't call a lot of digging, moving, crushing, processing in general
"something"? I call it alot of work.
You have some control over the mining if you use it to produce something, in
this case aluminum. Currently, most countries property rights include the right
to put a fence around anything, even if you cannot use it.
I belive property is a good idea, but it isn't an absolute right.
>
>JMH
>--
>"Once conform, once do what others do because they do it, and
>a kind of lethargy steals over all the finer senses of the soul."
> Montaigne
--
dckom
On 17 Jul 1997 08:35:36 GMT c.e., in misc.activism.progressive :
> HOW THE MINERS ARE ROBBED
> by John Wheatley (1907)
>
>A case of heartless robbery was exposed the other day when the Duke
>of Hamilton, a local coalmaster named Frederick Michael Thomas Andrew
>Sucker, and several others were charged with having conspired together
>and robbed an old miner named Dick M'Gonnagle. Great interest was
>manifested in the case, the Court being densely crowded. The
>Magistrate, in opening the proceedings, said that owing to the very
>grave nature of the charge, and its immense interest to the community,
>he had decided to adopt the French mode of procedure and would
>commence by asking the prisoners to submit themselves to examination.
>
>The Coalmaster then entered the witness box to be examined by the
>Magistrate.
>
>MAG: What is your name?
>PRIS: Frederick Michael Thomas Andrew Sucker, sir.
>MAG: You have a great many names.
>PRIS: I protest, sir.
>MAG: I did not ask you your occupation. I desire to know how you came
> to be possessed of so many names.
>PRIS: I can't answer your question, sir.
>MAG: Ah! That sounds suspicious. Now will you kindly tell us how
> much wealth you possess?
>PRIS: (proudly) One million pounds, sir.
>MAG: You must be an extremely able man. How did you come to have a
> million pounds?
>PRIS: I made it, sir.
>MAG: Ah! do you plead guilty to manufacturing coin?
>PRIS: (indignantly) No, sir.
>MAG: Then will you please tell us what you mean by saying you made it?
>PRIS: I earned it in business, sir.
>MAG: How long have you been in business?
>PRIS: Twenty years, sir.
>MAG: You must be a very capable worker to have earned such a huge sum
> in such a short time.
>PRIS: (indignantly) I don't work, sir.
>MAG: Ah! this is interesting. You don't work and yet you have told us
> that in twenty years you have earned one million pounds?
>PRIS: I own a colliery, sir.
>MAG: What is a colliery?
>PRIS: A shaft sunk perhaps a hundred fathoms in the earth; also various
> buildings and machinery for the production of coal.
>MAG: Did you sink the shaft?
>PRIS: No, sir. I got men to do it.
>MAG: Did you manufacture the machinery and erect the buildings?
>PRIS: No, sir. I am not a workman. I got others to work.
>MAG: This is an extraordinary case. You say other men erected the
> buildings, and manufactured the machinery, sunk the shaft and
> yet you own the colliery? Have the workmen no share in it?
>PRIS: No, sir. I am the sole owner.
>MAG: I confess I can't understand. Do you mean to tell me that those
> men put a colliery in full working order, and then handed it over
> to you without retaining even a share of it for themselves?
>PRIS: Certainly, sir.
>MAG: They must have been very rich and generous, or very foolish!
> Were they rich men?
>PRIS: Oh, no, sir.
>MAG: Had they many collieries?
>PRIS: Oh, none at all, sir. They were merely workmen.
>MAG: What do you mean by merely workmen?
>PRIS: Merely people who work for others.
>MAG: Surely they must be generous people. Don't they require collieries
> themselves?
>PRIS: They do, sir.
>MAG: And they own no collieries?
>PRIS: No, sir, but I allow them to work in mine.
>MAG: That is very kind of you, but of course not nearly so kind as
> their act in giving the colliery to you. Do you find you don't
> require the whole colliery yourself, that you can allow others
> to use it?
>PRIS: Oh, you don't understand, sir. I don't work in the colliery.
> I allow the workmen to do so.
>MAG: Oh, I see. After those men handed the colliery to you, you found
> you had no use for it, and so returned it to save them erecting
> another?
>PRIS: Oh no, no, sir. The colliery is still mine, but they work in it.
