Anarchism and the "Anti-Globalization" Movement
Dan Clore
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Anarchism and the Anti-Globalization Movement
by Barbara Epstein, Monthly Review
Many among todays young radical activists, especially those
at the center of the anti-globalization and anti-corporate
movements, call themselves anarchists. But the
intellectual/philosophical perspective that holds sway in
these circles might be better described as an anarchist
sensibility than as anarchism per se. Unlike the Marxist
radicals of the sixties, who devoured the writings of Lenin
and Mao, todays anarchist activists are unlikely to pore
over the works of Bakunin. For contemporary young radical
activists, anarchism means a decentralized organizational
structure, based on affinity groups that work together on an
ad hoc basis, and decision-making by consensus. It also
means egalitarianism; opposition to all hierarchies;
suspicion of authority, especially that of the state; and
commitment to living according to ones values. Young
radical activists, who regard themselves as anarchists, are
likely to be hostile not only to corporations but to
capitalism. Many envision a stateless society based on
small, egalitarian communities. For some, however, the
society of the future remains an open question. For them,
anarchism is important mainly as an organizational structure
and as a commitment to egalitarianism. It is a form of
politics that revolves around the exposure of the truth
rather than strategy. It is a politics decidedly in the
moment.
Anarchism and Marxism have a history of antagonism. Bakunin,
writing in the late nineteenth century, argued that the
working class could not use state power to emancipate itself
but must abolish the state. Later, anarchists turned to
propaganda of the deed, often engaging in acts of
assassination and terrorism in order to incite mass
uprisings.
In the early twentieth century, anarcho-syndicalists
believed that militant trade unionism would evolve into
revolution as a result of an escalating logic of class
struggle. Marx (and also Lenin) had pointed out that
constructing socialism would require a revolutionary
transformation of the state (and ultimately a withering
away of the state based on class). Anarchists, however,
criticized Marxists for tending in practice to treat the
state as an instrument that could simply be taken over and
used for other ends. Anarchists saw the state not as a tool,
but as an instrument of oppression, no matter in whose
hands. The Stalinist experience lent credence to that
critique.
The anarchist mindset of todays young activists has
relatively little to do with the theoretical debates between
anarchists and Marxists, most of which took place in the
late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It has more
to do with an egalitarian and anti-authoritarian
perspective. There are versions of anarchism that are deeply
individualistic and incompatible with socialism. But these
are not the forms of anarchism that hold sway in radical
activist circles, which have more in common with the
libertarian socialism advocated by Noam Chomsky and Howard
Zinn than with the writings of Bakunin or Kropotkin. Todays
anarchist activists draw upon a current of morally charged
and expressive politics.
There is considerable overlap between this contemporary
anarchism and democratic socialism partly because both were
shaped by the cultural radicalism of the sixties. Socialists
and contemporary anarchists share a critique of class
society and a commitment to egalitarianism. But the history
of antagonism between the two worldviews has also created a
stereotype of anarchism in the minds of many Marxists,
making it difficult to see what the two perspectives have in
common. Anarchisms absolute hostility to the state, and its
tendency to adopt a stance of moral purity, limit its
usefulness as a basis for a broad movement for egalitarian
social change, let alone for a transition to socialism.
Telling the truth to power is or should be a part of radical
politics but it is not a substitute for strategy and
planning.
There are also things that Marxists could learn from the
anti-globalist activists. Their anarchism combines both
ideology and imagination, expressing its fundamentally moral
perspective through actions that are intended to make power
visible (in your face) while undermining it. Historically,
anarchism has often provided a too-often ignored moral
compass for the left. Today, anarchism is attracting young
activists, while Marxist socialism is not, or at least, not
in the same numbers. What follows is an effort to make sense
of the reasons for this attraction.
1.
In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries,
anarchism anchored the militant, radical side of the U.S.
labor movement and left in something like the way that
Communism would in later decades, in the wake of the
Bolshevik Revolution. Though there were anarchist
organizations, most importantly the anarcho-syndicalist
Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), organization was not
a strength of the anarchist movement, as it was, later, of
the Communist movement. Anarchist identity was not linked to
membership in any organization in the way that Communist
identity was later linked to membership in the Communist
Party. Despite such differences anarchism occupied something
like the position within the broader left that Communism
later came to occupy.
The leadership of the nineteenth century Knights of Labor,
the first large national labor organization, wavered in
relation to working class militancy. The Knights of Labor
included reform associations as well as labor unions; at
times the leadership of the organization discouraged labor
union militancy that seemed likely to threaten the
organizations reform agenda. Alongside them, a small
anarchist labor movement upheld a consistent militancy,
which contrasted with the stance of the Knights of Labor.
The wavering support of the Knights leadership for trade
union struggles made the organization vulnerable to
competition from the American Federation of Labor (AFL),
which limited its membership to trade unions.
In the latter part of the nineteenth century, the frequent
slides of the economy into depression encouraged widespread
anti-capitalist sentiment among U.S. workers; in its
formative years the AFL associated itself with this radical
sensibility. But in the early years of the twentieth century
growing prosperity opened up the possibility that skilled
workers, at least, could gain more stability. The AFL
renounced its former gestures towards radicalism, proclaimed
itself concerned only with wages and workplace conditions
and in relation to broader issues willing to respect the
power of capital. The AFLs conservatism, its focus on
organizing skilled, mostly native born workers, and its
unwillingness to organize the unskilled or immigrants left
considerable space for a more radical labor movement.
A radical alternative to the AFL emerged first through the
Western Federation of Miners and other labor organizations,
which engaged in militant struggle and were open to
socialist and anarchist perspectives. The IWW, formed by
these organizations and others, adopted an explicitly
anarcho-syndicalist perspective, organized the unskilled,
foreign-born, and black workers ignored by the AFL, and
stood for militant, radical trade unionism. The socialist
left divided along the same lines as the labor movement,
with some leaning toward the IWW, some toward the AFL. The
Socialist Party included a left wing that supported the IWW
and its militant approach to class struggle and a right wing
that supported the AFL and was inclined towards electoral
politics. The narrowness of the IWWs conception of
revolution, which ruled out any engagement in the political
arena, led many Socialists who at first supported the IWW to
distance themselves from it over time.
The IWW conducted a series of brilliant, often successful,
organizing campaigns, but IWW locals were often short-lived.
They were weakened partly by their reluctance to sign
contracts, based on the view that any agreement with capital
was class collaboration, and partly by the vulnerability of
the IWWs largely immigrant, often non-English speaking,
constituency to harassment by employers and legal repression
by the government. Ultimately the IWWs approach to
revolution was displaced by the Bolshevik Revolution,
enthusiastic support for which swept the U.S. left,
especially its immigrant constituencies, from which
anarchism had drawn its support. The Bolshevik Revolution
also led to a split in and the subsequent decline of the
Socialist Party, and to the ascendance of the Communist
Party within the U.S. left.
