Libertarian Socialism
Dan Clore
> So this seems to be a pattern on this group:
> people who are not socialists, and do not like
> socialism, lecturing socialists on what "socialism"
> means. I mean, talk about presumptuous!
> The word "libertarian" was used to describe
> a form of socialism long before right-wing free
> market types picked it up. Maybe if you think a
> little about how this could be possible, or read
> up on the history, you might learn something
> new. I mean, if you really want to know. If
> you ask I'm sure people on this group would be
> delighted to fill you in on the subject.
Trivia time:
"Sébastien Faure, who founded _Le Libertaire_ in 1895, is often credited
with having invented the word _libertarian_ as a convenient synonym for
_anarchist_. However, Déjacque'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: A History of Libertarian Ideas and
Movements_ (Penguin 1962), p. 263.
So much for the use of "libertarian" by libertarian socialists.
Meanwhile, the use of "libertarian" by right-wingers was first proposed
in 1955:
http://www.daft.com/~rab/liberty/history/whois-1955.html
(The reader will note that I have referred him to a page put up by a
right-libertarian, not a libertarian socialist.)
So there you have it: the first recorded use of "libertarian" to refer
to libertarian socialists precedes the word's appropriation by
right-wingers by nearly a hundred years.
--
---------------------------------------------------
Dan Clore
The Website of Lord We˙rdgliffe:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/index.html
Welcome to the Waughters....
The Dan Clore Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/necpage.htm
Because the true mysteries cannot be profaned....
"Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!"
David Graeber
Harmonious Sal <hom...@funtv.com> wrote:
>Hey! boys and girls, people need to be lead; Libertarianism does in no way
>support anarchy, it recognizes the need for rules and leaders- as locally as
>maturely reasonable.
>Libertarianistic socialism is an onxymoron: socialism rules that a society
>should be "lead" (read "ruled") at the highest level possible, with no one
>person receiving more than the rest - a complete denial of human nature and
>unachievable.
So this seems to be a pattern on this group:
people who are not socialists, and do not like
socialism, lecturing socialists on what "socialism"
means. I mean, talk about presumptuous!
The word "libertarian" was used to describe
a form of socialism long before right-wing free
market types picked it up. Maybe if you think a
little about how this could be possible, or read
up on the history, you might learn something
new. I mean, if you really want to know. If
you ask I'm sure people on this group would be
delighted to fill you in on the subject.
DG
James A. Donald
On Wed, 13 Jan 1999 22:57:10 -0800, Dan Clore
<cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> "Sébastien Faure, who founded _Le Libertaire_ in 1895, is
> often credited with having invented the word _libertarian_
> as a convenient synonym for _anarchist_. However,
> Déjacque'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: A History of Libertarian
> Ideas and Movements_ (Penguin 1962), p. 263.
>
> So much for the use of "libertarian" by libertarian socialists.
> Meanwhile, the use of "libertarian" by right-wingers was first proposed
> in 1955:
My Random House Webster's College dictionary says that the word
"Libertarian" was first used in 1790, a long time before anyone who
Dan Clore would call a "libertarian socialist" existed.
It gives four meanings of "libertarian", none of them socialist, all
of them sounding like those that Clore falsely calls "right wingers",
and half of them sounding like today's libertarians.
So I tried my Grolier Encyclopedia: It used the words six times, all
of these references (except one) referring to those that Clore calls
"right wingers", for example Ayn Rand. The earliest reference was to
"the exiled reformer and libertarian John Wilkes" (1763)
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
OOhDO4N/mDZ/s0iFhj2USNcrWvzONWAvIMIpFeaR
42ZwiHNEziwouepWMzUgHqh4Yd3CPUYpfMfIOf46o
------
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
PlanB
try to show them how they are being exploited...they are too blinded by their
comfort to see anything else...well, maybe this Y2K thing will knock them out of
that complacency...
Peace,
B
--
"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to
and you have found out the exact measure of injustice
and wrong which will be imposed upon them..."
--Frederick Douglass
<p><a href="http://welcome.to/PlanB247">New Plan B Site</a>
George Bidder
James A. Donald wrote:
> My Random House Webster's College dictionary says that the word
> "Libertarian" was first used in 1790, a long time before anyone who
> Dan Clore would call a "libertarian socialist" existed.
Like Dan's anarchism - if it ain't socialist then it don't exist.
It's good to see somebody else questioning Dan's rather biased history
lessons.
--
George Bidder
G*rd*n
| >Hey! boys and girls, people need to be lead; Libertarianism does in no way
| >support anarchy, it recognizes the need for rules and leaders- as locally as
| >maturely reasonable.
| >Libertarianistic socialism is an onxymoron: socialism rules that a society
| >should be "lead" (read "ruled") at the highest level possible, with no one
| >person receiving more than the rest - a complete denial of human nature and
| >unachievable.
dr...@minerva.cis.yale.edu (David Graeber):
| So this seems to be a pattern on this group:
| people who are not socialists, and do not like
| socialism, lecturing socialists on what "socialism"
| means. I mean, talk about presumptuous!
| ...
The need to rewrite and thereby efface the meaning of
_socialism_ is a testimony to the power of the idea
behind it -- the idea of equality -- and the fear which it
strikes into the hearts of authoritarians of every kind,
whether their method of effacement is appropriation or
slander.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 1/10 <-adv't
ra...@my-dejanews.com
cl...@columbia-center.org wrote:
> Meanwhile, the use of "libertarian" by right-wingers was first
> proposed in 1955:
>
>
> (The reader will note that I have referred him to a page put up by a
> right-libertarian, not a libertarian socialist.)
Two errors here: one, that page does not claim to represent the "first"
use of the word libertarian by whoever; its 1955 author appears to silently
assume that there was no previous political uses of the word libertarian,
which we already know is false.
Two, that page was put up by somebody who vigorously rejects the idea
that libertarians can *ever* be "right-wing" except in the lexicon of
somebody who defines "right" as anybody who thinks that human beings
have rights to own and use property (not referring to land, just to
posessions). Read the comments in the index file; the rejection is
extremely clear.
That's the problem with terms like "left" and "right" in politics --
they border on meaningless, becaue they're so completely relative.
.....rab42
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
G*rd*n
| ...
| That's the problem with terms like "left" and "right" in politics --
| they border on meaningless, becaue they're so completely relative.
One can say that they are vectors or tropisms: the Right
towards authority and hierarchy, the Left towards freedom
and equality. The term _right_ derived from the placement
of the "friends of the King of France" in the pre-
revolutionary _Parlement_, but it has an older history; it
is the place of honor in a military formation, supposedly
because in the days of the sword, the man with the strongest
right arm was placed rightmost in a formation. So the
genealogy of the idea of the Right can be traced back to
ancient military practice and, therefore, classical slavery,
which accords with the notions of authority and hierarchy
it represents.
In the contemporary world, the problem with these terms is
that not so much that they're relative, as that they're
misused, as also look upon situations in which authorities
have learned to lie profusely in order to gain and keep
their powers. Thus many an authoritarian has used the
rhetoric of the Left, leading some who oppose them to
believe they must be rightists. In general, an actual
rightist will always proclaim some authority, whether it's
God, the government, Capital, the Party, or even "the
people", which must be obediently served.
ra...@my-dejanews.com
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
[regarding Left and Right]
> One can say that they are vectors or tropisms: the Right
> towards authority and hierarchy, the Left towards freedom
> and equality.
Well, in modern-day USA, both terms refer to people who advocate some
sort of authority. But, your definitions accord well with the idealistic
aims of many of the original users of the terms, and I think with the gut
feelings of many (most?) common folks when they use the terms, and all of
this is part of why many people (including myself) insist that the US
Libertarian Party has far far more in common with the Left than it ever
has (or ever will) with the Right: we reject authority and hierarchy, and
embrace freedom and equality.
[snip]
[the usual history lesson about left/right, seating arrangements in the
French legislature, and military formations/salutes]
> In general, an actual
> rightist will always proclaim some authority, whether it's
> God, the government, Capital, the Party, or even "the
> people", which must be obediently served.
I like this formulation; it makes very clear why nobody can legitimately
call herself a Libertarian and simultaneously advocate some Authority.
A true free-market being the ultimate in absence-of-authority, of course.
.....rab42
.
James A. Donald
On 15 Jan 1999 15:06:05 GMT, g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
> One can say that they are vectors or tropisms: the Right
> towards authority and hierarchy, the Left towards freedom
> and equality.
When the left were the bourgeoisie, and the right were the church
hierarchy and the semi hereditary functionaries of the monarchic
state, this analysis was entirely accurate.
However by about 1860 the wester world reached a point where
increasing liberty seemed unlikely to improve equality, and the
loudest voices amongst those claiming to support greater equality
proposed measures that seemed likely to radically reduce freedom.
As a result, your analysis of the left/right division was already
obsolete in 1900.
In the 1930s, it was clearly ridiculous to attribute to the left any
tropism towards freedom, particularly after the eradication of the
anarchists.
In the sixties the situation again changed radically. Then leftism
and freedom were once again on the same side, thanks to the draft,
which aligned the right with slavery, but after the draft was
abolished, leftism and love of freedom went in opposite directions.
Before the draft was abolished, the typical leftist was for dope, free
sex, free speech, pornography, and so forth.
After the draft was abolished the remnant of the left headed rapidly
back towards authoritarianism, persecuting and driving out their more
libertarian elements as heretics and tools of the vast capitalist
conspiracy, supporters of phallocentrism, etbnocentrism, etc. Today
the archetypical radical leftist proposes to enforce political
correctness, criminalize numerous forms of sexual contact and
interaction, censor pornography, ban smoking, and so on and so forth.
Clinton has been criminalized by outrageous and oppressive laws that
he and the democrats, not the republicans. sought to impose.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
KHncQwhlpwMGqFGrhsTAHQvm0poIFtkZwJ/DxNM7
4NFnyATsm/3zVmy5euWjlFEjZ3dvXq87keeD0E4Hi
G*rd*n
| > One can say that they are vectors or tropisms: the Right
| > towards authority and hierarchy, the Left towards freedom
| > and equality.
jam...@echeque.com (James A. Donald):
| When the left were the bourgeoisie, and the right were the church
| hierarchy and the semi hereditary functionaries of the monarchic
| state, this analysis was entirely accurate.
|
| However by about 1860 the wester world reached a point where
| increasing liberty seemed unlikely to improve equality, and the
| loudest voices amongst those claiming to support greater equality
| proposed measures that seemed likely to radically reduce freedom.
|
| As a result, your analysis of the left/right division was already
| obsolete in 1900.
|
| In the 1930s, it was clearly ridiculous to attribute to the left any
| tropism towards freedom, particularly after the eradication of the
| anarchists.
|
| In the sixties the situation again changed radically. ...
Right and Left aren't ideologies. They're identities,
collections of interests, "communities of affection."
As the rise in the productive powers of humans began
to permeate to ordinary people in the 18th and 19th
centuries, their morale, hitherto depressed by millennia
of slavery, began to rise, and they became restive and
rebellious. The response of the Right was often violent
repression, but sometimes as well accomodation and
seduction (especially of the more aggressive and talented
among leftists). We can see a lot of this today in the
mainstream political parties and in liberalism in general;
in recent years racial minorities and feminists have been
handled in this way.
In addition, many people of rightist sensibilities found
it profitable in one way or another to dress themselves
in leftists' clothing and conjure various authoritarian
movements among those outside the establishment, a sort
of fighting fire with fire strategy. But these schemes,
such as the regimes in the U.S.S.R. and China, naturally
would up replicating previous authoritarian models. So
these were false or mistaken versions of the Left which
actually impeded its political development, and the
regimes in question have been succeeded by ones which
make little pretense to leftist sensibilities. Thus
the Left may be freed from the delusions of power they
promulgated.
James A. Donald
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
> > > One can say that they are vectors or tropisms: the
> > > Right towards authority and hierarchy, the Left towards
> > > freedom and equality.
James A. Donald:
> > When the left were the bourgeoisie, and the right were
> > the church hierarchy and the semi hereditary
> > functionaries of the monarchic state, this analysis was
> > entirely accurate.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > However by about 1860 the western world reached a point
> > where increasing liberty seemed unlikely to improve
> > equality, and the loudest voices amongst those claiming
> > to support greater equality proposed measures that seemed
> > likely to radically reduce freedom.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
> Right and Left aren't ideologies. They're identities,
> collections of interests, "communities of affection."
The ridiculous and oppressive sex laws that Clinton violated are the
work of the left. This does not show any tropism towards freedom.
> In addition, many people of rightist sensibilities found it
> profitable in one way or another to dress themselves in
> leftists' clothing and conjure various authoritarian
> movements among those outside the establishment, a sort of
> fighting fire with fire strategy.
So according to you, the Democrat party in America, the academic left
that infests our universities and still imposes political correctness,
the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua, the various communist parties, the
British Labour party, and so and so forth, are actually secret right
wing front organizations set up to discredit the left.
Who then remains that is not a front organization for this vast right
wing conspiracy?
I have a distinct suspicion that in your eyes the one true remaining
left wing organization is a tiny neo-trotkyite sect consisting of half
a dozen elderly radicals.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
C/LfRhynTQHK/7EJ5+Nj8u7RSyFYBVvJVF4CSiKV
43xte2DbzDgYCDF4iqr02QEkLz4JffoOoRVJRYcCd
G*rd*n
|>>> One can say that they are vectors or tropisms: the
|>>> Right towards authority and hierarchy, the Left towards
|>>> freedom and equality.
James A. Donald:
|>> When the left were the bourgeoisie, and the right were
|>> the church hierarchy and the semi hereditary
|>> functionaries of the monarchic state, this analysis was
|>> entirely accurate.
|>>
|>> [...]
|>>
|>> However by about 1860 the western world reached a point
|>> where increasing liberty seemed unlikely to improve
|>> equality, and the loudest voices amongst those claiming
|>> to support greater equality proposed measures that seemed
|>> likely to radically reduce freedom.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
|> Right and Left aren't ideologies. They're identities,
|> collections of interests, "communities of affection."
jam...@echeque.com (James A. Donald):
| The ridiculous and oppressive sex laws that Clinton violated are the
| work of the left. This does not show any tropism towards freedom.
The people who invent such laws probably believe in some
sort of propertarian interest in persons, or the structure
of society, and believe also -- mistakenly -- that these
interests can be best served by calling the cops. They
are leftists in the sense that they care about the fate of
often oppressed people, but they are still attached to
rightist means. One hopes some of them will learn
something from recent experiences.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
|> In addition, many people of rightist sensibilities found it
|> profitable in one way or another to dress themselves in
|> leftists' clothing and conjure various authoritarian
|> movements among those outside the establishment, a sort of
|> fighting fire with fire strategy.
jam...@echeque.com (James A. Donald):
| So according to you, the Democrat party in America, the academic left
| that infests our universities and still imposes political correctness,
| the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua, the various communist parties, the
| British Labour party, and so and so forth, are actually secret right
| wing front organizations set up to discredit the left.