>MAG: Really, this is very confusing. You own a pit which you did not
> sink, and plant which you did not manufacture nor erect. You do
> not work in this colliery because you do not want to work. Those
> who do want to work own no colliery, and yet they gave one to
> you. Did you beg of them to come and work in your colliery, as
> you had no use for it?
>PRIS: Oh, not at all, sir. They begged me to allow them to work.
>MAG: But why beg leave to use your colliery? Why not make one for
> themselves, as they had done for you?
>PRIS: I beg pardon, sir, but they could only do that by electing their
> own men to the County Councils and Parliament, and getting those
> bodies to do it, and THAT would never do. That would be Socialism.
>MAG: Seems to me it would be ordinary common sense.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>Thanks to the post to misc.activism.progressive (MAP) by:
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>/* Written 2:17 pm Aug 11, 1992 by dar...@eecs.ucdavis.edu
>/* ---------- "How the miners were robbed (capital" ---------- */
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Property is Theft!
Steal this Post!
reid jeffrey alan
On Wed, 23 Jul 1997, Krist van Besien wrote:
> On 22 Jul 1997 20:14:36 -0600, anon...@nyx.cs.du.edu (Proudhon)
> wrote:
>
>
> >But it is the worker who supports the parasitical capitalist
> >in our Universe... and the only thing keeping the worker from
> >shrugging off the exploiter is their own fear, lack of organization,
> >and lack of soliderity.
>
> Yep, his _own_ fear, his _own_ lack of organization, his _own_ lack of
> solidarity. But nevertheless the capitalist is to blame ofcourse....
>
> Krist van Besien
>
It is the worker's lack of ambition, education, new ideas, and will to
improve himself that holds him back. Many poor men have become rich, and
many rich men have become poor, why? Desire, vision, and ambition, or lack
of it. This is still the land of opprotunity and anyone can become
president: just look at who is president today!!
JR
McQ
>JMH <jmh...@erols.com> wrote:
>> >> Come on, Mike. The stuff is just there -- it doesn't have
>> >> anyone's name on it.
>>
>> Like he said, if it's not owned property rather than "stuff that's
>> just there", then transforming it into property is not theft but
>> creation of value.
>The distinction here escapes me. If someting is just there and
>it has qualities which I am looking for and I use it, it's still
>just "stuff that's just therre."
It goes back to the commons scenario. An apple laying there on the
ground is of no value to anyone. It only becomes of value to someone
when it is picked up. Its value is found in the labor expended to
gather it (and of course the intrinsic value of the object after
gathering). Because of this expenditure of labor which is your
property, the item gathered becomes derivatively your property.
If someone were to take it from you they not only steal the object,
but your labor.
>If I now convert this stuff into property, how is this done in
>a way not defined by convention?
If you consider the right to property a custom, then perhaps you
would consider it's coversion a convention. If you consider it an
inalienable right, then no, you wouldn't look at it's conversion as a
custom or convention.
>It seems to me your distinction amounts to property is valued and
>"stuff that's just there" isn't. (What's that old joke about
>the two economists and the $100 bill on the ground?)
Of what good would "stuff that's just there" be as property if it
had no value to the owner?
McQ
_________________________
Remove one of the "i's" in "iix" and email away...
James A. Donald
Mike Wooding <mi...@wse.com> wrote:
> Well, I don't think anyone proposes a free-market, laissez-faire
> capitalism which allows/permits the resort to violence.
Uh, that should read "initiation of violence"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com
Victor Levis
McQ <mcq...@iix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<5rb0u7$i...@sjx-ixn9.ix.netcom.com>...
> >JMH <jmh...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> Come on, Mike. The stuff is just there -- it doesn't have
> >> >> anyone's name on it.
> >>
> >> Like he said, if it's not owned property rather than "stuff that's
> >> just there", then transforming it into property is not theft but
> >> creation of value.
>
> >The distinction here escapes me. If someting is just there and
> >it has qualities which I am looking for and I use it, it's still
> >just "stuff that's just therre."
>
> It goes back to the commons scenario. An apple laying there on the
> ground is of no value to anyone. It only becomes of value to someone
> when it is picked up. Its value is found in the labor expended to
> gather it (and of course the intrinsic value of the object after
> gathering). Because of this expenditure of labor which is your
> property, the item gathered becomes derivatively your property.