In the twenties, thirties, and forties, anarchism was
supplanted by Marxism, which became the leading form of left
thinking. The Communist movement was able to create strong
organizational structures, and was also more able to resist
corporate-led attacks and attempts at legal repression, than
the IWW and other anarchist groups had been. The
vulnerability of anarchism to attack, and the greater
ability of the Communist Party to resist attacks, were
illustrated by the case of Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo
Vanzetti, anarchists unjustly accused of a payroll robbery
and murder in 1921. The leadership of the Sacco-Vanzetti
defense campaign was expanded to include communists,
socialists and liberals, at the urging of prominent
anarchist Carlo Tresca, who recognized that anarchists alone
would not be able to mobilize mass support. By 1927, when
Sacco and Vanzetti were executed, anarchism had ceased to be
a major tendency within the U.S. left. This was partly due
to the attraction of Bolshevism, but also partly due to the
assimilation of immigrants in the United States. Previously
the major constituency for anarchism, by the late twenties,
most immigrants who might have at one time followed
anarchism had turned to communism, socialism or liberalism.
Two of the most important leaders of the Communist Party,
Elizabeth Gurley Flynn and William Z. Foster, were both
anarcho-syndicalists before they became Communists. Their
political histories are emblematic of a broader trajectory
in the history of the U.S. left. The decline of anarchism
was unfortunate for the Communist Party and for the rest of
the socialist left, which could have benefited from the
anti-authoritarian perspective and moral critique that
anarchists might have provided.
In the forties and fifties, anarchism, in fact if not in
name, began to reappear, often in alliance with pacifism, as
the basis for a critique of militarism on both sides of the
Cold War. The anarchist/pacifist wing of the peace movement
was small in comparison with the wing of the movement that
emphasized electoral work, but made an important
contribution to the movement as a whole. Where the more
conventional wing of the peace movement rejected militarism
and war under all but the most dire circumstances, the
anarchist/pacifist wing rejected these on principle. The
Communist Party supported the anti-fascist allies in the
Second World War, while many anarchists and some socialists
refused to serve. The anarchist/pacifist wing of the
movement also employed civil disobedience, which involved
personal risks that most people in the more conventional
wing of the movement were not willing to take.
2.
Within the movements of the sixties there was much more
receptivity to anarchism-in-fact than had existed in the
movements of the thirties. In the thirties, Communists,
radical trade unionists and others demanded state action on
behalf of working people and the poor, and succeeded in
pushing the New Deal toward the left. In a context in which
the left was, with some success, demanding a shift in the
orientation of the state, anarchism had little place. But
the movements of the sixties were driven by concerns that
were more compatible with an expressive style of politics,
with hostility to authority in general and state power in
particular. Relatively few sixties activists called
themselves anarchists or, for that matter, anything else.
Especially in the early sixties, many activists rejected all
ideologies and political labels. Nevertheless, many
activists were drawn to a style of politics that had much in
common with anarchism. Many of them, if asked what left
tradition they felt closest to, would probably have named
anarchism.
Civil rights struggles in the South pointed to the
discrepancy between democratic values and the policies of
those in power. The civil rights movement won the right of
blacks to vote, and thus transformed the South, largely
through the use of nonviolent direct action. Anarchist
ideology was not a factor in the development of the civil
rights movement. But the beliefs of many Christians, that
shaped the civil rights movement, had in common with
anarchism a deeply moral approach to politics and a focus on
direct action as a tactic. A generation of young activists
in the North drew inspiration from the civil rights movement
and wanted to adopt its style, but they were too firmly
secular to identify with Christianity, and besides, many of
them were Jews. In the emerging student movement in the
North, the Christian orientation of Southern blacks
translated into a politics with a moral base and a style
that revolved around expression.*
The early New Left, like the civil rights movement, was
concerned with the gap between the words and deeds of those
in power, in particular the contradiction between the
ostensible liberalism of the Democratic Party and its
pursuit of the Cold War. The war in Vietnam turned what had
been a relatively mild critique of liberalism into an angry
radicalism, which regarded the liberal state as the enemy.
By the late sixties, political protest was intertwined with
cultural radicalism based on a critique of all authority and
all hierarchies of power. Anarchism circulated within the
movement along with other radical ideologies. The influence
of anarchism was strongest among radical feminists, in the
commune movement, and probably in the Weather Underground
and elsewhere in the violent fringe of the anti-war
movement.
In the late sixties, a messianic mood, a sense that victory
could come any moment, swept through the movement. This was
linked to a tendency to equate radicalism with militancy, to
rapidly escalating standards for militancy, and to a
tendency to equate militancy and radicalism with violence,
or at least with threats of the use of violence. In the late
sixties and early seventies, the movement was pervaded by
rage against the war and the culture that had produced it,
and wild fantasies of immanent revolution, fantasies
regarded by those who held them as realistic views of what
the movement could accomplish with enough effort. In fact,
movement activists rarely initiated violence. But something
like madness took hold. In response perhaps to the
continuing international terror represented by the Vietnam
War, violent fantasies swept the movement, frightening many
people out of political activity. The radical movement of
the late sixties and early seventies mostly collapsed when
the war in Vietnam came to an end. The end of that movement
more or less coincided with the end of the draft and the
exit of the baby boom generation from the universities. It
was followed by a downturn in the economy which was taken as
a warning, by many young people who had participated in the
movement, that it was time to resume their careers or at
least find some stable means of making a living. The
generation of students that followed was smaller, more
cautious, and had no unifying cause.
In the late seventies activists influenced by a perspective
that drew from anarchism, pacifism, feminism and
environmentalism initiated a movement against nuclear power,
which they hoped would go on to address other issues,
eventually becoming a movement for nonviolent revolution.
They created a distinctive style of politics by drawing the
concept of the affinity group from the history of Spanish
anarchism, the tactic of large-scale civil disobedience from
the U.S. civil rights movement, and the process of
decision-making by consensus from the Quakers. The
nonviolent direct action movement, as it called itself,
conducted campaigns against nuclear power and nuclear arms.
The version of anarchism that circulated within the movement
called for egalitarian community based on small, autonomous
groups. The commitments to nonviolence, and to decision
making by consensus, were intended to shield the movement
from the problems that had plagued the anti-war movement of
the late sixties. Groups in various parts of the country
held large, dramatic protests which helped to mobilize
public opinion first against the nuclear industry and then
against the arms race, and a small army of activists gained
experience in non-violent civil disobedience.
Mass civil disobedience demonstrations became the signature
of the movement, and inability to move beyond this tactic
became a liability. In each campaign a point was reached at
which the size of civil disobedience protests leveled off
because the maximum number of people willing to be arrested
on that issue had become involved. At this point it would
become clear that civil disobedience protests alone could
not overturn the nuclear power industry, or the arms race.
The problems of the nonviolent direct action movement were
compounded by its rigid adherence to decision making by
consensus. The decline of the nuclear industry in the late
seventies and the de-escalation of the arms race in the
mid-eighties brought these campaigns to an end.
3.