Not at all. They're full of mistaken people, in my view,
but they're probably not fronts. The shadow of slavery is
deep, and we are only beginning to emerge from it. There
are still many people who think everything can be set
right by a little force, a little violence.
jam...@echeque.com (James A. Donald):
| Who then remains that is not a front organization for this vast right
| wing conspiracy?
Many people are on the path. Of these, a good many probably
don't think of themselves as "leftists" -- which is fine
with me; we should not be ruled by objects and abstractions.
jam...@echeque.com (James A. Donald):
| I have a distinct suspicion that in your eyes the one true remaining
| left wing organization is a tiny neo-trotkyite sect consisting of half
| a dozen elderly radicals.
No, haven't met them. You should introduce me sometime!
Libertarian
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>> Right and Left aren't ideologies. They're identities,
>> collections of interests, "communities of affection."
>
>The ridiculous and oppressive sex laws that Clinton violated are the
>work of the left. This does not show any tropism towards freedom.
Sorry, but youre wrong.. they were the work of the right... uptight
conservative Christians.
Libertarian
James A. Donald
James A. Donald:
> > The ridiculous and oppressive sex laws that Clinton
> > violated are the work of the left. This does not show
> > any tropism towards freedom.
On 16 Jan 1999 21:12:10 GMT, g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
> The people who invent such laws probably believe in some
> sort of propertarian interest in persons, or the structure
> of society, and believe also [...]
You said the left, not the socialist left. Now if you want to claim
that today's socialist left has a "tropism towards equality and
freedom", then you communicating with the wrong planet.
The socialist left was substantially authoritarian by 1860 (read
Tucker's ridicule) and has become progressively more authoritarian
during the course of the twentieth century, (perhaps because the
events of the twentieth century persuaded the more moderate or more
anti authoritarian members of the left to abandon socialism).
Consider the following three examples 1 Economic proposals. 2 Empire.
3 Sex.
1. Compare the economic order that Stalin describes in "Foundatations
of Leninism", with the economic order recently proposed in "Par Econ"
If we take Stalin's polite euphemisms at face value, and the ParEcon
polite euphemisms at face value, then what Stalin describes is vastly
more free than the openly authoritarian system described in ParEcon.
The commies back then set considerably higher value to at least
sounding as if they were in favor of liberty than the commies of
today.
If we are so unkind as to apply the usual translations between
socialist english and plain english to both "Foundations" and
"ParEcon, then Stalin is accurately describing the Soviet Union's
cities under war communism, and also accurately describing the Soviet
Union as it became after collectivisation was completed. The authors
of ParEcon are describing Pol Pot's Cambodia, or Stalin's labor camps.
2. Similarly compare the reaction to Lenin and Trotsky
re-establishing the Russian empire seventy five years ago, with the
reaction to North Vietnam subduing South Vietnam twenty five years
ago.
Lenin and Trotsky held fake referenda, and forced everyone to vote for
union, and they found local communists, and put them in positions of
apparent, and frequently quite real power, so as to give the
appearance, and to some extent the reality, that the Soviet Union was
now a genuine union, not just an empire as before. Yet even so the
bloody methods by which they obtained a unanimous vote for union
caused some unease on the left.
When the North Vietnamese marched into South Vietnam, instead of
appointing local communists to high positions as Lenin and later
Stalin did, they promptly massacred the lot. They did not even
pretend to hold a vote for union. And the reaction of the socialist
left in the west was that this was just fine.
When we compare the reaction of the left of twenty five years ago to
North Vietnam's brutal and savage colonial subjugation of the South,
with the considerable unease of the left of seventy five years ago to
the considerably less imperial methods used to re-unify the Russian
empire, it is clear that the socialist left of twenty five years ago
was more authoritarian than the socialist left of seventy five years
ago.
3. And when we consider the attitudes of today's socialist left to
sex and stuff, and compare it to the attitude of the socialist left of
twenty five years ago ....
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
> > > In addition, many people of rightist sensibilities
> > > found it profitable in one way or another to dress
> > > themselves in leftists' clothing and conjure various
> > > authoritarian movements among those outside the
> > > establishment, a sort of fighting fire with fire
> > > strategy.
James A. Donald:
> > So according to you, the Democrat party in America, the
> > academic left that infests our universities and still
> > imposes political correctness, the Sandinista regime in
> > Nicaragua, the various communist parties, the British
> > Labour party, and so and so forth, are actually secret
> > right wing front organizations set up to discredit the
> > left.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
> Not at all. They're full of mistaken people, in my view,
> but they're probably not fronts.
Then their painfully visible authoritarian tendencies are evidence
that the left a whole has no particular "tropism towards freedom"
You cannot have it both ways.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
BLZZDe8eQrl4Jq9aEy89afJ8x+BiFI34WwXigDex
4dy8wYdSxaXqlxXZLX1OZFKgDL7MG/eD40CTUdzgT
James A. Donald
> > violated are the work of the left. This does not show
> > any tropism towards freedom.
Libertarian wrote:
> Sorry, but youre wrong.. they were the work of the right... uptight
> conservative Christians.
Clinton violated laws restricting sex between people of greatly
different power and authority, laws that he advocated, laws that led
the "feminists" to support him. He also violated laws that require
the accused to incriminate himself when charged with such offenses,
laws passed by the Democrats and opposed by the Republicans.
We do not have any laws prohibiting adultery, which what the lunatic
fringe of the Christian right would like to have, and would like to
apply against Clintion.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
8a3ynS4lLWCouK9SmBg0qh/Se7xzQgT/TwOMDsxZ
4mdyJuwyXu74uwLxwSrsgv5ntIeseB5JfVP68KmxW
G*rd*n
| >> Right and Left aren't ideologies. They're identities,
| >> collections of interests, "communities of affection."
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
| >The ridiculous and oppressive sex laws that Clinton violated are the
| >work of the left. This does not show any tropism towards freedom.
liber...@nospam.org (Libertarian):
| Sorry, but youre wrong.. they were the work of the right... uptight
| conservative Christians.
Some of the legislation around sex to which James is
referring was strongly supported by important feminist
organizations, e.g. NOW. While NOW may be a bit near
to the center for outright, fire-eating leftishness,
I think they belong more to the relative Left than
the relative Right.
James A. Donald
On 17 Jan 1999 06:02:43 GMT, g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
> Some of the legislation around sex to which James is
> referring was strongly supported by important feminist
> organizations, e.g. NOW. While NOW may be a bit near
> to the center for outright, fire-eating leftishness,
> I think they belong more to the relative Left than
> the relative Right.
Thanks Gordon.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
M3Cle9bzcvM+Abo8Aru9dBiMv3I/KzDXeSDP/GuI
4vjS2ABInvZOG7xkC9u3tVi+m7WX6sGEpbNYWhaBz
Dan Clore
> Well, in modern-day USA, both terms refer to people who advocate some
> sort of authority. But, your definitions accord well with the idealistic
> aims of many of the original users of the terms, and I think with the gut
> feelings of many (most?) common folks when they use the terms, and all of
> this is part of why many people (including myself) insist that the US
> Libertarian Party has far far more in common with the Left than it ever
> has (or ever will) with the Right: we reject authority and hierarchy, and
> embrace freedom and equality.
Except that the Libertarian Party not only does not reject authority and
hierarchy in the economic sphere, but enthusiastically embraces them.
G*rd*n
|>> The ridiculous and oppressive sex laws that Clinton
|>> violated are the work of the left. This does not show
|>> any tropism towards freedom.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
|> The people who invent such laws probably believe in some
|> sort of propertarian interest in persons, or the structure
|> of society, and believe also [...]
James A. Donald:
| You said the left, not the socialist left. Now if you want to claim
| that today's socialist left has a "tropism towards equality and
| freedom", then you communicating with the wrong planet.
I don't know who you mean by "socialist left." You referred
to leftists passing sex laws; I had assumed, then, you meant
people like NOW. They are liberals; they believe that
freedom and equality can be achieved through a proper
adjustment of a community's laws and institutions. Many of
them are no way socialists. This makes the rest of what you
say (about Lenin, Stalin, and North Vietnam) apparently
completely irrelevant.
| ...
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
|>>> In addition, many people of rightist sensibilities
|>>> found it profitable in one way or another to dress
|>>> themselves in leftists' clothing and conjure various
|>>> authoritarian movements among those outside the
|>>> establishment, a sort of fighting fire with fire
|>>> strategy.
James A. Donald:
|>> So according to you, the Democrat party in America, the
|>> academic left that infests our universities and still
|>> imposes political correctness, the Sandinista regime in
|>> Nicaragua, the various communist parties, the British
|>> Labour party, and so and so forth, are actually secret
|>> right wing front organizations set up to discredit the
|>> left.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
|> Not at all. They're full of mistaken people, in my view,
|> but they're probably not fronts.
James A. Donald:
| Then their painfully visible authoritarian tendencies are evidence
| that the left a whole has no particular "tropism towards freedom"
|
| You cannot have it both ways.
This is like saying that British activities in Ireland,
India, and Africa proved that the British government and
ruling classes weren't liberal. It may seem paradoxical but
human beings are very good at doublethink. This includes
libertarians: the last time I looked, the supposedly
libertarian Cato Institute had pages on its web site
supporting "Right-To-Work" laws, and others have mentioned
seeing proposals for increased "Defense" spending in a
time of peace. There will be authoritarian tendencies in
every social activity for a long time -- this is what I mean
by the "shadow of slavery."
Matthew Cromer
cl...@columbia-center.org writes:
>Except that the Libertarian Party not only does not reject authority and
>hierarchy in the economic sphere, but enthusiastically embraces them.
I'm having a bit of trouble with my newsreader today. I can't seem to
download the rest of your post, where you justify this prima facie
ludicrous statement.
Matthew Cromer
Matt
(James A. Donald) wrote:
[snip]
> Clinton violated laws restricting sex between people of greatly
> different power and authority, laws that he advocated, laws that led
> the "feminists" to support him. He also violated laws that require
> the accused to incriminate himself when charged with such offenses,
> laws passed by the Democrats and opposed by the Republicans.
Can you be more specific about which of those laws he violated? If you're
right, that would provide wonderful material for the Republicans. But I
haven't seen the Republicans using that argument. (Although I haven't
been following the circus closely.)
> We do not have any laws prohibiting adultery, which what the lunatic
> fringe of the Christian right would like to have, and would like to
> apply against Clintion.
Many states do have archaic laws relating to sodomy. Although I think the
District repealed its sodomy law, so Clinton is in the clear in that
respect.
--
Protons Electrons Always Cause Explosions
Matt (djar...@my-dejanews.com)
G*rd*n
| [snip]
| > Clinton violated laws restricting sex between people of greatly
| > different power and authority, laws that he advocated, laws that led
| > the "feminists" to support him. He also violated laws that require
| > the accused to incriminate himself when charged with such offenses,
| > laws passed by the Democrats and opposed by the Republicans.
djar...@my-dejanews.com (Matt):
| Can you be more specific about which of those laws he violated? If you're
| right, that would provide wonderful material for the Republicans. But I
| haven't seen the Republicans using that argument. (Although I haven't
| been following the circus closely.)
| ...
James is a little bit mixed up here, but his basic point is
valid. The current impeachment circus came about because of
Paula Jones's suit against Clinton, which led to his
supposedly perjuring himself about his relationship with
Lewinsky. Jones's suit claimed not that Clinton had
violated a law in making sexual advances to her _per_se_
but that he had pressured her to grant him sexual favors,
implying that he could use his power and authority to harm
her if she refused. The suit was dismissed because Jones
couldn't show any harm. (It has been appealed.)
NOW has taken the position (almost identical to that of
Catherine MacKinnon) that an ordinary sexual advance, when
made by a person of power to a subordinate, constitutes a
kind of sexual harassment. While this principle isn't
generally encoded into law, I believe it has influenced a
lot of legislation and jurisprudence around the issue. It
is certain that the kind of attack now being aimed at
Clinton could not have been developed in the same way
prior to recent changes to the law brought about by the
pressure of NOW and other liberal feminists.
This puts liberal feminists in the embarrassing position
of finding it in their interests to defend a sort of person,
and excuse a sort of behavior, which they had hitherto
very strongly condemned. The problem for them, as I see it,
lies in their acceptance of the hierarchical, domination-
ridden structure of normal liberal-bourgeois capitalist
society and its attendant state bureaucracy, not in their
feminism. It is true that forms of resistance to sexual
oppression need to be developed; but calling the established
order's cops to do the job only deepens the problem.
davi...@my-dejanews.com
Since last summer the "Other marxist writers" have been moved
from the _Marx/Engels Internet Archive_ (MEIA, www.marx.org) to the
_Marxists Internet Archive (MIA) at:
<URL: http://www.marxists.org/archive/index.htm>
i.e. Trotsky is at:
<URL: http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/index.htm>
The background is that the folks at MEIA have decided to focus on
works by Marx and Engels only. The transfer has happened in common
understanding, which is also shown by the fact that works by Marx and
Engels are mirrored at MIA:
<URL: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/index.htm>
It now also has a non-English section at:
<URL: http://www.marxists.org/archive/noneng/index.htm>
- it has works, or links to works, in French, German, Swedish,
Spanish, Indonesian, Finnish and Danish. Other langiages are being
prepared.
If you want to help with scanning, editing, html'izing (or, for the
non-English section: looking up links) this would be highly
appreciated. Please contact David Walters (dire...@marxists.org) or,
for the non-English section, the undersigned (jo...@marxists.org) for
further details.
All the best
Jorn
--
Jørn Andersen
Copenhagen, Denmark
Marxists Internet Archive - Non-English section
http://www.marxists.org/archive/noneng/index.htm
Libertarian
>g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>| >> Right and Left aren't ideologies. They're identities,
>| >> collections of interests, "communities of affection."
>
>James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>| >work of the left. This does not show any tropism towards freedom.
>
>| Sorry, but youre wrong.. they were the work of the right... uptight
>| conservative Christians.
>
>referring was strongly supported by important feminist
>organizations, e.g. NOW. While NOW may be a bit near
>to the center for outright, fire-eating leftishness,
>I think they belong more to the relative Left than
Well, this may be true, but I think the Christian Right has contributed
more to sexual repression than the feminists ever could.
Let's also remember that there is a libertarian left which opposes
laws restricting sexual behavior, gun laws, drug laws, and simmilar
things, leaving choice up to the individual.
See: http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/ for more info.
Libertarian
constan...@my-dejanews.com
wrote:
>Let's also remember that there is a libertarian left which opposes
>laws restricting sexual behavior, gun laws, drug laws, and simmilar
>things, leaving choice up to the individual.
As you are no doubt aware, libertarians also oppose these laws you
mention. We can at least agree on this.