> If someone were to take it from you they not only steal the object,
> but your labor.
However, if you went into the wild and found an apple tree, and built
a fence around it, and if someone came by a month later, jumped
over the fence and took an apple from the tree, did they steal the
fence-making labour?
--
Victor Levis
Freedom of Choice......Responsibility for Actions......Respect for Others
Victor Levis
Alexander J Russell <ale...@uniserve.com> wrote in UseNet article
<5r6tn6$8fv$7...@neptune.uniserve.com>...
> You find some 'stuff that is just there', say bauxite for example. You dig
it
> up, process it in a large expensive plant using vast amounts of
electricty, and
> end up with aluminum. Now, you start with 'stuff that is just there' and
end up
> after much work with a new product. Viola! you have converted a natural
> resource into property.
>
throw
> it on your wheel, form it, fire it, and produce a vase. TaDa! You have
taken a
> natural resource and created a small piece of property which you proudly
own,
> and may use your self, or sell for the mutual benefit of yourself and the
> purchaser.
>
> Pretty straight forward realy.
>
> I find a natural spring, build a fence around, and claim it as my own.
>
> Hmmm.... you are not adding any of your own work to the water, just
claiming
> it. I for one would be inclined to NOT accept this as an example of
property.
OK. Now suppose that some persons had already been using this spring, on a
non-exclusive basis. No one kicks anybody off who wishes to use the spring.
Along comes the fence-builder. He erects the fence, and then proceeds to
bottle the water as it comes out of the spring.
How would you view EACH of the following actions:
1. People come by, climb the fence, and take some of the water before it
gets to the bottling machine.
2. People come by, climb the fence, and take some bottled water.
3. People come by, climb the fence, and stop the machines during the time
they use the spring.
4. People come by, climb the fence, and stop the machines indefinitely.
5. People come by, blow up the fence and reverse the machines, thereby
UN-bottling the water.
vicl...@ican.net
dckom <dc...@atlcom.net> wrote in article
<D1A31315104B5F09.1C8F7797...@library-proxy.airnews.net
>...
Indeed it would, if labour were the only thing required to produce
wealth, wouldn't it?
Now, let's answer the magistrate's question: If the workers believe they
are being exploited, why do they not build their own colliery instead?
Victor Levis
Freedom of Choice......Responsibility for Actions......Respect for Others
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
JMH
Alexander J Russell wrote:
>
> In article <33D79B...@erols.com>, jmh...@erols.com says...
> >
> >Alexander J Russell wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <33D63D...@erols.com>, jmh...@erols.com says...
> >
> [snip - all property agressive, no it isn't, how does property come to exist,
> I add my labour to it]
> >Fine, you articulate a labor theory of property. I'm not sure that
> >this theory suffices as an explanation of property which is not
> >based ultimately on existing or emerging (depending on what assumptions
> >you want to place on the state of social relations) conventions.
> >
> I agree, this only works if everyone finds it a reasonable proposition.
But part of the initial claim was that the conversion from "stuff"
into property was not dependent on such conventions--though it wasn't
you initial claim. That was part of what I was getting at in my initial
question here.
> >I'd also note, that bauxite is valued, if only because it can be
> >made into aluminum. So the buxite wasn't just valuless "stuff"
> >lying around.
>
> Nothing is valueless, but the point is labour, work, etc... was added to it.
>
> I think the implication of the initial claim made
> >above is that the buxite is the property of those who value the
> >end product aluminum. In short consumers are the implied owners
> >not the producers.
>
> No the producers are, then they offer it for sale, and the consumers then
> decide if they want to buy it.
That's certainly the way it works under our current system of property
rights and as articulated by labor theory of property advocates such
as Locke, and if I'm not mistaken going back to the early Greek
philosophers.
That, however simply suggests that if property is acquired through
value creation and the initial value of the, e.g., buxite derives from
the consumer then the implication of the theory is that the consume
owns the buxite and our current system is incoherent in assigning the
ownership right to the producer. In other words, the producer can
certainly
own the ore already extracted and the improved products but cannot put
up a fense to keep anyone else from digging thei own mine to tap into
the vein--at least not to a large extent. The mine shaft and the exposed
ore therein is the producers.
I'm not sure this is too important from a practical stance, due to
the following, but from a purely logical position it creates a bit
of a problem with many of the arguments offered here.