The approach to politics developed by the nonviolent direct
action movement has outlasted the movement itself. Activists
throughout the progressive movement have adopted elements of
the movements style of politics. The current
anti-globalization movement has roots in the nonviolent
direct action movement, with which it shares a structure
based on small autonomous groups, a practice of
decision-making by consensus, and a style of protest that
revolves around mass civil disobedience. Each of the major
organizations of the nonviolent direct action movement began
with great promise but soon went into decline, in large part
due to the structural and ideological rigidities associated
with insistence on consensus decision-making and reluctance
to acknowledge the existence of leadership within the
movement. This raises a question for the anti-globalization
movement: will it share the fate of the nonviolent direct
action movements of the sixties, seventies, and eighties, or
will it gain the flexibility that will allow it to evolve
with changing circumstances?
The anarchist sensibility has made important contributions
to the radical tradition in U.S. history. It has brought an
insistence on equality and democracy, a resistance to
compromise of principle for the sake of political
expediency. Anarchism has been associated with efforts to
put the values of the movement into practice and to create
communities governed by these values. Anarchism has also
been associated with political theater and art, with
creativity as an element of political practice. It has
insisted that radical politics need not be dreary. But the
anarchist mindset also has its doctrinaire side, a tendency
to insist on principle to the point of disregarding the
context or likely results of political action. In this
regard the anarchist sensibility has something in common
with the outlook of Christian radicals who believe in acting
on their consciences and leaving the consequences to God.
The moral absolutism of the anarchist approach to politics
is difficult to sustain in the context of a social movement.
Absolute internal equality is hard to sustain. Movements
need leaders. Anti-leadership ideology cannot eliminate
leaders, but it can lead a movement to deny that it has
leaders, thus undermining democratic constraints on those
who assume the roles of leadership, and also preventing the
formation of vehicles for recruiting new leaders when the
existing ones become too tired to continue. Within radical
feminism a view of all hierarchies as oppressive led to
attacks on those who took on the responsibilities of
leadership. This led to considerable internal conflict, and
created a reluctance to take on leadership roles, which
weakened the movement. Movements dominated by an anarchist
mindset are prone to burning out early.
4.
Despite its problems, the appeal of anarchism has grown
among young activists, especially within what is generally
called the anti-globalization movement. This description is
not entirely accurate: the movements main focus is not on
stopping globalization but transforming the terms on which
it takes place, and it shades into the domestic
anti-corporate movement. The movement might better be
described as against neoliberalism, or against U.S.
imperialism and domination by U.S.-based transnational
corporations. But these are cumbersome phrases. So, like
most people, I describe this as the anti-globalization
movement.
The most dramatic moment of the anti-globalization movement
thus far, at least in the United States, was the
mobilization against the World Trade Organization in Seattle
in late November and early December of 1999. In the series
of demonstrations that took place over the course of several
days, the young, radical activists who engaged in civil
disobedience were greatly outnumbered by trade unionists and
members of mostly liberal environmental organizations. But
it was the young radicals who blockaded the meetings of the
WTO, fought the police, liberated the streets of Seattle,
and whose militancy brought the attention of the media to a
mobilization that would otherwise have gone relatively
unnoticed outside the left. The alliance that formed in
Seattle between young radicals, the trade unionists and the
liberal environmentalists was loose, and it has become even
looser since then. It is the young radicals who have pushed
the anti-globalization movement forward.
The anti-globalization movement includes the countless
individuals, groups, and coalitions that have joined in
demonstrations-in Seattle and elsewhere-against the WTO,
the IMF, the World Bank, and the two major parties that
support the existing international order. It includes the
organizations-many of them the same onesnow mobilizing in
this hemisphere against the Free Trade Area of the Americas.
It overlaps with the anti-corporate movement. It includes
groups working against sweatshops, against destruction of
natural environments, and around a range of other issues.
These groups share an opposition to transnational
corporations and to the the neoliberal government policies
that enable them to flourish. Most of the core activists in
this movement, in the United States at least, are young, in
their teens or twenties. Older people are involved as well,
including intellectuals and activists associated with such
organizations as Global Exchange and the International Forum
on Globalization. Many activists involved in anti-corporate
efforts, such as the Campaign for a Living Wage on
university campuses, consider themselves part of this
movement. And there are important links to the labor
movement. Most movement activists are white and culturally
middle-class, but this is changing with increasing
involvement of Latinos, particularily in connection with the
campaign against the Free Trade Area of the Americas.
There are many in the movement who do not consider
themselves anarchists. These would include some of the older
intellectuals, as well as some younger activists with
experience in movements with other ideological leanings,
such as the international solidarity/anti-imperialist
movement, in which anarchism has not been a major influence.
There are activists who do not identify with any ideological
stance. Nevertheless anarchism is the dominant perspective
within the movement. The movement is organized along lines
understood as anarchist by movement activists, made up
largely of small groups that join forces on an ad hoc basis,
for particular actions and other projects. Movement
activists call this form of organization anarchist. It is
supported not only by those who call themselves anarchists
but by many who would not. Journalist Naomi Klein, in a
defense of the movement that appeared in The Nation, points
out that this form of organization allows the movement to
include many different styles, tactics, and goals, and that
the internet is an excellent medium for linking diverse
groups. The greatest tactical strength of the movement, she
argues, is its similarity to a swarm of mosquitoes. This
anarchist form of organization makes it possible for groups
that disagree in some respects to collaborate in regard to
common aims. At the demonstrations in Quebec City in May
2001, affinity groups formed sectors defined by their
willingness to engage in or tolerate violence, ranging from
those committed to nonviolence to those intending to use
unconventional tactics. This structure made it possible to
incorporate groups which otherwise would not have been able
to participate in the same demonstration.
There are probably more people in the anti-globalization
movement attracted to the movements culture and
organizational structure than to anarchism as a worldview.
Nevertheless anarchism is attractive as an alternative to
the version of radicalism associated with the Old Left and
the Soviet Union. Many activists in the anti-globalization
movement do not see the working class as the leading force
for social change. Movement activists associate anarchism
with militant, angry protest, with grassroots, leaderless
democracy, and with a vision of loosely linked small-scale
communities. Those activists who identify with anarchism are
usually anti-capitalist; among these, some would also call
themselves socialists (presumably of the libertarian
variety), some would not. Anarchism has the mixed advantage
of being rather vague in terms of its proscriptions for a
better society, and also of a certain intellectual fuzziness
that allows it to incorporate both Marxisms protest against
class exploitation, and liberalisms outrage at the
violation of individual rights. I spoke with one
anti-globalization activist who described the anarchism of
many movement activists as liberalism on steroidsthat is,
they are in favor of liberal values, human rights, free
speech, diversityand militantly so.
The main target of the anti-globalization movement is
corporate power, not capitalism, but these perspectives do
not necessarily exclude one another. Some activists want
regulation of the corporations, forcing them to comply with
human and environmental rights; some want corporations
abolished. These aims are not necessarily incompatible.