James A. Donald
James A. Donald:
> > > > The ridiculous and oppressive sex laws that Clinton
> > > > violated are the work of the left. This does not
> > > > show any tropism towards freedom.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
> > > The people who invent such laws probably believe in
> > > some sort of propertarian interest in persons, or the
> > > structure of society, and believe also [...]
James A. Donald:
> > You said the left, not the socialist left. Now if you
> > want to claim that today's socialist left has a "tropism
> > towards equality and freedom", then you communicating
> > with the wrong planet.
> I don't know who you mean by "socialist left." You referred
> to leftists passing sex laws; I had assumed, then, you meant
> people like NOW. [...]
So the socialist left being authoritarian is irrelevant to your claim
that the left has a tropism towards freedom, and the moderate left
(such as NOW) being authoritarian is also irrelevant to your claim.
This does not leave much of your claim.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
> > > > > In addition, many people of rightist sensibilities
> > > > > found it profitable in one way or another to dress
> > > > > themselves in leftists' clothing and conjure
> > > > > various authoritarian movements among those
> > > > > outside the establishment, a sort of fighting fire
> > > > > with fire strategy.
James A. Donald:
> > > > So according to you, the Democrat party in America,
> > > > the academic left that infests our universities and
> > > > still imposes political correctness, the Sandinista
> > > > regime in Nicaragua, the various communist parties,
> > > > the British Labour party, and so and so forth, are
> > > > actually secret right wing front organizations set up
> > > > to discredit the left.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
> > > Not at all. They're full of mistaken people, in my
> > > view, but they're probably not fronts.
James A. Donald:
> > Then their painfully visible authoritarian tendencies are
> > evidence that the left a whole has no particular "tropism
> > towards freedom" You cannot have it both ways.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
> This is like saying that British activities in Ireland,
> India, and Africa proved that the British government and
> ruling classes weren't [classic] liberal.
Funny: I thought that everyone agreed that the British government and
ruling class were not classic liberal and never were. I thought that
there was never the slightest controversy on this issue.
The British capitalist class, however, clearly was classic liberal for
the most part, and to some limited extent still is.
The argument you probably intended to make is that lots of left wing
groups can do lots of authoritarian things, and it still does not
alter the overall direction.
The overall direction of the left in sixties clearly was for liberty,
at least in the US, though not necessarily for Vietnamese.
The overall direction of the left today varies from bloodthirsty
totalitarian amongst the radicals, to generally oppressive and
authoritarian (Feinstein) among the moderates. On every issue
relevant to liberty, today's left, from the extremists to the wishy
washy moderates, are simply on the wrong side.
Even on such classic issues as pornography, the best that today's left
can claim is that they are mostly not as bad as the Christian Right.
(For an example that is as bad as the Christian right, see
http://www.igc.apc.org/nemesis/)
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
VMko+iMUmDNSNZ7Xd5RUB6FTnEbIGwbdeYRxXsYT
4Ry3xQE2YjBtEtW4jjRlDwlb9F/tdkQcPuWJVd+oX
James A. Donald
> contributed more to sexual repression than the feminists
> ever could.
So what laws against sex are currently effective and enforced and the
fault of the Christian right?
Let us compare this with the laws against sex that are currently
effective and the fault of the feminist left.
The current workplace laws are entirely the fault of the feminist
left. The current "child pornography" laws (great tits on most of
those "children") are in substantial part the fault of the feminist
left.
> Let's also remember that there is a libertarian left which
> opposes laws restricting sexual behavior, gun laws, drug
> laws, and simmilar things, leaving choice up to the
> individual.
Perhaps true, though it seems one hell of a lot less visible than it
was in the sixties.
If you look at Crumb's work, in the beginning he was revolting against
Disneyism and the comics code, and in the end he was revolting against
the PC.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
uZeEuqMEYS33dG+4JtHoFMlbSxw0X8n5q/sprkNq
4VV+c5KWj7jiQ+rGaT6gtmt2o+hGYDWLO9dkEzjo9
David O'Bedlam
Hash: SHA1
ra...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
[...]
> A true free-market being the ultimate in absence-of-authority, of course.
As exemplified by the New York Stock Exchange, for example?
Tittering,
TheDavid
- --
"I feel like a relentless grinding machine spreading mediocrity
across the usenet landscape." --Oluwa "Layo" Lehmann
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBNqM9IRz40he1RakNEQIdKwCfQjO7kKFGqxvcYj6m2+UAInMLRS8Anj0D
YT+R/kEJ7CbaeLQG/cxh7ufv
=8EyT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
David O'Bedlam
Hash: SHA1
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
[...]
> When the North Vietnamese marched into South Vietnam, instead of
> appointing local communists to high positions as Lenin and later
> Stalin did, they promptly massacred the lot. They did not even
> pretend to hold a vote for union. And the reaction of the socialist
> left in the west was that this was just fine.
I must interject here that these events -- in 1975 -- happened when
I was but a whelp of only 12 years of age; had I understood the issue
then, or even known it was going on, I'd've been against it. (I *was*
against the U.S. involvement in Vietnam before then; I used to have a
speech send by Nixon's publicists, and a photo I put on my dart board,
in response to an angry gripe I sent the White House back in 1972, so
in my own defense I must say I wasn't *completely* ignorant.)
I guess according Donald's daffynitions that means I really *wasn't* a
prepubescent Leftist after all!
Glory be!
Amazed,
TheDavid
- --
"I feel like a relentless grinding machine spreading mediocrity
across the usenet landscape." --Oluwa "Layo" Lehmann
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBNqM/UBz40he1RakNEQL32ACfWIm7UQJe2GLzREXTTyClb09lV0MAoK/J
9qvIXSbLwafXim9GxoUs26im
=Snmv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
G*rd*n
| ...
| Disneyism and the comics code, and in the end he was revolting against
| the PC.
Crumb's work does not fit into some narrow ideological
stereotype. For one, very important thing, he reveals and
acknowledges his own less admirable impulses, and sometimes
even glories in them. Much of his work is ironic on many
levels -- thus, while he's making fun of the "PC" he's often
recognizing that they have something of a case. And he's
operated that way from the time he appeared in public, in
the later 1960s.
Jon Noring
>jam...@echeque.com (James A. Donald):
>| If you look at Crumb's work, in the beginning he was revolting against
>| Disneyism and the comics code, and in the end he was revolting against
>| the PC.
>Crumb's work does not fit into some narrow ideological
>stereotype. For one, very important thing, he reveals and
>acknowledges his own less admirable impulses, and sometimes
>even glories in them. Much of his work is ironic on many
>levels -- thus, while he's making fun of the "PC" he's often
>recognizing that they have something of a case. And he's
>operated that way from the time he appeared in public, in
>the later 1960s.
The movie about Crumb was shown on the Independent Film channel the other day.
He made a quote, which, although I don't recall it exactly, showed him to be
a very strong individualist. He seems to oppose outsiders forcing the
individual to conform to a certain lifestyle and mindset, whether these
outsiders be the government, the majority in society, or simply politically
correct thought. So, it does not surprise me if Crumb would go against *any*
influence that puts pressure on the individual to conform to some mindset or
belief, and this can range from Disneyism/Leave it to Beaver, to Politically
Correct (tm) speech, which I consider the "1984 Newspeak of the Liberal Left".
If anything, Crumb can be considered closer to a libertarian than to a liberal
or conservative. I like the guy, even if he is a little strange.
Jon Noring
--
_____________________________________________________________________________
OmniMedia Digital Publishing | Web: http://www.awa.com/library/omnimedia
9671 S. 1600 West St. | E-mail: omni...@netcom.com
South Jordan, UT 84095 | Phone: 801-253-4037
The "Kama Sutra of Vatsyayana", "Perfumed Garden of Sheik Nefzaoui", and
many other great electronic books for Windows.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bill Christensen
David O'Bedlam wrote in message ...
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>[...]
>
>> A true free-market being the ultimate in absence-of-authority, of course.
>
>As exemplified by the New York Stock Exchange, for example?
>
You can't call something a free market when people are not free to sell and
buy at will, including the NYSE.
David O'Bedlam
Hash: SHA1
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> In the 1930s, it was clearly ridiculous to attribute to the left any
> tropism towards freedom, /* particularly after the eradication of the
> anarchists.*/ [emphasis mine]
Thanks, James A. Donald, for your support.
> Before the draft was abolished, the typical leftist was for dope, free
> sex, free speech, pornography, and so forth.
So I was a "typical" leftist before *mumble-wait-it-'73?*, but not now?
Confused,
TheDavid
- --
"I feel like a relentless grinding machine spreading mediocrity
across the usenet landscape." --Oluwa "Layo" Lehmann
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBNqPBIxz40he1RakNEQKTIwCgy2vXrmuYLlSBliGhAeRAdc9Ho/4AoOSF
wHlAFVhAvmahxV4ZwwGKU7/j
=NJNI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Libertarian
>He made a quote, which, although I don't recall it exactly, showed him to be
>a very strong individualist. He seems to oppose outsiders forcing the
>individual to conform to a certain lifestyle and mindset, whether these
>outsiders be the government, the majority in society, or simply politically
>correct thought. So, it does not surprise me if Crumb would go against *any*
>influence that puts pressure on the individual to conform to some mindset or
>belief, and this can range from Disneyism/Leave it to Beaver, to Politically
>Correct (tm) speech, which I consider the "1984 Newspeak of the Liberal Left".
>
>If anything, Crumb can be considered closer to a libertarian than to a liberal
>or conservative. I like the guy, even if he is a little strange.
>
>Jon Noring
The cartoonist Robert Crumb has stated quite openly that he is a socialist...
(I believe he states this in the "Crumb" movie, and I've read him saying
it elsewhere)... what kind of socialist is he? Most likely
the libertarian kind, so he shares this orientation with George
Orwell.
Libertarian
G*rd*n
| > It may seem paradoxical but
| > human beings are very good at doublethink. This includes
| > libertarians: the last time I looked, the supposedly
| > libertarian Cato Institute had pages on its web site
ra...@my-dejanews.com:
| Two points: (1) The Cato Institute has conservative leanings, (2) try
| looking at what the laws being discussed actually *DO*, not what their
| title says. (Did you know that the Act of Congress, passed nearly 20
| years ago now, which required a full disclosure of all banking
| transactions over a certain dollar amount, was entitled "The Bank
| Secrecy Act"?) Not having read what Cato has to say on the subject,
| I can't speak to their position on this,
Check their web site. I wrote them a nasty note about it;
perhaps they blushed and removed it. But I doubt it.
| but I do know that I've seen
| some so-called "right-to-work" laws which actually _removed_ legal
| barriers to employment; in other words, that _removed_ authoritarianism.
| ...
A "Right-To-Work" law is one that prohibits closed or union
shops. In other words, it is an unwarranted governmental
intrusion into the rights of association and contract, one
which no believer in classical liberalism can countenance
in any form. Yet they sometimes call themselves
libertarians, and are called libertarians by others.
So someone's doublethinking. Or perhaps they're just
plain old hypocritical sellouts.
David Graeber
(Libertarian) wrote:
Thanks.
As for his individualism: I rather liked the scene
where he was talking with some young woman about how she
had found a bunch of her brother's Zap comic books when
she was eleven and was terrified by them ("is this what
adult sexuality is all about? Oh no!") He was greatly
disturbed and sympathetic, saying "oh, that's terrible...
I don't know. Maybe what I do is wrong. Maybe I should
be locked up and have my pencils taken away. I just
know I have these fantasies and I have to illustrate
them..." (Paraphrase from memory.) I thought it was
rather nice in illustrating the dilemma a lot of
libertarians face: some things are obviously bad, but
repressing them is even worse.
DG
ra...@my-dejanews.com
cl...@columbia-center.org wrote:
> Except that the Libertarian Party not only does not reject authority and
> hierarchy in the economic sphere, but enthusiastically embraces them.
FALSE. We favor a free market, not the corporate socialism which has
taken over so much of the world.
Employee-owned cooperatives, for example, are a libertarian mechanism.
.....rab42
ra...@my-dejanews.com
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
> It may seem paradoxical but
> human beings are very good at doublethink. This includes
> libertarians: the last time I looked, the supposedly
> libertarian Cato Institute had pages on its web site
Two points: (1) The Cato Institute has conservative leanings, (2) try
looking at what the laws being discussed actually *DO*, not what their
title says. (Did you know that the Act of Congress, passed nearly 20
years ago now, which required a full disclosure of all banking
transactions over a certain dollar amount, was entitled "The Bank
Secrecy Act"?) Not having read what Cato has to say on the subject,
I can't speak to their position on this, but I do know that I've seen
some so-called "right-to-work" laws which actually _removed_ legal
barriers to employment; in other words, that _removed_ authoritarianism.
> and others have mentioned
> seeing proposals for increased "Defense" spending in a
> time of peace
Not from Libertarians! The party recently issued a press release that
decried Clinton's proposal for an over-$100-Billion defense buildup,
and noted that the Republicans wanted something even larger, further
noted that this was the largest proposed buildup since Reagen, and
finally said that what we need is a substantial *CUT* in defense
spending!
ra...@my-dejanews.com
liber...@nospam.org (Libertarian) wrote:
> Let's also remember that there is a libertarian left which opposes
> things, leaving choice up to the individual.
Yes, there is indeed a robust libertarian movement which opposes all
of those types of laws and which insists on full liberty and personal
responsibility for individuals at all times. They've elected several
hundred people to various offices around the country (and have well
over 200 sitting in office right now), have mounted successful
initiative campaigns on various issues (including clean needles,
drug legalization, etc.), and have continually exposed both the
Republicans and the Democrats for the hypocrites that they are.
Obviously, I'm talking about the Libertarian Party http://www.lp.org/
Oh, the message I'm replying to wanted to promote some tiny socialist
group that claims to support these sorts of ideals. We've seen the
record of those kinds of groups.
James A. Donald
jam...@echeque.com (James A. Donald):
> > If you look at Crumb's work, in the beginning he was
> > revolting against Disneyism and the comics code, and in
> > the end he was revolting against the PC.
On 18 Jan 1999 16:19:18 GMT, g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
> Crumb's work does not fit into some narrow ideological
> stereotype.
True, and as a direct result of that (in the end) the orthodox left
were mighty pissed at him, and he at them.
> For one, very important thing, he reveals and acknowledges
> his own less admirable impulses, and sometimes even glories
> in them. Much of his work is ironic on many levels --
> thus, while he's making fun of the "PC" he's often
> recognizing that they have something of a case.
And in his ironic bows to PC censorship he implicitly accuses them of
constraining his liberty and creativity. Fritz the cat does not
contain any of those false and ironic submissions to censorship that
his later work did. Back then, if he felt that the censors were
bugging him, he did not bother to make this evident in the story.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
AyUux08lQBCSGPhnW1X1UhGghfTRxtue2C2DiXeB
4YBvBocBgVAtMK9/QWNtGDcDa5n4LNfDA9SpFh5bd
Jetrock
> --
>On 17 Jan 1999 16:04:37 -0500, liber...@nospam.org (Libertarian)
>wrote:
>> Well, this may be true, but I think the Christian Right has
>> contributed more to sexual repression than the feminists
>> ever could.