> >Now, one possible response consistent with Giovanni 8's general
> >position might be that this is simply another case of separation of
> >ownership and control. Only in a much more subtle form. This would
> >be the general analysis flowing from the soveriegn consumer view
> >point.
...
McQ
<snip>
>However, if you went into the wild and found an apple tree, and built
>a fence around it, and if someone came by a month later, jumped
>over the fence and took an apple from the tree, did they steal the
>fence-making labour?
What was the objective of building the fence, Victor?
Victor Levis
> >"Victor Levis" <vicl...@ican.net> wrote:
> >>McQ <mcq...@iix.netcom.com> wrote in article
>
> <snip>
>
> >However, if you went into the wild and found an apple tree, and built
> >a fence around it, and if someone came by a month later, jumped
> >over the fence and took an apple from the tree, did they steal the
> >fence-making labour?
>
> What was the objective of building the fence, Victor?
To assert a property right, perhaps? To keep people out so that you could
make apple-sauce at your leisure without worrying about 'poachers'?
--
McQ
"Victor Levis" <vicl...@ican.net> wrote:
>> >However, if you went into the wild and found an apple tree, and built
>> >a fence around it, and if someone came by a month later, jumped
>> >over the fence and took an apple from the tree, did they steal the
>> >fence-making labour?
>>
>> What was the objective of building the fence, Victor?
>To assert a property right, perhaps? To keep people out so that you could
>make apple-sauce at your leisure without worrying about 'poachers'?
To bound the property? If the fence is still there, no labor's been
stolen, has it?
To exclude other's from the property? If the fence failed in that,
it is hardly the fence's fault, but that of the designer and builder,
so no, as I see it, no labor's been stolen.
However, if the fence is gone, we have a whole new kettle of fish
don't we?
I assume, however, this wasn't really your point. Perhaps you'll
just tell me what it is?
>Victor Levis
>Freedom of Choice......Responsibility for Actions......Respect for Others
McQ
James A. Donald
wo...@woofwoofwoof.com (Woof) wrote:
> There are about 5 million rich people in the United States and about 260
> million who are not.
>
> You are advocating a system that serves only 5 million out of 265 million
> people.
Under capitalism people get rich by serving the customers desires.
Under socialism they get rich by torturing and killing.
So under capitalism we get Disneyland and air conditioning, under
socialism we get torture and killing fields.
What do you expect?
Under capitalism, the selfish desires of the rich lead them to serve
your need. Under socialism the selfish desires of the powerful lead
them to ram an electric cattle prod up your ass.
Loren Petrich
In article <33da233...@news.nl.net>,
Krist van Besien <th...@is.not.my.email> wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Jul 1997 22:55:36 -0700, wo...@woofwoofwoof.com (Woof)
>wrote:
>>There are about 5 million rich people in the United States and about 260
>>million who are not.
>This depends on your standards. Compared to a century ago I 'd say
>that there are 265 million rich people in the US.
Which does not stop some from being much richer than others.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
pet...@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html
Krist van Besien
>In article
><Pine.A41.3.95.970725...@green.weeg.uiowa.edu>, reid
>jeffrey alan <jar...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
>
>> It is the worker's lack of ambition, education, new ideas, and will to
>> improve himself that holds him back. Many poor men have become rich, and
>> many rich men have become poor, why? Desire, vision, and ambition, or lack
>> of it. This is still the land of opprotunity and anyone can become
>> president: just look at who is president today!!
>
>
>OK. Let's just for a minute pretend that nonsense is true.
>
>There are about 5 million rich people in the United States and about 260
>million who are not.
This depends on your standards. Compared to a century ago I 'd say
that there are 265 million rich people in the US.
greetings,
Krist
vicl...@ican.net
> "Victor Levis" <vicl...@ican.net> wrote:
>
> >> >However, if you went into the wild and found an apple tree, and built
> >> >a fence around it, and if someone came by a month later, jumped
> >> >over the fence and took an apple from the tree, did they steal the
> >> >fence-making labour?
> >>
> >> What was the objective of building the fence, Victor?
>
> >To assert a property right, perhaps? To keep people out so that you could
> >make apple-sauce at your leisure without worrying about 'poachers'?