Depending on how one defines the limitations to be imposed
on corporations, the line between regulation and abolition
can evaporate. There are activists in the movement,
especially among the more radical, younger people, for whom
the ultimate target is capitalism. In the late sixties many
of the radical activists who adopted one or another version
of Marxism were unwilling to entertain ideas that did not
fit a socialist perspective. The radical activists in the
anti-globalization movement tend to have a more fluid
approach to ideology. Despite their preferences for
anarchist forms of organization, and the anarchist visions
some hold of a future society, they are likely to read
Marxist-oriented accounts of global political economy. The
decentralized form of the movement and its commitment to
leaving room for a range of perspectives allows for a
certain flexibility of perspective. Activists may vacillate
between various outlooks, remain ambivalent, or combine
elements of anarchism, Marxism, and liberalism. This can
lead to ideological creativity. It can also lead to a habit
of holding various positions simultaneously which, if more
rigorously examined, would prove incompatible.
The most heated debate within the movement is over the
question of violence. The debate over violence within the
anti-globalization movement in the United States concerns
violence toward property, and the danger of inciting police
violence. In Seattle, groups of black-clad young people, who
later identified themselves as the Black Bloc, smashed
windows and destroyed property of corporate targets within
the downtown area over which protesters and police were
vying for control. These attacks took the organizers of the
protest by surprise, and, provoked more police violence
against protesters generally. Some nonviolent protesters
tried to restrain those smashing windows. In the wake of the
demonstration some protesters condemned the violence,
arguing that it discredited the movement as a whole and that
tactics should be decided democratically, not by small
groups acting autonomously. Others argued that window
smashing, and the police violence that it provoked, had
brought the attention of the media and given the
demonstration a prominence that it would not have otherwise
had. In subsequent demonstrations the Black Bloc and others
with similar approaches have become more integrated into the
movement and have modulated their actions, while some others
have become more willing to accept some violence against
property.
The fact that there is no section of the anti-globalization
movement in the United States that defends or routinely
engages in violence against people distinguishes the U.S.
movement from the movement in Europe. Demonstrations in
Prague and other European cities have included attacks on
policemen, and such attacks have come to be expected as a
part of any major mobilization of the movement.
In the context of the debate about violence in the United
States, within which violence against people is excluded,
the differences between the advocates of violence and those
who are willing to countenance violence under certain
circumstances are not clear-cut. In the early eighties
activists, especially religious activists, did things like
attempting to damage missiles as part of nonviolent direct
action. Destruction of property can be part of a nonviolent
politics. During the Vietnam War, pacifists and former
Catholic priests Daniel and Philip Berrigan led raids on
draft centers, destroying draft files by pouring blood on
them and, in one instance, by the use of homemade napalm. In
the eighties the Berrigans and other Christian pacifists, in
a series of Ploughshares Actions, invaded arms-producing
plants and attacked missiles with hammers and bare hands. It
seems to me that the importance of the current debate over
violence, in the anti-globalization movement, lies less in
whether or not the opponents of violence to property
prevail, and more in what kind of ethical guidelines the
movement sets for itself. What is important is whether the
movement establishes an image of expressing rage for its own
sake, or of acting according to an ethical vision.
5.
The traditional socialist left in the United States now
mostly consists of several magazines and journals, a few
annual conferences, a small number of intellectuals. Hope
for the revival of the left appears to lie with the
anti-globalization movement and the young radical activists
at its core. There are reasons to fear that the
anti-globalization movement may not be able to broaden in
the way that this would require. A swarm of mosquitoes is
good for harassment, for disrupting the smooth operation of
power and thus making it visible. But there are probably
limits to the numbers of people willing to take on the role
of the mosquito. A movement capable of transforming
structures of power will have to involve alliances, many of
which will probably require more stable and lasting forms of
organization than now exist within the anti-globalization
movement. The absence of such structures is one of the
reasons for the reluctance of many people of color to become
involved in the anti-globalization movement. Though the
anti-globalization movement has developed good relations
with many trade union activists, it is hard to imagine a
firm alliance between labor and the anti-globalization
movement without firmer structures of decision-making and
accountability than now exist. An alliance among the
anti-globalization movement and organizations of color, and
labor, would require major political shifts within the
latter. But it would also probably require some relaxation
of anti-bureaucratic and anti-hierarchical principles on the
part of activists in the anti-globalization movement.
For several decades radicalism has been at low ebb in the
United States, present in innumerable organizing projects
but lacking focus and momentum. The anti-globalization
movement provides focus and momentum, and holds out more
hope for a revival of the left than any other movement has
over the last two decades. The radical ideology that
prevails among its core activists represents a soft and
fluid form of anarchism. It is open to Marxist political
economy, prefers small-scale communities but does not
necessarily rule out the need for larger ones as well, is
suspicious of structures of authority, especially the state,
but does not necessarily deny the need for state power in
some form. Actually existing anarchism has changed and so
has actually existing Marxism. Marxists who participated
in the movements of the sixties tend to have a sharper
appreciation of the importance of social and cultural
equality, and of living according to our values in the
present, than did many members of previous generations of
Marxist activists. If a new paradigm of the left emerges
from the struggle against neoliberalism and the
transnational corporate order, it is likely to include
elements of anarchist sensibility as well as of Marxist
analysis.
* I am indebted to John Sanbonmatsu in my discussion of the
expressive politics of the sixties.
BARBARA EPSTEIN teaches in the History of Consciousness
Department at UC Santa Cruz and is working on a book on the
underground movement in the ghetto in Minsk, Belarus, during
the Second World War. She is the author of Political Protest
and Cultural Revolution: Nonviolent Direct Action in the
1970s and 1980s (University of California Press, 1991). She
would like to thank John J. Simon for his careful reading of
several drafts of this article, and for editing suggestions
which clarified and strengthened it.
--
Dan Clore
mailto:cl...@columbia-center.org
Lord We˙rdgliffe:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/necpage.htm
News for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
"It's a political statement -- or, rather, an
*anti*-political statement. The symbol for *anarchy*!"
-- Batman, explaining the circle-A graffiti, in
_Detective Comics_ #608
Stan Rothwell
"Dan Clore" <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message
news:3B94D6D5...@columbia-center.org...
> News for Anarchists & Activists:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
>
> Anarchism and the Anti-Globalization Movement
>
> by Barbara Epstein, Monthly Review
>
> Many among todays young radical activists, especially those
> at the center of the anti-globalization and anti-corporate
> movements, call themselves anarchists. But the
> intellectual/philosophical perspective that holds sway in
> these circles might be better described as an anarchist
> sensibility than as anarchism per se.
They are merely socialists/communists under a different
name. End of story.
> (rest of your diatribe snipped for bandwidth)
Jeff Thompson
a system to work. The anarchists of today do not want any system. Part of
the percieved problem is that all systems have failed. Communism was turned
into a fascist state, the socialist experiments in Europer were cripled by
economic factors and the capitalism of the west has decreased their
percieved options of individuals. So the argument has become that no system
can work because of human control factors, if you have no system and work
only with the people directly it gets rid of this.
I don't agree with the anarchists of today or yesterday, because I believe
for a form of society to exist that allievates the problems described their
need to be direct checks and balances to the chaning and fickle moods of the
masses.
But I think your comment is very wrong. Because their is a growing
anarchist movement and that movement is definitely not socialist or
communist.