>
>So what laws against sex are currently effective and enforced and the
>fault of the Christian right?
Several states still have anti-sodomy laws in place, largely due to
Christian Right pressure to keep them on the books. They aren't enforced
often, true, but it still happens occasionally. Some states still
prohibit oral sex between married couples! Sure, the police don't have
anti-fellatio squads, but the fact that the laws still exist means that if
the cops DID want to bust someone for it they could.
Laws prohibiting birth control information and condom distribution
in schools exist in many municipalities--they are laws put on the books by
the Christian right. Restrictions on abortion in many states are the
result of Christian-right influence.
And there are more ways to repress people sexually than by making laws.
The whole culture of mainstream Christianity is highly anti-sexuality in
general, especially if it's anything but "normal" (heterosexual, married,
man-on-top-get-it-over-with-quick) sex. Limiting the discussion to laws on
the books is failing to look at the whole picture: feminism as a movement
has been around since the early 19th Century but only a significant social
force for the past 30 or so years, whereas Christianity has centuries of
immense political and social power behind it, especially in America, which
is a particularly religious culture.
>
>Let us compare this with the laws against sex that are currently
>effective and the fault of the feminist left.
actually, most of the laws which feminists were able to get put in place
are due to their unholy alliance with the Christian Right in its "war
against pornography."
Don't get me wrong--I have a particular distaste for the likes of Andrea
Dworkin and authoritarian feminism in general--but I don't think it has to
be that way, and the feminists' effect on social repression is a drop in
the bucket compared to that of Christianity.
>
>> Let's also remember that there is a libertarian left which
>> opposes laws restricting sexual behavior, gun laws, drug
>> laws, and simmilar things, leaving choice up to the
>> individual.
>
>Perhaps true, though it seems one hell of a lot less visible than it
>was in the sixties.
Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the cops kept killing
and imprisoning them, and there has been a definite repression (via
COINTELPRO type programs) of the libertarian left since the early 1970's.
The time is ripe for an uprising of the libertarian left, though... and
just because the libertarian left isn't that visible doesn't mean it does
not exist. Last time I checked, the libertarian right wasn't exactly
making daily headlines either.
>
>If you look at Crumb's work, in the beginning he was revolting against
>Disneyism and the comics code, and in the end he was revolting against
>the PC.
um, Crumb is still writing, and he still hates cops and Disneyism more
than he does "the PC." He's always been fairly misogynist in his work,
though, that's nothing new. And the Comics Code has been a joke for the
past 25 years, why should he keep revolting against it?
--
-----Rev. JETROCK, cyber-messianic noiseman and ANGRY MONKEY
SubGenius Code: hyb^R0(F&V13013#&*)Q#G^HVE$H*QXIST&)H#HEIEI*Y#&*BEIEIEIEIjH&H7
t#QU&m'MUH!!@^TT)&^%JHVH-1&@R(FU#HB$&*)T"BOB"G$#G*(&Y(_*Y*_(YH*(#SLACKNTH&$#&%
QQ{{U*(#U*7/5/98-7:00AM&*(Y*(7669682876**G'BROAGFRAN((*@*(u893y877)&_&*#_Y*H%R
*&#Y)*37Y&&BY#h&^@""o98i34jt4nunj8u90NUNU!dbvPOB140306DALLASTX75214n"BOB"!!!!!
tims...@my-dejanews.com
liber...@nospam.org (Libertarian) wrote:
> In article <36a2deb6...@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
> >> Right and Left aren't ideologies. They're identities,
> >> collections of interests, "communities of affection."
> >
> >work of the left. This does not show any tropism towards freedom.
>
> conservative Christians.
No. The originator of sexual harassment law was the neo-Marxist anti-sex
feminist legal theorist Catharine MacKinnon. Her work in this regard has led
Playboy magazine to call her the would-be "Feminist Lenin", with Andrea
Dworking playing the "Trotsky" role. ACLU President Nadine Strossen calls
them & their followers "MacDworkinites". I still think the best name for
them is "FemiNazis."
The MacDworkinites are not conservatives, except in the sense that all
socialists who propose to achieve equality by the means of the ancien regime
are also conservatives. They've been plenty willing to allow themselves to
be supported by conservatives, though. They're not particularly Christian,
either. Dworkin's Jewish, but probably not especially religious. I have no
idea what religion MacKinnon is, if any. Probably none.
Tim Starr
tims...@my-dejanews.com
(Libertarian) wrote:
> In article <77rue3$cid$1...@news.panix.com>, G*rd*n <g...@panix.com> wrote:
> >g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
> >| >> Right and Left aren't ideologies. They're identities,
> >| >> collections of interests, "communities of affection."
> >
> >James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> >| >The ridiculous and oppressive sex laws that Clinton violated are the
> >| >work of the left. This does not show any tropism towards freedom.
> >
> >liber...@nospam.org (Libertarian):
> >| Sorry, but youre wrong.. they were the work of the right... uptight
> >| conservative Christians.
> >
> >Some of the legislation around sex to which James is
> >referring was strongly supported by important feminist
> >organizations, e.g. NOW. While NOW may be a bit near
> >to the center for outright, fire-eating leftishness,
> >I think they belong more to the relative Left than
>
> Well, this may be true, but I think the Christian Right has contributed
> more to sexual repression than the feminists ever could.
Historically, yes, but the unique contribution of FemiNazis has been to come
up with new secular rationalizations for the coercive repression of sex,
which have played a big part in the revival of the coercive repression of sex
since the 1970s. If it had been up to the Christian Right alone, it would
never have gotten as far as it has.
Just as the Communists allied themselves with the Nazis in Weimar Germany to
overthrow the Weimar Republic, so, too, have the FemiNazis allied themselves
with the Christian Rights to overthrow freedom of sexual expression in America
today.
tims...@my-dejanews.com
wrote:
> In article g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) writes:
> >jam...@echeque.com (James A. Donald):
>
> >| If you look at Crumb's work, in the beginning he was revolting against
> >| Disneyism and the comics code, and in the end he was revolting against
> >| the PC.
>
> >Crumb's work does not fit into some narrow ideological
> >stereotype. For one, very important thing, he reveals and
> >acknowledges his own less admirable impulses, and sometimes
> >even glories in them. Much of his work is ironic on many
> >levels -- thus, while he's making fun of the "PC" he's often
> >recognizing that they have something of a case. And he's
> >operated that way from the time he appeared in public, in
> >the later 1960s.
>
>The movie about Crumb was shown on the Independent Film channel the other day.
I've seen that. Or, rather, tried to watch it, but ended up getting too
disgusted by him personally that I had to get up & leave the room.
>He made a quote, which, although I don't recall it exactly, showed him to be
>a very strong individualist. He seems to oppose outsiders forcing the
>individual to conform to a certain lifestyle and mindset, whether these
>outsiders be the government, the majority in society, or simply politically
>correct thought. So, it does not surprise me if Crumb would go against *any*
>influence that puts pressure on the individual to conform to some mindset or
>belief, and this can range from Disneyism/Leave it to Beaver, to Politically
>Correct (tm) speech, which I consider the "1984 Newspeak of the Liberal Left".
>
>If anything, Crumb can be considered closer to a libertarian than to a liberal
>or conservative. I like the guy, even if he is a little strange.
I like his work, but not him. He's more than just "a little strange." He's
VERY strange! (And that's coming from someone who grew up in Berkeley & used
to work as a street vendor on Telegraph Avenue - I've seen lots of strangeness
in my life, & have a pretty high tolerance for it.)
I'm glad I live in a world with people like R. Crumb in it. I'm even more
glad that I live in a world where I can enjoy his work without having to have
anything more to do with him personally.
David Graeber
> In article <36A198...@columbia-center.org>,
> cl...@columbia-center.org wrote:
> > Except that the Libertarian Party not only does not reject authority and
> > hierarchy in the economic sphere, but enthusiastically embraces them.
>
> FALSE. We favor a free market, not the corporate socialism which has
> taken over so much of the world.
>
> Employee-owned cooperatives, for example, are a libertarian mechanism.
Well, that's refreshing. For my own part, I
have no argument with someone who holds this
position - well, no doubt we disagree on a lot of things
but we're basically pursuing the same ultimate ends,
which is bringing about a truly free society, so the
rest is kind of just details.
I hope you're aware, however, that a
large number of people who post to these groups,
calling themselves libertarians, do not feel this way.
I have been faced with literally dozens who insist
that employee-owned cooperatives are obviously
inefficient and that corporate structure is clearly
the best model for any free-market system. At least
on the internet, yours seems to be a minority
position. Though that's rather too bad in my opinion.
DG
C. Duncan
>I'm glad I live in a world with people like R. Crumb in it. I'm even more
>glad that I live in a world where I can enjoy his work without having to have
>anything more to do with him personally.
I felt very sorry for his family. At the end of the film there is a
note before the credits that his brother committed suicide a year after
his appearance in the filming.
C. Duncan
mikel evins
David....@yale.edu (David Graeber) wrote:
I agree that employee-owned cooperatives are a libertarian mechanism. In
fact, it's hard for me to understand how a free-market anarcho-capitalist
could disagree.
That's distinct from saying that employee-owned cooperatives are efficient,
however. Saying that they are inefficient does not amount to saying that
they are morally wrong or ought to be forbidden by law or any such thing. It
is a factual claim that they will not tend to survive in a free society
because people will find other arrangements more workable.
If the claim turns out to be wrong then nothing is lost and something
(knowledge) is gained. The same is true if it turns out to be right.
===================
mikel evins
Apple Computer, Inc.
mi...@apple.com
David Graeber
wrote:
And not only that, his mother burned all of Charles'
comics afterwards. That was one of the most chilling
scenes in the whole movie, incidentally: as Robert
flipped through his brothers' comic books and you could
see how they changed as he slowly went insane.
DG
Iain McKay
>> Except that the Libertarian Party not only does not reject authority and
>> hierarchy in the economic sphere, but enthusiastically embraces them.
>FALSE. We favor a free market, not the corporate socialism which has
>taken over so much of the world.
TRUE. As capitalism is based on wage labour, where you sell your time
(and so liberty) to a boss who tells you what to do, when to do and so on.
This is hierarchy and authority in the economic sphere, or are workplaces
*not* part of the economy?
>Employee-owned cooperatives, for example, are a libertarian mechanism.
Actually, they are a libertarian-socialist mechanism as they dissolve the
boss-wage slave social relationship. They are not capitalist in any sense.
Iain
****
For more information on anarchism visit the anarchist FAQ at:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/
ra...@my-dejanews.com
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
> A "Right-To-Work" law is one that prohibits closed or union
> shops. In other words, it is an unwarranted governmental
> intrusion into the rights of association and contract, one
> which no believer in classical liberalism can countenance
> in any form.
My understanding is that *some* of these laws have actually removed
the government-imposed restriction that mandated and enforced a
closed-shop, and left the decision to have one to be worked out and
agreed to between the employer and the employees. These sorts of
laws -- that repeal a previous interference in labor issues -- are
obviously ones that libertarians can support.
Laws that, on the other hand, completely prohibit the making of
agreements that include a closed-shop provision would, I agree, be
an unwarranted and improper interference in the right to contract.
So it sounds like we don't actually disagree here; it all turns on
what a specific law actually *does* and not on what the title says.
.....rab42
David Graeber
wrote:
> In article <David.Graeber-1...@drg9.anthropology.yale.edu>,
> David....@yale.edu (David Graeber) wrote:
>
> > In article <780k6v$n8e$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, ra...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> >> Employee-owned cooperatives, for example, are a libertarian mechanism.
> >
> > Well, that's refreshing. For my own part, I
> > have no argument with someone who holds this
> > position - well, no doubt we disagree on a lot of things
> > but we're basically pursuing the same ultimate ends,
> > which is bringing about a truly free society, so the
> > rest is kind of just details.
> > I hope you're aware, however, that a
> > large number of people who post to these groups,
> > calling themselves libertarians, do not feel this way.
> > I have been faced with literally dozens who insist
> > that employee-owned cooperatives are obviously
> > inefficient and that corporate structure is clearly
> > the best model for any free-market system. At least
> > on the internet, yours seems to be a minority
> > position. Though that's rather too bad in my opinion.
>
> I agree that employee-owned cooperatives are a libertarian mechanism. In
> fact, it's hard for me to understand how a free-market anarcho-capitalist
> could disagree.
>
> That's distinct from saying that employee-owned cooperatives are efficient,
> however. Saying that they are inefficient does not amount to saying that
> they are morally wrong or ought to be forbidden by law or any such thing. It
> is a factual claim that they will not tend to survive in a free society
> because people will find other arrangements more workable.
Ah, well, that's a different claim. Obviously
no libertarian would ever argue that employee-owned
cooperatives should be _banned_. Presumably no libertarian
would ban any consensual arrangement. The point is whether
they see achieving worker-self management or other
similar forms of autonomy as a _goal_; whether they
feel that a society in which people do not have to
labor under the commands of another is something they
wish to bring about. Whether it is a value, or just
something they wouldn't object to if it happened to
emerge as a side-effect of the values they are
_really_ pursuing.
DG
tims...@my-dejanews.com
wrote:
>tims...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>>I'm glad I live in a world with people like R. Crumb in it. I'm even more
>>glad that I live in a world where I can enjoy his work without having to have
>>anything more to do with him personally.
>
>I felt very sorry for his family.
So did I - so much so, that I couldn't bear to watch the whole movie.
>At the end of the film there is a note before the credits that his brother
>committed suicide a year after his appearance in the filming.
That's too bad, but no surprise to me at all.
Tim Starr
G*rd*n
| > A "Right-To-Work" law is one that prohibits closed or union
| > shops. In other words, it is an unwarranted governmental
| > intrusion into the rights of association and contract, one
| > which no believer in classical liberalism can countenance
| > in any form.
| My understanding is that *some* of these laws have actually removed
| the government-imposed restriction that mandated and enforced a
| closed-shop, and left the decision to have one to be worked out and
| agreed to between the employer and the employees. These sorts of
| laws -- that repeal a previous interference in labor issues -- are
| obviously ones that libertarians can support.
| ...
Those would not be "Right-To-Work" laws. In any case, I
have yet to see a cite from an American jurisdiction where
the government mandated a closed shop. I'm not saying it's
impossible or inconceivable; I just haven't seen one.
constan...@my-dejanews.com
<iain....@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>...rab42
>
>>> Except that the Libertarian Party not only does not reject authority and
>>> hierarchy in the economic sphere, but enthusiastically embraces them.