>
> To bound the property? If the fence is still there, no labor's been
> stolen, has it?
>
> To exclude other's from the property? If the fence failed in that,
> it is hardly the fence's fault, but that of the designer and builder,
> so no, as I see it, no labor's been stolen.
>
> However, if the fence is gone, we have a whole new kettle of fish
> don't we?
>
> I assume, however, this wasn't really your point. Perhaps you'll
> just tell me what it is?
I'm trying to explore the morality of initial acquisition of natural
resources. Under what conditions (if any) is it 'legitimate' and under
what conditions (if any) is it 'hoarding'.
I think we've agreed between us at least that building a fence around an
apple tree doesn't make the apple tree 'yours'. Did you see the example
about the natural spring?
Victor Levis
Freedom of Choice......Responsibility for Actions......Respect for Others
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
Paul Brizant
>>>There are about 5 million rich people in the United States and about 260
>>>million who are not.
>>This depends on your standards. Compared to a century ago I 'd say
>>that there are 265 million rich people in the US.
I'm glad we got to the root of anti-Capitaist leanings:
Envy.
Loren Petrich
In article <5rddaf$efm$1...@fish.vf.pond.com>,
Paul Brizant <br...@pond.com> wrote:
>I'm glad we got to the root of anti-Capitaist leanings:
> Envy.
So if you don't like being mugged, you envy the mugger???
Woof
In article <5rd8uo$35e$3...@nntp2.ba.best.com>, jam...@echeque.com (James A.
Donald) wrote:
> wo...@woofwoofwoof.com (Woof) wrote:
> > There are about 5 million rich people in the United States and about 260
> > million who are not.
> >
> > You are advocating a system that serves only 5 million out of 265 million
> > people.
>
> Under capitalism people get rich by serving the customers desires.
> Under socialism they get rich by torturing and killing.
>
> So under capitalism we get Disneyland and air conditioning, under
> socialism we get torture and killing fields.
Chile. Contras. Guatemala. Argenitna. etc...
--
Woof - so I don't get any more SPAM!!!
McQ
>vicl...@ican.net wrote:
>>McQ wrote in article:
>> >>"Victor Levis wrote:
>>
>> >> >However, if you went into the wild and found an apple tree, and built
>> >> >a fence around it, and if someone came by a month later, jumped
>> >> >over the fence and took an apple from the tree, did they steal the
>> >> >fence-making labour?
>> >>
>> >> What was the objective of building the fence, Victor?
>>
>> >To assert a property right, perhaps? To keep people out so that you could
>> >make apple-sauce at your leisure without worrying about 'poachers'?
>>
>> To bound the property? If the fence is still there, no labor's been
>> stolen, has it?
>>
>> To exclude other's from the property? If the fence failed in that,
>> it is hardly the fence's fault, but that of the designer and builder,
>> so no, as I see it, no labor's been stolen.
>>
>> However, if the fence is gone, we have a whole new kettle of fish
>> don't we?
>>
>> I assume, however, this wasn't really your point. Perhaps you'll
>> just tell me what it is?
>I'm trying to explore the morality of initial acquisition of natural
>resources. Under what conditions (if any) is it 'legitimate' and under
>what conditions (if any) is it 'hoarding'.
Personally I see the bounding for personal use of something already
in common use, such as a lake, to be hoarding. However, I would also
say that if one were to drill a well, extract water, fill a hole in
the ground (a lake) and bound it for personal use, that would be
legitimate (moral).
>I think we've agreed between us at least that building a fence around an
>apple tree doesn't make the apple tree 'yours'.
Yeah, I think we have.
>Did you see the example about the natural spring?
No but I've seen many other discussions about water rights. I would
imagine I'd fall in with those that say you can't bound the spring for
personal use if it is in common use unless all using it agree to you
doing so, or unless you work some sort of deal with the users that
satisfies their loss of use.
After that, it could indeed be your exclusive property.
Saulius Muliolis
Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> In article <33da233...@news.nl.net>,
> Krist van Besien <th...@is.not.my.email> wrote:
> >wrote:
>
> >>There are about 5 million rich people in the United States and about 260
> >>million who are not.
>
> >that there are 265 million rich people in the US.
>
> Which does not stop some from being much richer than others.
And what's the problem with that?
Saulius Muliolis
muli...@en.com