Jeff Thompson
je...@nolovelost.cc
http://www.nolovelost.cc
http://www.mp3.com/nolovelost_usa
http://www.mp3.com/ninthwave
"Stan Rothwell" <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:9n4aka$1b5$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
G*rd*n
| ...
| anarchist movement and that movement is definitely not socialist or
| communist.
Except for those who are going to go back to hunting and
gathering, though, it's likely that there's going to be some
kind of large-scale system of economic interactions. One
assumes anarchists would favor some kind of self-organized
system, as opposed to one managed by an elite and imposed by
State power like capitalism as we know it. But what would
that be like? According to the article that begins this
thread, many people have a sensibility rather than an explicit
idea. That is, they reject domination and subjugation --
hence, in the view of authoritarians, they're "communists"
and "socialists" -- but they don't know what they're going to
put in its place yet.
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 8/30/01 <-adv't
redrum
>
>"Jeff Thompson" <jeffthomps...@mindspring.com>:
>| ...
>| But I think your comment is very wrong. Because their is a growing
>| anarchist movement and that movement is definitely not socialist or
>| communist.
>| ...
>
>Except for those who are going to go back to hunting and
>gathering, though, it's likely that there's going to be some
>kind of large-scale system of economic interactions. One
>assumes anarchists would favor some kind of self-organized
>system, as opposed to one managed by an elite and imposed by
>State power like capitalism as we know it. But what would
>that be like? According to the article that begins this
>thread, many people have a sensibility rather than an explicit
>idea. That is, they reject domination and subjugation --
>hence, in the view of authoritarians, they're "communists"
>and "socialists" -- but they don't know what they're going to
>put in its place yet.
I'm in favor of what I call a "no profit free market". A free market can
be naturally occuring economic transactions involving represented value
such as money. But instead of the drive for profit, any excess money
involved in transactions would be invested back into the economy. This
means that any money above what is needed to fulfill needs would go back
into solid economic growth, such as investment in infrastructure,
invention, and improvement of living conditions instead of illusory
economic growth such as is represented by consumer spending. An economy
based on conspicuous consumption is inherently unstable. But a free
market economy based on continuous improvement of its social and
industrial (including agriculture and knowledge) base will not only be
stable but have the possibility of tremendous improvement of human
living standards that state socialists always promised but their command
economies could never deliver.
Stan Rothwell
"Jeff Thompson" <jeffthomps...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:9n7mcu$mo7$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
> Hmm not really socialism does need a system to work and communism does
need
> a system to work. The anarchists of today do not want any system.
Why do they assume that merely because they don't want
a system (supposedly) that one won't develop? Nature
abhors a vacuum. One of the classic misunderstandings
held by many malcontents is that 'systems' are some
arbitrary construct of some repressive ruling class, when
in fact systems may be self-ordering, w/o any deliberate
design or intent. The idea that a society can function w/o
a "system" is really an indication of their sophistry...
> Part of the percieved problem is that all systems have failed.
They have? Capitalism has worked pretty damn well,
despite those who don't like the fact that they can't
dictate outcomes based on their own feelings... :O|
Alexander Russell
news:tpgh166...@corp.supernews.com...
profit to improve 'infrastructure', I don't think I should be expected or
forced to contribute.
Who decides what is "conspicuous consumption" vs a nice standard of living?
Everyone should be be free to spend what they earn as they want. Education
is the only valid way to influence this spending.
Alex.
Roger Johansson
> the percieved problem is that all systems have failed. Communism was
turned
> into a fascist state, the socialist experiments in Europer were cripled by
> economic factors and the capitalism of the west has decreased their
> percieved options of individuals. So the argument has become that no
> system
Urthman" wrote:
> But memetics views ideas, not specifically 'like' a virus (as in an
> analogy), but actually as a virus, that infects the person who, without
> choice, changes and becomes something different. The tool used to express
> the idea; the virus, suggests that one who shares information is infecting
> their audience with a disease.
>
> Personally, I would think 'nutrient' might be a 'nicer' term - perhaps
not -
> nutrients aren't necessarily shared.
I agree. The thought of ideas or knowledge as something negative and
dangerous is very similar to the type of resistance to new ideas which say:
"All visions have led to catastrophies."
This is basically a conservative idea, that we should not try to make the
world better, or even think about changing it. Everything is fine as it is.
This kind of conservative-ism was used by the church when it had the power,
and it is used by the capitalists today against all alternatives to their
rule.
> The rest of what I had written was not to debate a point you made,
It sounded very much like that.
But I understand now that you where debating with the memetics enthusiasts.
Okay, then I agree with what you were saying towards them.
See you.
Roger J.
Meme is a new and fancy word for what we usually call "an idea", or "a
concept".
In science and technology we often use the word "model" instead.
Every word is a model, an idea, a concept.
But also more complex ideas, like how to drive a car, or the workers
movement or the need for physical intimacy are ideas, models,
concepts.
Mothers love. Isn't she cute?
Everything you can think, with or without words, are ideas, memes,
models, concepts.
Ideas can be contagious, or dangerous, or both.
Ideas can also be useless, useful, good or bad, engaging or boring.
Ideas is what enabled us to use fire.
Or build spaceships.
We have very big brains. Science tells us that our brains were developed to
help us cooperate with other people, social needs made our brains grow.
Animals who live alone do not develop big brains.
Evolution has given us big brains to enable us to cooperate.
As a byproduct we can easier find scientific and technological ways to
enhance our comfort and life quality.
We can also discuss how we want the society to work, and take over our
society from the ones who have been given powerful positions from historical
reasons.
As long as we don't take control of our world somebody else will have the
control.
We can be masters of our history, we do not have to be slaves of the
historical development.
Utopia Now! http://utopianow.cjb.net
.....
G*rd*n
"redrum" <na...@na.da> wrote in message
| > I'm in favor of what I call a "no profit free market". A free market can
| > be naturally occuring economic transactions involving represented value
| > such as money. But instead of the drive for profit, any excess money
| > involved in transactions would be invested back into the economy. This
| > means that any money above what is needed to fulfill needs would go back
| > into solid economic growth, such as investment in infrastructure,
| > invention, and improvement of living conditions instead of illusory
| > economic growth such as is represented by consumer spending. An economy
| > based on conspicuous consumption is inherently unstable. But a free
| > market economy based on continuous improvement of its social and
| > industrial (including agriculture and knowledge) base will not only be
| > stable but have the possibility of tremendous improvement of human
| > living standards that state socialists always promised but their command
| > economies could never deliver.
"Alexander Russell" <alexande...@telus.com>:
| Once I make my profit, it might be nice if I volunteer to give some of my
| profit to improve 'infrastructure', I don't think I should be expected or
| forced to contribute.
|
| Who decides what is "conspicuous consumption" vs a nice standard of living?
|
| Everyone should be be free to spend what they earn as they want. Education
| is the only valid way to influence this spending.
Y'all don't have enough stuff yet? It seems to me that
anarchists would want to organize the economy primarily to
produce freedom, not stuff.