>
>>FALSE. We favor a free market, not the corporate socialism which has
>>taken over so much of the world.
>
>TRUE. As capitalism is based on wage labour, where you sell your time
>(and so liberty) to a boss who tells you what to do, when to do and so on.
"What to do, when to do" sounds like micromanagement. There are other
styles of management. The work I do is more pleasant than anything
remotely productive that I can imagine being able to do one hundred
years ago or in a village in the Andes except, perhaps, painting
landscapes or writing short stories (and I doubt I'd have time for
that in the village).
>This is hierarchy and authority in the economic sphere, or are workplaces
>*not* part of the economy?
Workplaces are very much part of the economy. An exchange of work for
pay is as much an exchange as any other.
I'll tell you one thing, I'd rather be working at my company than
tending llamas in the Andes.
>>Employee-owned cooperatives, for example, are a libertarian mechanism.
>
>Actually, they are a libertarian-socialist mechanism as they dissolve the
>boss-wage slave social relationship. They are not capitalist in any sense.
Maybe by your definition coops are not capitalist, but then (by this
definition of yours) neither are libertarians.
constan...@my-dejanews.com
Graeber) wrote:
>> That's distinct from saying that employee-owned cooperatives are efficient,
>> however. Saying that they are inefficient does not amount to saying that
>> they are morally wrong or ought to be forbidden by law or any such thing. It
>> is a factual claim that they will not tend to survive in a free society
>> because people will find other arrangements more workable.
>
> Ah, well, that's a different claim. Obviously
>no libertarian would ever argue that employee-owned
>cooperatives should be _banned_. Presumably no libertarian
>would ban any consensual arrangement. The point is whether
>they see achieving worker-self management or other
>similar forms of autonomy as a _goal_; whether they
Cooperatives will survive if the employees believe that the economic
inefficiency is not too high a price to pay for the benefits of
autonomy.
Personally, I might like to be self-employed some day. A friend of
mine is, and he seems fulfilled and happy, though he works hard and is
not making a lot of money.
But on the flip side, surely you would have room in your world for
employees who choose to work in a place that they do not own, because
they desire comfort (for example) over autonomy.
>feel that a society in which people do not have to
>labor under the commands of another is something they
>wish to bring about. Whether it is a value, or just
>something they wouldn't object to if it happened to
>emerge as a side-effect of the values they are
>_really_ pursuing.
I don't believe in imposing my own preferences (e.g., for autonomy, or
for comfort) on others. That is not the same as not valuing one or
the other. To value something is not the same as to want to impose it
on someone else.
Suds
David....@yale.edu (David Graeber) wrote:
> In article <782lrd$ctq$1...@news2.apple.com>, "mikel evins" <mi...@apple.com>
> wrote:
>
> > In article <David.Graeber-1...@drg9.anthropology.yale.edu>,
> > David....@yale.edu (David Graeber) wrote:
> >
> > > In article <780k6v$n8e$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, ra...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > >
> > >> Employee-owned cooperatives, for example, are a libertarian mechanism.
> > >
> > > Well, that's refreshing. For my own part, I
> > > have no argument with someone who holds this
> > > position - well, no doubt we disagree on a lot of things
> > > but we're basically pursuing the same ultimate ends,
> > > which is bringing about a truly free society, so the
> > > rest is kind of just details.
> > > I hope you're aware, however, that a
> > > large number of people who post to these groups,
> > > calling themselves libertarians, do not feel this way.
> > > I have been faced with literally dozens who insist
> > > that employee-owned cooperatives are obviously
> > > inefficient and that corporate structure is clearly
> > > the best model for any free-market system. At least
> > > on the internet, yours seems to be a minority
> > > position. Though that's rather too bad in my opinion.
> >
> > I agree that employee-owned cooperatives are a libertarian mechanism. In
> > fact, it's hard for me to understand how a free-market anarcho-capitalist
> > could disagree.
> >
> > That's distinct from saying that employee-owned cooperatives are efficient,
> > however. Saying that they are inefficient does not amount to saying that
> > they are morally wrong or ought to be forbidden by law or any such thing. It
> > is a factual claim that they will not tend to survive in a free society
> > because people will find other arrangements more workable.
>
> Ah, well, that's a different claim. Obviously
> no libertarian would ever argue that employee-owned
> cooperatives should be _banned_. Presumably no libertarian
> would ban any consensual arrangement. The point is whether
> they see achieving worker-self management or other
> similar forms of autonomy as a _goal_;
My only"goal" is to see (US) gov't pared down to AT LEAST where it was
before 1860,
but preferably even smaller, and less able to do harm.
> whether they
> feel that a society in which people do not have to
> labor under the commands of another is something they
> wish to bring about.
This is impossible.
But we still have the freedom to determine how many commands we're willing
to swallow, or how few.
I'm self employed, yet I *still* must labor under the commands of my
customers, who are my boss.
I still have trouble understanding why you people want to pretend that
this relationship can somehow be changed.
> Whether it is a value, or just
> something they wouldn't object to if it happened to
> emerge as a side-effect of the values they are
> _really_ pursuing.
I wouldn't object to it if I could opt out of it.
Would it work if I could?
> DG
James A. Donald
liber...@nospam.org (Libertarian) wrote:
> > > I think the Christian Right has contributed more to
> > > sexual repression than the feminists ever could.
James A. Donald wrote:
> > So what laws against sex are currently effective and
> > enforced and the fault of the Christian right?
Jetrock wrote:
>Several states still have anti-sodomy laws in place,
And the last such prosecution was?
I suspect that in Salem the anti witchcraft laws are also still in
place.
> Laws prohibiting birth control information and condom
> distribution in schools exist in many municipalities-
No they do not.
Government policies against distributing birth control information in
*government* schools exist in many municipalities.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
+IQ/6Z78LP0pXbcKqOSoiTmkk9Vb2KWsDbRnbdi3
4aocnCt1khQvLCVM4lwycdt0HQNDU5+Cj0BaHkv3h
David Graeber
mug-o...@beer.com (Suds) wrote:
>
> I wouldn't object to it if I could opt out of it.
>
> Would it work if I could?
Opt out? Of course. Why would we want you anyway?
I find it peculiar that we have so many people who
come uninvited into discussion forums for libertarian
socialists or other left anarchists and then start
accusing us of wanting to... well, come uninvited
into their private territory. (You sometimes post to
threads which exist only on alt.socialism.libertarian.)
At the moment, it's you guys who seem most given to
this sort of behavior, not us. We don't much like
having you around here, and we'd be delighted if
you made yourself scarce from any socialistic
experiments in the future.
Bye.
DG
Chris Mikkelson
<constan...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 19 Jan 1999 20:11:04 -0000, "Iain McKay"
><iain....@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>TRUE. As capitalism is based on wage labour, where you sell your time
>>(and so liberty) to a boss who tells you what to do, when to do and so on.
>
Which is always your manager's "right" -- he is your manager, he can
choose whatever management style gives the most profits. The fact that
it *can* be done is bad.
>>This is hierarchy and authority in the economic sphere, or are workplaces
>>*not* part of the economy?
>
>Workplaces are very much part of the economy. An exchange of work for
>pay is as much an exchange as any other.
No it is not. If I sell you my watch, you just take the watch and
we both go about our lives -- you with a watch, me with more money.
I cannot do that if I sell you my labor. If I sell you my labor,
I must go where you want, when you want me to, etc., to _perform_
the labor I have "sold" you.
Labor is a part of an individual. Since the individual is not a
commodity, neither is the labor.
>I'll tell you one thing, I'd rather be working at my company than
>tending llamas in the Andes.
Why the hell do I keep seeing these stupid strawmen, claiming that
anti-capitalists want to return to "tribal" societies? Do capitalist
apologists really have that little vision, that they can only see
what exists, and not imagine what can be?
This disturbs me greatly
-Chris
constan...@my-dejanews.com
cm...@tig.oss.uswest.net (Chris Mikkelson) wrote:
> In article
<A58EE8682EFB904E.EEE22146...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
> <constan...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> >On Tue, 19 Jan 1999 20:11:04 -0000, "Iain McKay"
> ><iain....@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >>TRUE. As capitalism is based on wage labour, where you sell your time
> >>(and so liberty) to a boss who tells you what to do, when to do and so on.
> >
> >"What to do, when to do" sounds like micromanagement. [snip]
>
> Which is always your manager's "right" -- he is your manager, he can
> choose whatever management style gives the most profits. The fact that
> it *can* be done is bad.
And it's my right not to work the way he wants. If I don't work the way he
wants, he might fire me (probably not, if I am productive despite his
stupidity), but conversely if he doesn't manage the way I want, I can and will
go elsewhere.
You seem to have close to *no* experience with the workplace. Your nonsense
sounds like it comes out of a book.
> >>This is hierarchy and authority in the economic sphere, or are workplaces
> >>*not* part of the economy?
> >
> >Workplaces are very much part of the economy. An exchange of work for
> >pay is as much an exchange as any other.
>
> No it is not. If I sell you my watch, you just take the watch and
You're just re-defining exchange. Boring. I won't even bother. I hate
arguments about words.
> we both go about our lives -- you with a watch, me with more money.
> I cannot do that if I sell you my labor. If I sell you my labor,
> I must go where you want, when you want me to, etc., to _perform_
> the labor I have "sold" you.
>
> Labor is a part of an individual. Since the individual is not a
> commodity, neither is the labor.
>
> >I'll tell you one thing, I'd rather be working at my company than
> >tending llamas in the Andes.
>
> Why the hell do I keep seeing these stupid strawmen, claiming that
> anti-capitalists want to return to "tribal" societies? Do capitalist
> apologists really have that little vision, that they can only see
> what exists, and not imagine what can be?
Ha, ha, caught you in my trap. I was alluding to an example presented in a
nearby thread by one of your fellow "anti-capitalists". Straw man indeed.
When pressed to the wall for an example of a working non-capitalist society,
this was what he gave - Andes communities. Another example was Pacific
Islands communities - similar problems there. And something in Africa, but
I've been unable to pin down exactly where he means.
constan...@my-dejanews.com
David....@yale.edu (David Graeber) wrote:
> In article <mug-o-piss-01...@dialup755.tnkno2.usit.net>,
> mug-o...@beer.com (Suds) wrote:
>
> >
> > I wouldn't object to it if I could opt out of it.
> >
> > Would it work if I could?
>
> Opt out? Of course. Why would we want you anyway?
Then there is no real conflict between our points of view.
> I find it peculiar that we have so many people who
> come uninvited into discussion forums for libertarian
Once again an equation between the Usenet hierarchy and private territory.
The hierarchy is conceptual, not territorial, and the hierarchy itself is no
longer as central to Usenet as it was (search engines cross hierarchies,
creating new divisions based other features such as word matches). If you
really are interested in establishing something that resembles private
territory (and your equation suggests to me that you are), then establish a
moderated group.
> socialists or other left anarchists and then start
> accusing us of wanting to... well, come uninvited
> into their private territory. (You sometimes post to
The problem is that some of you choose to label yourselves socialists, and
socialism has come to be associated with that.
> threads which exist only on alt.socialism.libertarian.)
> At the moment, it's you guys who seem most given to
> this sort of behavior, not us. We don't much like
Has a libertarian broken into your house? I'm sorry to hear that. I hope
nothing was stolen.
> having you around here, and we'd be delighted if
What "here"? You seem to have a minimal understanding of the Internet.
> you made yourself scarce from any socialistic
> experiments in the future.
Well, it is true that I'm beginning to get bored.
Chris Mikkelson
<constan...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>In article <36a60...@news3.uswest.net>,
> cm...@tig.oss.uswest.net (Chris Mikkelson) wrote:
>> Which is always your manager's "right" -- he is your manager, he can
>> choose whatever management style gives the most profits. The fact that
>> it *can* be done is bad.
>
>And it's my right not to work the way he wants. If I don't work the way he
>wants, he might fire me (probably not, if I am productive despite his
>stupidity), but conversely if he doesn't manage the way I want, I can and will
>go elsewhere.
It's these unilateral "take it or leave it" arrangements that I
object to.
>You seem to have close to *no* experience with the workplace. Your nonsense
>sounds like it comes out of a book.
I have experience. Pleasant experience, for the most part. I know
nothing that guarantees the experience to be good.
Where does your nonsense come from? ;-)
>> >>This is hierarchy and authority in the economic sphere, or are workplaces
>> >>*not* part of the economy?
>> >
>> >Workplaces are very much part of the economy. An exchange of work for
>> >pay is as much an exchange as any other.
>>
>> No it is not. If I sell you my watch, you just take the watch and
>
>You're just re-defining exchange. Boring. I won't even bother. I hate
>arguments about words.
What's your definition?
My understanding of the word is pretty tied to commodities.
>> we both go about our lives -- you with a watch, me with more money.
>> I cannot do that if I sell you my labor. If I sell you my labor,
>> I must go where you want, when you want me to, etc., to _perform_
>> the labor I have "sold" you.
>>
>> Labor is a part of an individual. Since the individual is not a
>> commodity, neither is the labor.
>>
>> >I'll tell you one thing, I'd rather be working at my company than
>> >tending llamas in the Andes.
>>
>> Why the hell do I keep seeing these stupid strawmen, claiming that
>> anti-capitalists want to return to "tribal" societies? Do capitalist
>> apologists really have that little vision, that they can only see
>> what exists, and not imagine what can be?
>
>Ha, ha, caught you in my trap. I was alluding to an example presented in a
>nearby thread by one of your fellow "anti-capitalists". Straw man indeed.
>When pressed to the wall for an example of a working non-capitalist society,
>this was what he gave - Andes communities. Another example was Pacific
>Islands communities - similar problems there. And something in Africa, but
>I've been unable to pin down exactly where he means.
Ha, ha, caught you in *my* trap. You are arguing that free,
non-capitalist societies will always be primitive, because no
advanced, free, non-capitalist societies currently exist. That is
sad, very sad. You can just as easily argue that no free, Libertarian
society can be successful, because none currently are. I'd much
rather live under the current system, than regress to the early
1800s ;-)
Many anti-capitalists (including myself) claim that a free,
technically advanced non-capitalist society can exist. The two
most common rebuttals I have run across are: 1) "But none exist,"
and 2) "But a free society must be capitalist." The first does
not address the assertion -- I am not claiming that such a society
exists. The second is often simply repeatedly asserted, as if it
were self-evident.
The second is an excellent mind-closing device. The debater has
disabled himself from even *trying* to imagine a free, non-capitalist,
advanced society. That was what I was getting at above.
Oh, and by the way, I think the place in Africa was Madagascar.
-Chris
ra...@my-dejanews.com
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
> Those would not be "Right-To-Work" laws. In any case, I
> have yet to see a cite from an American jurisdiction where
> the government mandated a closed shop. I'm not saying it's
> impossible or inconceivable; I just haven't seen one.