Jeff Thompson
But that is contrary to the comments I was responding to.
I am personally for more power for individuals over governments and
economics but logically for me this requires a structure that can balance
excess in the system. The masses left to do their own have created horrors
worse than most of the governments. Though I must agree that the current
state of economic and democratic systems are not functioning because of a
lack of balance between individual, corporate and government rights.
Jeff Thompson
je...@nolovelost.cc
http://www.nolovelost.cc
http://www.mp3.com/nolovelost_usa
http://www.mp3.com/ninthwave
"Stan Rothwell" <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:9n9jh8$nfu$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
Stan Rothwell
"Roger Johansson" <roge...@SoftHome.net> wrote in message
news:9na57s$66mi0$1...@ID-86336.news.dfncis.de...
David James Polewka
>I agree. The thought of ideas or knowledge as something negative and
>dangerous is very similar to the type of resistance to new ideas which say:
>
>"All visions have led to catastrophies."
>
>This is basically a conservative idea, that we should not try to make the
>world better, or even think about changing it. Everything is fine as it is.
>
>This kind of conservative-ism was used by the church when it had the power,
>and it is used by the capitalists today against all alternatives to their
>rule.
No, you're thinking of the *corporatists*--the ones who buy political
influence in order to gain unfair advantage over their competitors.
They want to institutionalize things. OTOH, the *capitalists* love change.
It invigorates them.
redrum
That was my point. The economy should be organized in such a way that
the goal of the economy is to reinvest and improve itself, not to
produce stuff that people only use for a few years then throw away. The
insatiable capitalist desire for stuff has raped our natural
environment, drastically depleting resources while creating mountains of
garbage that foul the landscape. Note that inherent in what Alexander
Russell wrote is that the economy should be geared toward spending, like
it is now. I say that a free market economy would work better if it was
geared toward investment, not spending. This is not "deciding what to
*spend* your money on", but a totally different free market economic
structure, where investment is automatic, just like spending is now.
Stan Rothwell
"G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:9naa1q$56a$1...@panix2.panix.com...
Who are you (or anyone else) to judge that?
> It seems to me that anarchists would want to organize the economy
WARNING! CONTRADICTION ALERT!
(sound of idiot so-called 'anarchist's brain imploding...)
Stan Rothwell
"redrum" <na...@na.da> wrote in message
The economy already DOES that, but the problem is that
you socialists don't like the results...
redrum
roth...@ix.netcom.com says...
You're not getting it (not suprisingly). Today's economy is organized
towards "investing" in consumer spending. Two thirds of the economy is
based on consumer spending. But this type of investing is an illusion in
the end, since the stuff produced by the economy lasts only a few years,
and then is junked. So we have resources going overwhelmingly towards
producing "investments" which are rendered worthless within a short
period of time and which we have no way of reusing most of (people are
told to recycle cans to feel good, but what about all that
indestructible plastic in practically everything?) Are you really too
dumb to see that this sort of economy is not sustainable in the long
run? Ok, here's the bottom line: what we need is a long term oriented
economy, instead of a short term oriented economy.
Tell you what: go read The Overspent American by Juliet Schor,
especially the last chapter, and get back to me. It's NOT a political
tract, it's an evaluation by a capitalist economist of the short term
economy we have now and how ruinous it is to our society and our planet.
redrum
roth...@ix.netcom.com says...
It's not a "judgement", it's a FACT. Look up how we have drastically
depleted our natural resources and fouled the ecosystem for CENTURIES to
come. Maybe epa.gov would be a good place to start. dieoff.org makes
extreme conclusions, but the underlying science is valid.
>
>> It seems to me that anarchists would want to organize the economy
>
>WARNING! CONTRADICTION ALERT!
>
>(sound of idiot so-called 'anarchist's brain imploding...)
I see that you don't realize that our current conspicuous consumption
economy was CREATED, deliberately, in the early part of the 20th
century by capitalist barons who wanted to absorb industrial output. If
they had structured the economy differently, they could have absorbed
that output without resorting to mass consumption by the masses.
redrum
imb...@mindspring.com says...
But in practice, "capitalist" has come to take on the first of the two
definitions you listed.
G*rd*n
| >Y'all don't have enough stuff yet? It seems to me that
| >anarchists would want to organize the economy primarily to
| >produce freedom, not stuff.
na...@na.da (redrum):
| That was my point. The economy should be organized in such a way that
| the goal of the economy is to reinvest and improve itself, not to
| produce stuff that people only use for a few years then throw away. The
| insatiable capitalist desire for stuff has raped our natural
| environment, drastically depleting resources while creating mountains of
| garbage that foul the landscape. Note that inherent in what Alexander
| Russell wrote is that the economy should be geared toward spending, like
| it is now. I say that a free market economy would work better if it was
| geared toward investment, not spending. This is not "deciding what to
| *spend* your money on", but a totally different free market economic
| structure, where investment is automatic, just like spending is now.
But, see, markets are about _stuff_. If you want freedom
instead of stuff, you have to minimize the amount of time
and effort you have to spend dealing with stuff, unless, of
course, stuff is your bag -- you just enjoy it for itself.
For those who are interested in other things, stuff is just
something you get over on the way to get where's you're
going -- like, if you want to play in a string quartet you
have to have your viola and a bus token to get to the place
where the quartet is practicing. So, I would think, to
maximize freedom, you (anyone) would want to join with
others in some kind of communal or communistic enterprise
where the basic stuff would be produced at minimal cost as
close to the recipients as possible. Markets don't tend to
work this way -- they tend to have a life of their own. In
a society not oriented toward stuff, I believed they'd be
pretty peripheral -- about as important as the Sunday flea
market.
See what I mean? The market comes out of the very surplus
that slavery produced.
redrum
Interesting ideas. But how would a communal economy work on a large
scale? Or should we split up the economy into small groups, much like
anarchy aims for politically? If so, then everybody would have to be a
generalist. This leads into something I've been thinking about-a culture
of "technological primitivism", where the only technology that survives
is that which can be easily dealt with by everybody. Most people still
don't know how computers work (or how to work one) but most people, with
the right training, could fix a Model T or a tube radio. This would be a
nice compromise between the lets return to the Stone Age people and
those who are leery of living in caves.
Matt
wrote:
> But, see, markets are about _stuff_. If you want freedom
> instead of stuff, you have to minimize the amount of time
> and effort you have to spend dealing with stuff, unless, of
> course, stuff is your bag -- you just enjoy it for itself.
Freedom presumably includes the freedom to do the things you enjoy doing
and to get the things you enjoy having. But doing and getting these
things require stuff. So even if your goal is not to get more stuff
simply for the sake of having more, you still will probably want more
stuff in order to exercise your freedom. As you say:
> For those who are interested in other things, stuff is just
> something you get over on the way to get where's you're
> going -- like, if you want to play in a string quartet you
> have to have your viola and a bus token to get to the place
> where the quartet is practicing. So, I would think, to
> maximize freedom, you (anyone) would want to join with
> others in some kind of communal or communistic enterprise
> where the basic stuff would be produced at minimal cost as
> close to the recipients as possible.