I just (last night) saw a mention of this subject in the current
(February 1999) issue of Reason Magazine. I'll try to remember to
get the article name or page number tonight when I get home.
.....rab42
Matthew Cromer
cm...@tig.oss.uswest.net writes:
>It's these unilateral "take it or leave it" arrangements that I
>object to.
What is the alternative? "Take it or else" arrangments. I hope you are
not arguing for that.
Matthew Cromer
Matthew Cromer
>
>-Chris
Madagascar is a hellhole, of course.
Matthew Cromer
Matthew Cromer
cm...@tig.oss.uswest.net writes:
> Which is always your manager's "right" -- he is your manager, he can
>choose whatever management style gives the most profits. The fact that
>it *can* be done is bad.
And it is always your right to tell the whole company you think they are
full of shit, and leave. I did that recently.
Matthew Cromer
Matthew Cromer
>I cannot do that if I sell you my labor. If I sell you my labor,
>I must go where you want, when you want me to, etc., to _perform_
>the labor I have "sold" you.
No you don't have to do that.
Generally most people have an agreement that limits the power of either
side to demand any particular requirement. For example, if my present
employer told me to pick up a broom and start sweeping, I would tell him
where he could put that broom.
Matthew Cromer
do...@stone-soup.com
Mikkelson) wrote:
>In article <785ceo$m13$1...@nnrp2.dejanews.com>,
> <constan...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>>In article <36a60...@news3.uswest.net>,
>> cm...@tig.oss.uswest.net (Chris Mikkelson) wrote:
>>> Which is always your manager's "right" -- he is your manager, he can
>>> choose whatever management style gives the most profits. The fact that
>>> it *can* be done is bad.
>>
>>And it's my right not to work the way he wants. If I don't work the way he
>>wants, he might fire me (probably not, if I am productive despite his
>>stupidity), but conversely if he doesn't manage the way I want, I can and will
>>go elsewhere.
>
>It's these unilateral "take it or leave it" arrangements that I
>object to.
>
>>You seem to have close to *no* experience with the workplace. Your nonsense
>>sounds like it comes out of a book.
>
>I have experience. Pleasant experience, for the most part. I know
>nothing that guarantees the experience to be good.
>
>Where does your nonsense come from? ;-)
>
>>> >>This is hierarchy and authority in the economic sphere, or are workplaces
>>> >>*not* part of the economy?
>>> >
>>> >Workplaces are very much part of the economy. An exchange of work for
>>> >pay is as much an exchange as any other.
>>>
>>> No it is not. If I sell you my watch, you just take the watch and
>>
>>You're just re-defining exchange. Boring. I won't even bother. I hate
>>arguments about words.
>
>What's your definition?
>
>My understanding of the word is pretty tied to commodities.
>
>>> we both go about our lives -- you with a watch, me with more money.
>>> I cannot do that if I sell you my labor. If I sell you my labor,
>>> I must go where you want, when you want me to, etc., to _perform_
>>> the labor I have "sold" you.
>>>
>>> Labor is a part of an individual. Since the individual is not a
>>> commodity, neither is the labor.
>>>
>>> >I'll tell you one thing, I'd rather be working at my company than
>>> >tending llamas in the Andes.
>>>
>>> Why the hell do I keep seeing these stupid strawmen, claiming that
>>> anti-capitalists want to return to "tribal" societies? Do capitalist
>>> apologists really have that little vision, that they can only see
>>> what exists, and not imagine what can be?
>>
>>Ha, ha, caught you in my trap. I was alluding to an example presented in a
>>nearby thread by one of your fellow "anti-capitalists". Straw man indeed.
>>When pressed to the wall for an example of a working non-capitalist society,
>>this was what he gave - Andes communities. Another example was Pacific
>>Islands communities - similar problems there. And something in Africa, but
>>I've been unable to pin down exactly where he means.
>
>Ha, ha, caught you in *my* trap. You are arguing that free,
>non-capitalist societies will always be primitive, because no
>advanced, free, non-capitalist societies currently exist. That is
>sad, very sad. You can just as easily argue that no free, Libertarian
>society can be successful, because none currently are. I'd much
>rather live under the current system, than regress to the early
>1800s ;-)
>
Freedom is more important than comfort to some. More comfort now but
much less freedom.
>Many anti-capitalists (including myself) claim that a free,
>technically advanced non-capitalist society can exist. The two
>most common rebuttals I have run across are: 1) "But none exist,"
>and 2) "But a free society must be capitalist." The first does
>not address the assertion -- I am not claiming that such a society
>exists. The second is often simply repeatedly asserted, as if it
>were self-evident.
>
Most liberterians would be glad for you to have a free non-capitalist
society. But the key word is "free" without government involved in
the economy at all. Most of us who are not particularly capitalist
fell that if government stayed out of economy that a capitalist
economy would develop but we don't require it only that no laws be
against it.
Hey I'm a liberterian that came from being a hippie. Remember "free
love, stop the war, no bodys business, etc" I don't care what kind of
economy grows out of freedom as long as you keep government compleatly
out of it and let individuals choose what they want to do.
I don't think a socialist economy can exist with out government
forcing it but I don't object.
>The second is an excellent mind-closing device. The debater has
>disabled himself from even *trying* to imagine a free, non-capitalist,
>advanced society. That was what I was getting at above.
>
David Graeber
Mikkelson) wrote:
> >>
> >> Why the hell do I keep seeing these stupid strawmen, claiming that
> >> anti-capitalists want to return to "tribal" societies? Do capitalist
> >> apologists really have that little vision, that they can only seenon
> >> what exists, and not imagine what can be?
> >
> >Ha, ha, caught you in my trap. I was alluding to an example presented in a
> >nearby thread by one of your fellow "anti-capitalists". Straw man indeed.
> >When pressed to the wall for an example of a working non-capitalist society,
> >this was what he gave - Andes communities. Another example was Pacific
> >Islands communities - similar problems there. And something in Africa, but
> >I've been unable to pin down exactly where he means.
This is simply untrue. I did not give communities in
the Andes as an example of a working non-capitalist society.
I gave communities in the Andes as a random example of
part of the "informal sector" that did not work in market
terms. Andean communities are parts of larger societies which
do work in capitalist or state-capitalist terms.
This isn't a trap, it's simply your (constantinople's) own
pathetic lack of imagination. Many stateless societies have
existed, with a wide variety of different sorts of economic
organization. None have been market based. Whenever I
point this out to a free-market proponent, they immediately
argue that I am suggesting people go back to the stone
age. That's just ridiculous. I am simply pointing out that
a) it is possible to have a stateless society without
private property and commercial exchange (market theorists
regularly argue it is not) but there is no evidence yet
that it is possible to have a stateless society _with_ them
b) the actual experience of stateless societies in the
past is of obvious relevance to ones that might exist in
the future. That is: forms of consensual decision-making,
different forms of property, different possibilities for
ways of organizing exchange - we can learn something from
all this.
Now, if you happen to believe that it would be utterly
impossible to pursue such forms of decision making, property,
exchange, and so on without going back to living in mud huts,
it's up to _you_ to provide a reason why we should believe
this. So far you have not done so, except, if I remember, to
argue that with low population density there's little need
for any form of exchange at all. This just doesn't bear out
with the evidence: in fact, many of the societies I aluded
to (ones in Melanesia are obviously dramatic examples) are
utterly obsessed with exchange, to the point where in many
societies people are actually not supposed to consume food
that they produced themselves, but to exchange it all with
others. Problem is: it's not market exchange. This is where
the imagination part comes in. Free market advocates seem
to be unable to conceive of exchange that was not basically
commercial in nature.
> Ha, ha, caught you in *my* trap. You are arguing that free,
> non-capitalist societies will always be primitive, because no
> advanced, free, non-capitalist societies currently exist. That is
> sad, very sad. You can just as easily argue that no free, Libertarian
> society can be successful, because none currently are. I'd much
> rather live under the current system, than regress to the early
> 1800s ;-)
>
> Many anti-capitalists (including myself) claim that a free,
> technically advanced non-capitalist society can exist. The two
> most common rebuttals I have run across are: 1) "But none exist,"
> and 2) "But a free society must be capitalist." The first does
> not address the assertion -- I am not claiming that such a society
> exists. The second is often simply repeatedly asserted, as if it
> were self-evident.
The latter as I say is completely counter-indicated
by the evidence. While no technologically advanced societies
of either type have yet existed, all free societies that
have existed in the past have been non-market - though
in other ways they were extremely different from one another,
that they always had in common. The burden of proof would
seem to be much more heavily on them than it is with us - we
have _some_ precedents. They have none at all.
>
> The second is an excellent mind-closing device. The debater has
> disabled himself from even *trying* to imagine a free, non-capitalist,
> advanced society. That was what I was getting at above.
>
> Oh, and by the way, I think the place in Africa was Madagascar.
Yup. Though I mentioned that in many other parts of Africa
which are relatively distant from formal sector institutions
traditional institutions still operate, and that these form part
of the "informal sector", outside of state control, which free
market types would like to think of as "black market" - even
though people in this sector often do not engage in much in the way
of market behavior at all. Sometimes they do. Cultures vary
enormously. Some rural economies are highly commoditized. Others
resist the use of money and commercial exchange systematically
(that was one reason I brought in Andean communities, which are
notably extreme in this regard: most men migrate to cities to get cash
and then they go home and refuse to use money with one another.
It's only when they're in the formal sector that they engage in
market activities; in the informal sector, they refuse: I brought
it up because it's the exact opposite to the sort of broad picture
the original poster was implying, that the informal sector could
normally be assumed to be a 'black market' that emerged because
some state repressed market behavior.) Where I was in Madagascar
there was actually a lot of buying and selling, though in some
sectors prices were regulated through voluntary cooperatives
(these were not, incidentally, state imposed: the state was
utterly absent from most of rural Madagascar), but an almost
complete absence of wage labor (at least between adults), and
interest-bearing loans (since without police, no one could
collect). I always thought it was an interesting example of
what might really happen in a market system if state control
disappeared; but there are huge cultural differences between
local standards. I mean, if we were really going to talk
about how these things work out in different places we would
have to talk about different standards of social morality,
types of existing social organization, we'd have to talk about
different traditional forms of exchange and how they interact,
historical experience (ie, the previous existence of slavery
and resulting historical guilt reinforced the complete aversion
most people had, in the part of Madagascar I was in, to any
relation in which one person is continually giving orders to
another, so wage labor was avoided, and even when work teams
were hired for temporary jobs, they tended to operate
autonomously - deciding democratically, for instance, how
they were going to plant their employers' rice field as he looked
on silently!) and so on. But this would take us far away
from the level of thought of which free market theorists
are capable.
DG
DG
Chris Mikkelson
Matthew Cromer <matthew...@iname.com> wrote:
>In article <36a64...@news2.uswest.net> Chris Mikkelson,
>cm...@tig.oss.uswest.net writes:
>>object to.
>
>not arguing for that.
No! Not at all. Why do you think so? Do you think that one side
alway *has* to win?
Oh yeah, you do, you call it "property rights."
Try "come to a mutual agreement" or "compromise."
-Chris
mikel evins
David....@yale.edu (David Graeber) wrote:
> Many stateless societies have
> existed, with a wide variety of different sorts of economic
> organization. None have been market based.
Really? The Icelandic Free State looks to me like a stateless society that
used market economics. Do you think that it was a state, or do you think
that its economy was not a market economy?
How about pre-Roman Celtic society? There was no state. There were free
markets for cattle, textile goods, oil, wine, and so on.
Is there a problem of definitions perhaps?
Matthew Cromer
cm...@tig.oss.uswest.net writes:
>>>It's these unilateral "take it or leave it" arrangements that I
>>>object to.
>>
>>What is the alternative? "Take it or else" arrangments. I hope you are
>>not arguing for that.
>
>No! Not at all. Why do you think so? Do you think that one side
>alway *has* to win?
>
>Oh yeah, you do, you call it "property rights."
This is silly. Property rights is not about winning and losing.
>
>Try "come to a mutual agreement" or "compromise."
Yes, that is always a good idea. But in the end, after negotiation, you
have the freedom to either take it or leave it--that is, you either
decide to work at a job or not when given the offer and after the
negotiotions are through.
Matthew Cromer
constan...@my-dejanews.com
Mikkelson) wrote:
>In article <785ceo$m13$1...@nnrp2.dejanews.com>,
> <constan...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>>In article <36a60...@news3.uswest.net>,
>> cm...@tig.oss.uswest.net (Chris Mikkelson) wrote:
>>> Which is always your manager's "right" -- he is your manager, he can
>>> choose whatever management style gives the most profits. The fact that
>>> it *can* be done is bad.
>>
>>And it's my right not to work the way he wants. If I don't work the way he
>>wants, he might fire me (probably not, if I am productive despite his
>>stupidity), but conversely if he doesn't manage the way I want, I can and will
>>go elsewhere.
>
>It's these unilateral "take it or leave it" arrangements that I
>object to.
I don't.
>>You seem to have close to *no* experience with the workplace. Your nonsense
>>sounds like it comes out of a book.
>
>I have experience. Pleasant experience, for the most part. I know
>nothing that guarantees the experience to be good.
I see, you want guarantees. Sort of like nationalized medicine.
>Where does your nonsense come from? ;-)
>
>>> >>This is hierarchy and authority in the economic sphere, or are workplaces
>>> >>*not* part of the economy?
>>> >
>>> >Workplaces are very much part of the economy. An exchange of work for
>>> >pay is as much an exchange as any other.
>>>
>>> No it is not. If I sell you my watch, you just take the watch and
>>
>>You're just re-defining exchange. Boring. I won't even bother. I hate
>>arguments about words.
>
>What's your definition?
>
>My understanding of the word is pretty tied to commodities.
Like I said, I will not debate definitions. I'll refer you to
Webster's (www.m-w.com).
>>> we both go about our lives -- you with a watch, me with more money.
>>> I cannot do that if I sell you my labor. If I sell you my labor,
>>> I must go where you want, when you want me to, etc., to _perform_
>>> the labor I have "sold" you.
>>>
>>> Labor is a part of an individual. Since the individual is not a
>>> commodity, neither is the labor.
>>>
>>> >I'll tell you one thing, I'd rather be working at my company than
>>> >tending llamas in the Andes.
>>>
>>> Why the hell do I keep seeing these stupid strawmen, claiming that
>>> anti-capitalists want to return to "tribal" societies? Do capitalist
>>> apologists really have that little vision, that they can only see
>>> what exists, and not imagine what can be?
>>
>>Ha, ha, caught you in my trap. I was alluding to an example presented in a
>>nearby thread by one of your fellow "anti-capitalists". Straw man indeed.
>>When pressed to the wall for an example of a working non-capitalist society,
>>this was what he gave - Andes communities. Another example was Pacific
>>Islands communities - similar problems there. And something in Africa, but
>>I've been unable to pin down exactly where he means.
>
>Ha, ha, caught you in *my* trap. You are arguing that free,
>non-capitalist societies will always be primitive, because no
>advanced, free, non-capitalist societies currently exist. That is
No, I made no argument with that off-the-cuff remark, though I was
happy to see you react by pooh-poohing a fellow-anarchist's example.
You want an argument? OK, here's an argument: it's simpleminded to
believe that simply because you can imagine something (antigravity,
time travel), therefore it is possible. Instead of reading the fever
dreams of anarchist writers, why not learn something about how the
world really works?
constan...@my-dejanews.com
Mikkelson) wrote:
>In article <785iqv$3qc$1...@camel25.mindspring.com>,
>Matthew Cromer <matthew...@iname.com> wrote:
>>In article <36a64...@news2.uswest.net> Chris Mikkelson,
>>cm...@tig.oss.uswest.net writes:
>>>It's these unilateral "take it or leave it" arrangements that I
>>>object to.
>>
>>What is the alternative? "Take it or else" arrangments. I hope you are
>>not arguing for that.
>
>No! Not at all. Why do you think so? Do you think that one side
>alway *has* to win?
>
>Oh yeah, you do, you call it "property rights."
>
>Try "come to a mutual agreement" or "compromise."
That's one thing that does happen, on a regular basis, totally within
the "capitalist system". If not between the individuals alone, then
through mediation by HR.
constan...@my-dejanews.com
Graeber) wrote:
>In article <36a64...@news2.uswest.net>, cm...@tig.oss.uswest.net (Chris
>Mikkelson) wrote:
>
>
>> >>
>> >> Why the hell do I keep seeing these stupid strawmen, claiming that
>> >> anti-capitalists want to return to "tribal" societies? Do capitalist
>> >> apologists really have that little vision, that they can only seenon
>> >> what exists, and not imagine what can be?
>> >
>> >Ha, ha, caught you in my trap. I was alluding to an example presented in a
>> >nearby thread by one of your fellow "anti-capitalists". Straw man indeed.
>> >When pressed to the wall for an example of a working non-capitalist society,
>> >this was what he gave - Andes communities. Another example was Pacific
>> >Islands communities - similar problems there. And something in Africa, but
>> >I've been unable to pin down exactly where he means.
>
> This is simply untrue. I did not give communities in
>the Andes as an example of a working non-capitalist society.
>I gave communities in the Andes as a random example of
>part of the "informal sector" that did not work in market
>terms. Andean communities are parts of larger societies which
>do work in capitalist or state-capitalist terms.
Talking about the Andean communities, you wrote,
>My conclusion
>was: if people can be this happy when they're desperately poor,
>imagine how happy they could be if they had three or five
>times as much, which would make them perfectly comfortable
>but still way below the income of the average American.
You're not talking just about the actual communities - the Andean
villagers are not 3 to 5 times as rich as they themselves are - ,
you're talking about the working noncapitalist society that you
envision. What else do you mean by "three to five times as much"?
The point is unchanged: this other fellow laughs at the idea that a
nonmarket economy might require a marked reduction in the standard of
living ("way below the income of the average American"), and yet this
is just what you are suggesting. This is an actual, authentic
noncapitalist vision, complete with obligatory swipe at "frenetic
consumerism", and another noncapitalist thought I was making it up. I
guess you guys have a lot to talk about.
constan...@my-dejanews.com
wrote:
>In article <David.Graeber-2...@drg9.anthropology.yale.edu>,
>David....@yale.edu (David Graeber) wrote:
>
>> Many stateless societies have
>> existed, with a wide variety of different sorts of economic
>> organization. None have been market based.
>
>Really? The Icelandic Free State looks to me like a stateless society that
>used market economics. Do you think that it was a state, or do you think
>that its economy was not a market economy?
>
>How about pre-Roman Celtic society? There was no state. There were free
>markets for cattle, textile goods, oil, wine, and so on.
>
>Is there a problem of definitions perhaps?
Probably. I defined a market in a rather straightforward way I
thought, and this fellow thought I had defined it so broadly that it
was everywhere (no surprise). This overly broad definition was:
>a market is a collection of exchanges that are
>related by the presence of effective competition between different
>buyers and between different sellers. This brings prices into a
>market equilibrium.
This is a perfectly classic definition. Here's another from the
economist Cournot:
"Economists understand by the term Market, not any particular market
place in which things are bought and sold, but the whole of any region
in which buyers and sellers are in such free intercourse with one
another that the prices of the same goods tend to equality easily and
quickly."
At other points this person to whom you are replying claimed that a
market could not exist without money, and a market could not exist
without wage labor, and the state sector was a market. Here is an
actual quote:
>in many
>places, it is _only_ within the formal, state sector where
>you find things like the systematic use of money, ongoing
>relations of wage labor, and so on
As you can see, he has a peculiar, rather specific idea of what a
"market" is. I suppose he hasn't actually studied much economics,
which is why he takes these particular phenomena (money and wage
labor) and makes them core, when that is like arguing that this Usenet
post isn't a text because it's not typed on paper.
ra...@my-dejanews.com
> I don't believe in imposing my own preferences (e.g., for autonomy, or
> for comfort) on others. That is not the same as not valuing one or
> the other. To value something is not the same as to want to impose it
> on someone else.
Well said!!
One of my favorite quotes is this:
"I dream of the day when conservatives learn the difference
between a sin and a crime, and liberals learn the difference
between a virtue and a requirement."
--- William A. Niskanen
Suds
David....@yale.edu (David Graeber) wrote:
> In article <mug-o-piss-01...@dialup755.tnkno2.usit.net>,
> mug-o...@beer.com (Suds) wrote:
>
>
>
> >
> > I wouldn't object to it if I could opt out of it.
> >
> > Would it work if I could?
>
> Opt out? Of course. Why would we want you anyway?
I assume to help fund your experiment.
> I find it peculiar that we have so many people who
> come uninvited into discussion forums for libertarian
> socialists or other left anarchists and then start
> accusing us of wanting to... well, come uninvited
> into their private territory.
I was invited.
But if you want a private ng, I suggest you create a moderated one.
(You sometimes post to
> threads which exist only on alt.socialism.libertarian.)
(must be the college edjukashun...)
That's because I subscribe to alt.socialism.libertarian
> At the moment, it's you guys who seem most given to
> this sort of behavior, not us. We don't much like
> having you around here, and we'd be delighted if
> you made yourself scarce from any socialistic
> experiments in the future.
> Bye.
> DG
Dood, if it were not for those of us who fear your motives for even having
a ng with the name "socialism" in it asking you questions, and debating
with your answers, this ng would be as dead as
alt.worms.out.of.a.hot.cheese-log
If my queries disturb you, I suggest a newsreader with kill-filters.
Suds
Mikkelson) wrote:
> In article
<A58EE8682EFB904E.EEE22146...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
> <constan...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> >On Tue, 19 Jan 1999 20:11:04 -0000, "Iain McKay"
> ><iain....@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >>TRUE. As capitalism is based on wage labour, where you sell your time
> >>(and so liberty) to a boss who tells you what to do, when to do and so on.
> >
> >"What to do, when to do" sounds like micromanagement. [snip]
>
> Which is always your manager's "right" -- he is your manager, he can
> choose whatever management style gives the most profits. The fact that
> it *can* be done is bad.
>
> >>This is hierarchy and authority in the economic sphere, or are workplaces
> >>*not* part of the economy?
> >
> >Workplaces are very much part of the economy. An exchange of work for
> >pay is as much an exchange as any other.
>
> No it is not. If I sell you my watch, you just take the watch and
> we both go about our lives -- you with a watch, me with more money.
> I cannot do that if I sell you my labor. If I sell you my labor,
> I must go where you want, when you want me to, etc., to _perform_
> the labor I have "sold" you.
I gotta disagree.
I sell my labor.
I'm self employed & work from my home.
I very much enjoy doing this job, so IMO I'm being paid to play.
Selling my labor is much better than buying & selling products, and just
getting some stinkin' markup.
Although, if you've ever worked as a salesman for commission, you know
that alot of labor is involved in selling.
>
> Labor is a part of an individual. Since the individual is not a
> commodity, neither is the labor.
My time on earth is limited. Therefore each moment has value to me.
When I choose to trade some of that time for compensation,I damned well
better get paid for it.
And I do.
My labor is a commodity.
>
> >I'll tell you one thing, I'd rather be working at my company than
> >tending llamas in the Andes.
>
> Why the hell do I keep seeing these stupid strawmen, claiming that
> anti-capitalists want to return to "tribal" societies? Do capitalist
> apologists really have that little vision, that they can only see
> what exists, and not imagine what can be?
>
Suds
Mikkelson) wrote:
> You can just as easily argue that no free, Libertarian
> society can be successful, because none currently are.
IMO, the black market is an almost libertarian society.
>
> Many anti-capitalists (including myself) claim that a free,
> technically advanced non-capitalist society can exist. The two
> most common rebuttals I have run across are: 1) "But none exist,"
> and 2) "But a free society must be capitalist." The first does
> not address the assertion -- I am not claiming that such a society
> exists. The second is often simply repeatedly asserted, as if it
> were self-evident.
>
> The second is an excellent mind-closing device. The debater has
> disabled himself from even *trying* to imagine a free, non-capitalist,
> advanced society. That was what I was getting at above.
OK!
So now that we got that all straightened out, can you give us sort of an
outline of how a "free, non-capitalist, advanced society" would work?
>
> Oh, and by the way, I think the place in Africa was Madagascar.
>
> -Chris
pangloss
> In article <36a64...@news2.uswest.net>, cm...@tig.oss.uswest.net (Chris
> Mikkelson) wrote:
>> You can just as easily argue that no free, Libertarian
>> society can be successful, because none currently are.
> IMO, the black market is an almost libertarian society.
I have heard that in _some_ black markets there is maybe _some_
violence, _sometimes_ .
--
pangloss
David Graeber
wrote:
> In article <David.Graeber-2...@drg9.anthropology.yale.edu>,
> David....@yale.edu (David Graeber) wrote:
>
> > Many stateless societies have
> > existed, with a wide variety of different sorts of economic
> > organization. None have been market based.
>
> Really? The Icelandic Free State looks to me like a stateless society that
> used market economics. Do you think that it was a state, or do you think
> that its economy was not a market economy?
>
> How about pre-Roman Celtic society? There was no state. There were free
> markets for cattle, textile goods, oil, wine, and so on.
>
> Is there a problem of definitions perhaps?
I suspect.
Both the examples you give are of highly stratified
societies with both a hereditary class of aristocrats,
and slaves. This alone is not enough to make them a state
but it's hardly insignificant. I'm also not sure how much
the "market" in question really worked on market principles
- I'm not an expert in such matters, but mere exchange does
not a market make. All societies have some kind of form of
exchange, and often several, but market exchange has its
own rather particular characteristics.
DG
constan...@my-dejanews.com
David....@yale.edu (David Graeber) wrote:
> So answer the question. Why do you keep posting
> to alt.politics.socialism.libertarian?
Nice try, narrowing down the newsgroups. I post to wherever this thread goes
because Deja News does not pay attention to newsgroup distinctions when
threading, so as long as you reply to my post, I will see the reply (unless
you figure out exactly what Deja News does and cut out the necessary
criteria). I entered this discussion upon doing a search on the name Lakoff,
because I was reading a book by him and wanted to see what people had to say
(someone mentioned Lakoff a while back in the discussion). I stayed because
the topic interested me. Specifically, libertarianism is a philosophy mainly
opposed to the rather mainstream idea (expressed for example by the economist
Samuelson) that bloated government is necessary, but you're not saying that.
I've always wondered what "stateless" left-wingers had to say for themselves,
considering that the most famous stateless left-winger of all, Marx, has been
thoroughly discredited intellectually and experimentally.
Chris Mikkelson
<constan...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>On 20 Jan 1999 14:57:07 +0600, cm...@tig.oss.uswest.net (Chris
>Mikkelson) wrote:
>>It's these unilateral "take it or leave it" arrangements that I
>>object to.
>
I see....
>>>You seem to have close to *no* experience with the workplace. Your nonsense
>>>sounds like it comes out of a book.
>>
>>I have experience. Pleasant experience, for the most part. I know
>>nothing that guarantees the experience to be good.
>
>I see, you want guarantees. Sort of like nationalized medicine.
Non sequitur. It is the great "State" machine which enforces property
rights, and makes "get of my property" carry force.
>>>You're just re-defining exchange. Boring. I won't even bother. I hate
>>>arguments about words.
>>
>>What's your definition?
>>
>>My understanding of the word is pretty tied to commodities.
>
>Like I said, I will not debate definitions. I'll refer you to
>Webster's (www.m-w.com).
Do you see the difference between selling labor and selling commodities
-- the laborer must obviously be present when the labor is used, the
watchmaker need not be.
You said something to the effect of "an exchange of labor is an exchange
--->like any other<---" and I presented my objection to that statement.
You then brushed me off by accusing me of redefining exchanges, when you
were stating that all exchanges are similar.
-Chris
Suds
<a850...@nospam.unet.univie.ac.at> wrote:
Violence is a fact of life.
So what's your point?
Chris Mikkelson
<constan...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>I've always wondered what "stateless" left-wingers had to say for themselves,
>considering that the most famous stateless left-winger of all, Marx, has been
>thoroughly discredited intellectually and experimentally.
Marx was not a "stateless" society advocate, unless you count his
final 'communist' ideal. Remember, he proposed the establishment
of the "dictatorship of the proletariat." That is hardly a stateless
construction, no matter how much hand-waving about its "withering
away" is involved.
For stateless "left-wingers" you could always check out
http://flag.blackened.net. Follow the "Anarchist Library" link,
and you'll find quite a few writings.
A was intrigued to find one or two of these names quoted in support
of Libertarian Party goals, when they were vehemently anti-capitalist.
Benjamin Tucker, for example, is what I'd refer to as a "free-market
socialist," meaning that he agreed with most tenets of capitalism
(as I do), while maintaining that capital was its own reward, and
does not entitle its owner to (unearned) profit.
Libertarians (and others) will probably find
http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/lastlib.html
entertaining....
-Chris
constan...@my-dejanews.com
cm...@tig.oss.uswest.net (Chris Mikkelson) wrote:
> In article
<3AF546171F904D52.700CDB29...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
> <constan...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> >On 20 Jan 1999 14:57:07 +0600, cm...@tig.oss.uswest.net (Chris
> >Mikkelson) wrote:
> >>It's these unilateral "take it or leave it" arrangements that I
> >>object to.
> >
> >I don't.
>
> I see....
>
> >>>You seem to have close to *no* experience with the workplace. Your
nonsense
> >>>sounds like it comes out of a book.
> >>
> >>I have experience. Pleasant experience, for the most part. I know
> >>nothing that guarantees the experience to be good.
> >
> >I see, you want guarantees. Sort of like nationalized medicine.