You seriously underestimate the importance of markets here. Worse
still, you provide no alternative description of the institutions for
producing and allocating stuff.
If I want to get a bus ride to where the string quartet is playing,
where does the bus come from? What causes laborers to assemble all that
plastic, rubber, and steel into a bus? What causes the person behind
the wheel to decide to drive a bus along a predictable route that day?
> Markets don't tend to
> work this way -- they tend to have a life of their own.
People often refer to markets in an abstract sense, "let the market
decide," but this is shorthand for complex interactions between people
that result in exchanges taking place.
For example, if we say "let the market decide if pornography should be
sold," that doesn't mean there is some Market God up in the sky making
the decision. It means if there are people willing to give up something
of value in exhange for porn, that will induce potential porn suppliers
to produce and sell it to them.
Furthermore, although imperfect, the market is the best mechanism known
for coordinating economic exchange. What makes you think your
"communistic enterprise" will produce things less costly?
redrum
ma...@anarchomail.com says...
The investment based economy I have been describing could be said to
still be about "stuff", just a different kind of stuff. Instead of
maximizing production of nondurable stuff (the stuff that gets thrown in
landfills because it breaks or they don't like it anymore) and
minimizing production of durable stuff (education, infrastructure,
research and development) it will be the other way around. Of course
nondurable stuff will still be needed-teachers will still need pencils
and desks, highway builders will still need their asphalt, concrete, and
the machinery to lay it, and scientists will still need their
machinery. But the end result of an investment based economy is durable
stuff-people who are educated instead of indoctrinated, streets without
potholes, undreamed of cures and inventions. The end result of our
current economy is cars that wear out in 10 years, clocks that die in 5,
and so on. See the difference? I'm not alone here-this general theory
has been around for 10 years or so, but so far an Adam Smith or John
Maynard Keynes hasn't come forward to codify it.
Alexander Russell
only people who volunteer to follow your plan, will follow your plan. The
selfish consumers who are only concerned with getting the next gadget will
be free to do just that. You can't force anyone to follow any particular
plan under anarchy. The only just way to get people to follow your plan is
through peaceful education.
I happen to agree with you that many people get too caught up in getting the
latest gadget. The success of capitalism has solved the production problem
(would there be a car shortage if, for example, one of the big 3 car makers
folded tommorow), and a lot of effort does go into convincing people to keep
on consuming, to keep everyone employed making all that stuff we consume -
rinse and repeat.
Alex.
G*rd*n
| >| >Y'all don't have enough stuff yet? It seems to me that
| >| >anarchists would want to organize the economy primarily to
| >| >produce freedom, not stuff.
na...@na.da (redrum):
| >| That was my point. The economy should be organized in such a way that
| >| the goal of the economy is to reinvest and improve itself, not to
| >| produce stuff that people only use for a few years then throw away.
| The
| >| insatiable capitalist desire for stuff has raped our natural
| >| environment, drastically depleting resources while creating mountains
| of
| >| garbage that foul the landscape. Note that inherent in what Alexander
| >| Russell wrote is that the economy should be geared toward spending,
| like
| >| it is now. I say that a free market economy would work better if it
| was
| >| geared toward investment, not spending. This is not "deciding what to
| >| *spend* your money on", but a totally different free market economic
| >| structure, where investment is automatic, just like spending is now.
g...@panix.com says...
| >But, see, markets are about _stuff_. If you want freedom
| >instead of stuff, you have to minimize the amount of time
| >and effort you have to spend dealing with stuff, unless, of
| >course, stuff is your bag -- you just enjoy it for itself.
| >For those who are interested in other things, stuff is just
| >something you get over on the way to get where's you're
| >going -- like, if you want to play in a string quartet you
| >have to have your viola and a bus token to get to the place
| >where the quartet is practicing. So, I would think, to
| >maximize freedom, you (anyone) would want to join with
| >others in some kind of communal or communistic enterprise
| >where the basic stuff would be produced at minimal cost as
| >close to the recipients as possible. Markets don't tend to
| >work this way -- they tend to have a life of their own. In
| >a society not oriented toward stuff, I believed they'd be
| >pretty peripheral -- about as important as the Sunday flea
| >market.
| >
| >See what I mean? The market comes out of the very surplus
| >that slavery produced.
na...@na.da (redrum):
| Interesting ideas. But how would a communal economy work on a large
| scale? Or should we split up the economy into small groups, much like
| anarchy aims for politically? If so, then everybody would have to be a
| generalist. This leads into something I've been thinking about-a culture
| of "technological primitivism", where the only technology that survives
| is that which can be easily dealt with by everybody. Most people still
| don't know how computers work (or how to work one) but most people, with
| the right training, could fix a Model T or a tube radio. This would be a
| nice compromise between the lets return to the Stone Age people and
| those who are leery of living in caves.
Actually, I've found automobiles, including the Model T,
trickier to deal with than computers. But in any case, the
next stage after the formation of local communes (or whatever
you want to call them) would be cooperation on a local scale,
probably along the lines of "Parecon". One would have to
experiment with various arrangements. People don't seem to
be up to this level yet, however. I've noted before that,
because communes and the like do not produce pathologically
large surpluses, they are unlikely to expand as rapidly as
enterprises that do. We're a long way from being out of the
woods because the average citizen still believes that having
and getting more stuff, no matter how much you have already,
is the key to happiness and an emblem of virtue. So there's
a huge pull towards sucking everything and everybody up into
the "global work machine". Oddly, even people who know better
seem to be influenced, although they could start living in
the new world at any time (and in fact, some of them have).
G*rd*n
| > instead of stuff, you have to minimize the amount of time
| > and effort you have to spend dealing with stuff, unless, of
| > course, stuff is your bag -- you just enjoy it for itself.
Matt <ma...@anarchomail.com>:
| Freedom presumably includes the freedom to do the things you enjoy doing
| and to get the things you enjoy having. But doing and getting these
| things require stuff. So even if your goal is not to get more stuff
| simply for the sake of having more, you still will probably want more
| stuff in order to exercise your freedom. ...
Well, that _is_ a possible problem. People, generally,
fetishize stuff (and money, the pure elixir of stuffness)
which is the other side of fetishizing scarcity. The primary
source of scarcity/surplus is slavery, people working for
someone else and making stuff they don't want and can't use.
Certainly, stuff-fetishists have to be free to pursue happiness
just like everyone else, but if everyone is like that, we're
not going to ever be able to evolve a free society or avoid
the catastrophe which master- slave culture makes certain --
the global work machine being a positive-feedback mechanism.
Those who want freedom need to evolve at least local
mechanisms to provide it. That is, if they're serious about
their desires.