>
> Non sequitur. It is the great "State" machine which enforces property
> rights, and makes "get of my property" carry force.
It's not a non-sequitur. I am commenting on your use of the word
"guarantees". You're the one who has changed the subject. A private security
force is quite sufficient to move someone off property, and it would probably
take the state to *overcome* this security force, but I really don't see your
point. We're talking about firing the worker, i.e. denying him pay, not
about expelling him from the premises. Get the thread of the conversation
straight.
> >>>You're just re-defining exchange. Boring. I won't even bother. I hate
> >>>arguments about words.
> >>
> >>What's your definition?
> >>
> >>My understanding of the word is pretty tied to commodities.
> >
> >Like I said, I will not debate definitions. I'll refer you to
> >Webster's (www.m-w.com).
>
> Do you see the difference between selling labor and selling commodities
> -- the laborer must obviously be present when the labor is used, the
> watchmaker need not be.
>
> You said something to the effect of "an exchange of labor is an exchange
> --->like any other<---" and I presented my objection to that statement.
> You then brushed me off by accusing me of redefining exchanges, when you
> were stating that all exchanges are similar.
False, and you should know it, because in this reply you deleted the very
statement that you now misquote (you even used quotes). Erasing the original
and replacing it with a misquote is a stupid tactic.
This is exactly what I said:
>Workplaces are very much part of the economy. An exchange of work for
>pay is as much an exchange as any other.
I didn't say anything about "like".
constan...@my-dejanews.com
cm...@tig.oss.uswest.net (Chris Mikkelson) wrote:
> Libertarians (and others) will probably find
> http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/lastlib.html
> entertaining....
Mr. "The guillotines need Rustoleum, I think" has some valid gripes, but not
against libertarian ideology. I mean, sending out forms so they arrive a day
before they're due back is sheer incompetence, and I would be pissed too. But
that has nothing to do with libertarian ideology.
His only substantial gripe with the ideology is with the idea of inheritance,
but I consider this to be just a red herring. He claims that you need to
have a pampered childhood to do well in life. He writes, My father always
asked, "Where do these people get all this money?" I finally found out. Their
ancestors came here when the land was free. They later sold it for capital,
and that capital was passed down." Not true in most people's case. My
mother's family was so poor that sometimes they had only one meal a day, and
Grandma told her kids to go to sleep quickly so they wouldn't feel hungry
later. But my mother studied hard and made her way in the world. So no, you
don't need to have a pampered childhood to do well, not in the U.S. It's
harder in other parts of the world.
plg...@my-dejanews.com
cm...@tig.oss.uswest.net (Chris Mikkelson) wrote:
> In article
<3AF546171F904D52.700CDB29...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
> <constan...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> >On 20 Jan 1999 14:57:07 +0600, cm...@tig.oss.uswest.net (Chris
> >Mikkelson) wrote:
> >>It's these unilateral "take it or leave it" arrangements that I
> >>object to.
> >
> >I don't.
>
> I see....
>
> >>>You seem to have close to *no* experience with the workplace. Your
nonsense
> >>>sounds like it comes out of a book.
> >>
> >>I have experience. Pleasant experience, for the most part. I know
> >>nothing that guarantees the experience to be good.
> >
> >I see, you want guarantees. Sort of like nationalized medicine.
>
> Non sequitur. It is the great "State" machine which enforces property
> rights, and makes "get of my property" carry force.
>
> >>>arguments about words.
> >>
> >>What's your definition?
> >>
> >>My understanding of the word is pretty tied to commodities.
> >
> >Like I said, I will not debate definitions. I'll refer you to
> >Webster's (www.m-w.com).
>
> Do you see the difference between selling labor and selling commodities
> -- the laborer must obviously be present when the labor is used, the
> watchmaker need not be.
>
> You said something to the effect of "an exchange of labor is an exchange
> --->like any other<---" and I presented my objection to that statement.
> You then brushed me off by accusing me of redefining exchanges, when you
> were stating that all exchanges are similar.
As long as the parties involved voluntarily agree on a medium of
exchange, they're similar. What's the alternative to "voluntarily agree"
here?
SI
plg...@my-dejanews.com
David O'Bedlam <thed...@tsoft.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> ra...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> [...]
>
> > A true free-market being the ultimate in absence-of-authority, of course.
>
> As exemplified by the New York Stock Exchange, for example?
And where do you see the free market in the NYSE?
The Feds are all over the place. Try the SEC for one. And
what about the taxman? Do you really know what a free
market is? Try most swap meets altho some have a taxman
at the gate.
The Forex market on the other hand is the freest market on
earth.
plg...@my-dejanews.com
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
> Harmonious Sal <hom...@funtv.com> wrote:
> | >Hey! boys and girls, people need to be lead; Libertarianism does in no way
> | >support anarchy, it recognizes the need for rules and leaders- as locally
as
> | >maturely reasonable.
> | >Libertarianistic socialism is an onxymoron: socialism rules that a society
> | >should be "lead" (read "ruled") at the highest level possible, with no one
> | >person receiving more than the rest - a complete denial of human nature and
> | >unachievable.
>
> dr...@minerva.cis.yale.edu (David Graeber):
> | So this seems to be a pattern on this group:
> | people who are not socialists, and do not like
> | socialism, lecturing socialists on what "socialism"
> | means. I mean, talk about presumptuous!
> | ...
>
> The need to rewrite and thereby efface the meaning of
> _socialism_ is a testimony to the power of the idea
> behind it -- the idea of equality -- and the fear which it
> strikes into the hearts of authoritarians of every kind,
> whether their method of effacement is appropriation or
> slander.
Nice job of twisting something you don't agree with into
slander.
What will you do--after you have your socialism--to keep
some capitalists from arising and becoming less equal than other folks?
The Great Equalizer comes agin. Sounds like a job for Robo-Cop.
Why not just do it right the first time and just let everyone
hang it all out? Each in their own way.
G*rd*n
|>|>Hey! boys and girls, people need to be lead; Libertarianism does in no way
|>|>support anarchy, it recognizes the need for rules and leaders- as locally
| as
|>|>maturely reasonable.
|>|>Libertarianistic socialism is an onxymoron: socialism rules that a society
|>|>should be "lead" (read "ruled") at the highest level possible, with no one
|>|>person receiving more than the rest - a complete denial of human nature and
|>|>unachievable.
dr...@minerva.cis.yale.edu (David Graeber):
|>| So this seems to be a pattern on this group:
|>| people who are not socialists, and do not like
|>| socialism, lecturing socialists on what "socialism"
|>| means. I mean, talk about presumptuous!
|>| ...
G*rd*n:
|> The need to rewrite and thereby efface the meaning of
|> _socialism_ is a testimony to the power of the idea
|> behind it -- the idea of equality -- and the fear which it
|> strikes into the hearts of authoritarians of every kind,
|> whether their method of effacement is appropriation or
|> slander.
| Nice job of twisting something you don't agree with into
| slander.
No twisting is necessary. If someone deliberately
characterizes another's beliefs in a deceitful way,
as by saying (for instance) that socialism equals
control by the government, or socialism equals
Naziism, that's slander, pure and simple.
| What will you do--after you have your socialism--to keep
| some capitalists from arising and becoming less equal than other folks?
Significant political inequality requires force to
maintain itself. I and others are trying to devise
ways of subverting and sabotaging that force without
the use of violence. Once force is removed it's
possible that some people may want to continue to
play games of capitalist and employee, liege and
vassal, or master and slave. These wouldn't have
quite the cutting edge of the real thing, but they
might do for some people -- and I don't see why
anyone else would object, as long as participation
was strictly voluntary, nonfraudulent and
informed.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 1/10 <-adv't
plg...@my-dejanews.com
Supposition. Political inequality? I thought we
were talking about anarchy here. If everyone is
free of the state, then everyone can make their
own associations at will. There is no way to
create overall equality without top-down overall
direction.
>I and others are trying to devise
> ways of subverting and sabotaging that force without
> the use of violence. Once force is removed it's
> possible that some people may want to continue to
> play games of capitalist and employee, liege and
> vassal, or master and slave. These wouldn't have
> quite the cutting edge of the real thing,
What the hell does this "cutting edge" mean? Do
you mean some hierarchist is gonna dull the edge?
If so, how is this anarchy?
> but they
> might do for some people -- and I don't see why
> anyone else would object, as long as participation
> was strictly voluntary, nonfraudulent and
> informed.
You may be moving toward closing the deal here
with me. Much negotiation to go. Judgment reserved.
David Graeber
> Supposition. Political inequality? I thought we
> were talking about anarchy here. If everyone is
> free of the state, then everyone can make their
> own associations at will. There is no way to
> create overall equality without top-down overall
> direction.
Only if you assume that people have some
unquenchable desire to enter into unequal
relations even if they don't have to. Historically,
it's required force to create such systems, at
least, above the level of the family. Thus the
"political" part. It strikes me that, given
the evidence that exists, it's a lot more of
a supposition to assume that people will voluntarily
seek out relations of inequality, command, and
so forth.
> >I and others are trying to devise
> > ways of subverting and sabotaging that force without
> > the use of violence. Once force is removed it's
> > possible that some people may want to continue to
> > play games of capitalist and employee, liege and
> > vassal, or master and slave. These wouldn't have
> > quite the cutting edge of the real thing,
>
> What the hell does this "cutting edge" mean? Do
> you mean some hierarchist is gonna dull the edge?
> If so, how is this anarchy?
He means that someone who is just playing
the servant in a "master and servant" game - and
who could stop playing at any time without either
punishment or loss of access to basic necessities
like food and shelter, is not in the same position
as a real servant who does not feel they are
there purely voluntarily (even though you
would probably say they are).
> > but they
> > might do for some people -- and I don't see why
> > anyone else would object, as long as participation
> > was strictly voluntary, nonfraudulent and
> > informed.
>
> You may be moving toward closing the deal here
> with me. Much negotiation to go. Judgment reserved.
It helps not assume people are your enemies
until you have some reason to believe they are.
DG
It helps not to assume someone is your
enemy until you have some actual reason to
believe it.
DG
mikel evins
In article <David.Graeber-2...@net186-38.its.yale.edu>,
David....@yale.edu (David Graeber) wrote:
> In article <78a2js$ruu$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, plg...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>
>> Supposition. Political inequality? I thought we
>> were talking about anarchy here. If everyone is
>> free of the state, then everyone can make their
>> own associations at will. There is no way to
>> create overall equality without top-down overall
>> direction.
>
> Only if you assume that people have some
> unquenchable desire to enter into unequal
> relations even if they don't have to. Historically,
> it's required force to create such systems, at
> least, above the level of the family.
I don't think this is true. If you assume that unequal control of resources
equals political inequity (and you do, right? Because otherwise there would
be no problem with unequal distribution of wealth), then free and voluntary
interaction can easily result in unequal relations.
For example, the distribution of fresh water is unequal. In some locations
it's so unequal that it's very easy for one individual or a small group to
control whether anyone else in the area gets any water. Regardless of what
voluntary agreements are made about the distribution of water, whoever has
physical control of the water has power that everyone else doesn't have.
Even if a resource is uniformly distributed at some point in time it can
become concentrated at some other point. For example, consider a skilled
cabinetmaker in a community of 1000 people, each with 10 pounds of rice.
Once someone learns that the cabinetmaker really likes rice, word gets
around that he'll come by your place and do some beautiful work if you'll
give him just a pound of rice. Pretty soon the cabinetmaker, who started out
with the same amount of rice as everyone else, has 1001 pounds of rice and
everyone else has 9 pounds. And the whole process is voluntary.
Of course, maybe his neighbors decide that he's getting too much rice and
they come and take it away from him. That isn't voluntary anymore, of
course.
So if uneven distrubution of wealth is defined as political inequality then
political inequality is pretty much inevitable if there is any resource that
can be concentrated and if people are allowed to interact freely. One way to
ensure equality is to ensure that there are no resources to concentrate.
This is hard; even in Tanzania, which is so poor that broken glass and
strips of discarded rubber tire are marketable commodities, there are a few
people who are sort of rich; even in Cuba, where times are good when you can
get a dozen eggs a month, there is at least one billionaire (guess who?).
G*rd*n
|> | What will you do--after you have your socialism--to keep
|> | some capitalists from arising and becoming less equal than other folks?
G*rd*n:
|> Significant political inequality requires force to
|> maintain itself.
plg...@my-dejanews.com:
| Supposition.
It doesn't seem very suppositious to me. People do have
some pack-animal behaviors, but these are pretty unstable,
and history is full of revolts against authority.
| Political inequality? I thought we
| were talking about anarchy here. If everyone is
| free of the state, then everyone can make their
| own associations at will. There is no way to
| create overall equality without top-down overall
| direction.
It's unnecessary to _create_ equality. Political equality
is the situation of persons absent some kind of social
structure of control, with the one exception of maternal
control of small children. No one is otherwise forced
by physical or biological arrangement to rule over or
submit to another. Individual nonvoluntary subordinations
are highly unstable in that when the master goes to sleep,
the slave can kill him. This is why the masters have
organizations, and also try to organize the slaves' minds.
G*rd*n:
|>I and others are trying to devise
|> ways of subverting and sabotaging that force without
|> the use of violence. Once force is removed it's
|> possible that some people may want to continue to
|> play games of capitalist and employee, liege and
|> vassal, or master and slave. These wouldn't have
|> quite the cutting edge of the real thing,
| What the hell does this "cutting edge" mean? Do
| you mean some hierarchist is gonna dull the edge?
| If so, how is this anarchy?
The "cutting edge" means _really_ killing, harming, and
subjugating others. A lot of people seem to have a taste
for this sort of thing and they might not be satisfied with
game versions of it, although one could hope that much of
it is caused by the behavioral-sink situation brought
about by the practice of slavery and would pass away as
slavery passed away.
G*rd*n:
|> but they
|> might do for some people -- and I don't see why
|> anyone else would object, as long as participation
|> was strictly voluntary, nonfraudulent and
|> informed.
| You may be moving toward closing the deal here
| with me. Much negotiation to go. Judgment reserved.
I'm just tossing out ideas. No deal is needed (other
than those presently in apparent effect). And, as
William Blake said, "Opposition is true friendship."
G*rd*n
| ...
| So if uneven distrubution of wealth is defined as political inequality then
It's not necessarily political inequality. It makes little
difference if one has a $100,000 Rolls and the other has a
$500 beat-up Chevrolet is all that's in question is getting
to work, getting to the store, and so on.
pangloss
> The Forex market on the other hand is the freest market on
> earth.
Can you please explain what the Forex market is? Thanx.
--
pangloss
mikel evins
<a850...@nospam.unet.univie.ac.at> wrote:
The "foreign exchange" market. It's where you buy and sell currency. You can
make money on changes in exchange rate between one currency and another,
which has the effect of spontaneously rationalizing exchange rates.