Matt
wrote:
> The investment based economy I have been describing could be said to
> still be about "stuff", just a different kind of stuff. Instead of
> maximizing production of nondurable stuff (the stuff that gets thrown in
> landfills because it breaks or they don't like it anymore) and
> minimizing production of durable stuff (education, infrastructure,
> research and development) it will be the other way around. Of course
> nondurable stuff will still be needed-teachers will still need pencils
> and desks, highway builders will still need their asphalt, concrete, and
> the machinery to lay it, and scientists will still need their
> machinery. But the end result of an investment based economy is durable
> stuff-people who are educated instead of indoctrinated, streets without
> potholes, undreamed of cures and inventions. The end result of our
> current economy is cars that wear out in 10 years, clocks that die in 5,
> and so on. See the difference? I'm not alone here-this general theory
> has been around for 10 years or so, but so far an Adam Smith or John
> Maynard Keynes hasn't come forward to codify it.
You have said a lot without saying anything. You've just claimed your
magical new economy will be much better than a capitalist economy. You
haven't said how. You haven't explained a method for producing roads
immune to frost heaves, or mechanical devices that last indefinitely
despite their moving parts. You haven't explained why your preferred
institutions will be likely to develop such things while capitalist
institutions will not.
Nor have you proven that a capitalist economy is geared to minimizing
what you call "durable" goods. As you admit, there is still a need for
"non-durable" goods, so what grounds have you for deciding the proper
proportion of "durable" and "non-durable" goods.
Incidentally, my car is 11 years old and doing pretty well (knock on
wood), and I have a General Electric clock radio that's also lasted me
over ten years. Hint: if your clock dies, it may be time to replace the
battery.
It's true that car makers want to sell more cars, but if one tries to
sell a car that really wears out in 5 years, it will lose business to
competitors who provide their customers more value. Similarly with
clocks; it almost seems as if your objections to capitalism spring from
an inability to spot a good value.
Stan Rothwell
"redrum" <na...@na.da> wrote in
> >> It seems to me that anarchists would want to organize the economy
> >
> >WARNING! CONTRADICTION ALERT!
> >
> >(sound of idiot so-called 'anarchist's brain imploding...)
>
> I see that you don't realize that our current conspicuous consumption
> economy was CREATED, deliberately, in the early part of the 20th
> century by capitalist barons who wanted to absorb industrial output.
Bullshit. Conspicuos consumption has been around for
millennia. If you don't believe me, go do some research
on Ancient Rome, Athens, Egypt, and India, and you
will see that the desire to acquire and display wealth has
been around since the beginning of mankind. Even in
primitive cultures, status is often identified by personal
ornamentation that could hardly be describes as
utilitarian. As usual, the bimbettes unquestioningly
swallow the Marxist babble hook, line, and sinker,
without any critical thought as to whether it makes
any sense or not.
As far as your babblings about "capitalist barons", has
it ever occurred to you that there was a jump in personal
luxury items in the early 20th Century NOT because
there was never a desire for luxuries, but because a
growing industrial economy allowed the standard of
living to be raised to the point that a significantly large
portion of the economy could now afford to acquire
some luxury goods? At the same time, the economies
of industrialization not only allowed goods to be
produced at a significantly lower cost than by previous
methods, but combined with new technology, allowed
items that were previously unavailable to anyone to
be available to the populace in general. Phonographs,
radios, electrically driven appliances, and toys (the
electric train set in particular) were now available to
brighten the lives of the masses. Only a bitter, resentful
socialist with no real understanding of economics
would consider this to be something bad.
> they had structured the economy differently, they could have absorbed
> that output without resorting to mass consumption by the masses.
Funny, but one moment capitalism is decried because
it supposedly deprives the masses, then it is criticized
for allowing the same masses to have goods and
pleasures previously reserved for the wealthy and
influential. Is your real resentment of capitalism is
that it doesn't allow malcontents like you to dictate
how others make economic decisions and live their
lives? All the evidence points to such...
G*rd*n
| > >
| > >WARNING! CONTRADICTION ALERT!
| > >
| > >(sound of idiot so-called 'anarchist's brain imploding...)
"redrum" <na...@na.da> wrote in
| > I see that you don't realize that our current conspicuous consumption
| > economy was CREATED, deliberately, in the early part of the 20th
| > century by capitalist barons who wanted to absorb industrial output.
"Stan Rothwell" <roth...@ix.netcom.com>:
| Bullshit. Conspicuos consumption has been around for
| millennia. If you don't believe me, go do some research
| on Ancient Rome, Athens, Egypt, and India, and you
| will see that the desire to acquire and display wealth has
| been around since the beginning of mankind. Even in
| primitive cultures, status is often identified by personal
| ornamentation that could hardly be describes as
| utilitarian. ...
There's a considerable difference between conspicuous
possession, which was certainly an aspect of the slave
societies you mention, and conspicuous consumption, which
couldn't get going until the Industrial Revolution took
hold, and applies not to the great but the average, middle-
class citizen. And the display of possessions was by no means
universal even in slave societies. On the other hand, vigorous
consumption, conspicuous or not, is critically necessary to
contemporary industrial capitalism to keep the system going,
and so requires an enormous, expensive propaganda machine
and, often enough, various kinds of imposition by the
authorities. It's a completely different sort of thing from
the old-time barbarian chieftains showing off their gold
necklaces. Today, anyone can do that.
James A. Donald
On 8 Sep 2001 21:29:06 -0400, g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
> There's a considerable difference between conspicuous
> possession, which was certainly an aspect of the slave
> societies you mention, and conspicuous consumption, which
> couldn't get going until the Industrial Revolution took hold,
Oh come on: Recollect the infamous Roman feasts, where the
destruction of enormously expensive items was more an objective
than eating decent food.
Recollect the conspicuous wast and destruction of the Potlatch
feasts, where the objective was to demonstrate how much property,
slave labor, and slaves one could waste.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
RQeOakPqDFDUKOhsYBUg+aSIrwZJjiyvE4ziOQKe
4WlowBMdBNyhjofLQA+Mdt0j5t+l4D3dA1wJ0Z7/f
------
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/ James A. Donald
redrum
Posessions have been used to differentiate those with any kind of
authority, be it formal or informal, from those with less for 6000
years. But what we have today is entire societies who attempt to acquire
the posessions of those with authority, thinking in some way that the
*posession* is what the authority flows from. Up until the Industrial
Revolution, it was universally recognized that the PERSON, not the
THING, is what has authority. But in our society that thinking has been
reversed, with authority vested in things instead of people. But what
will happen to our society when we run out of things? Will we become
like the Cargo Cults, worshipping artifacts of the lost civilization as
gods? The one idea that has truly transformed the world was the idea
that "god" (a point of authority) is not a thing but a being, and that
it is the being that has the authority, not the idol. That idea was the
glue that held society together for thousands of years-it's served the
Jews incredibly well through the really strange trip of the last 4000
years-but now it has been abandoned, with gods being things. So
industrial society keeps mass producing modern day idols, promising gods
for every person. The god as being idea has started to break down even
among Jews and Muslims, who expressly prohibit idolatry, and who are
fighting over the Temple Mount as if that little hill was in itself god,
instead of the god being more intangible. We WILL end up like those guys
in Palestine, fighting over things that we believe have authority, while
ignoring true authority. Unless of course we put authority back where it
belongs-on the intangible, the impermanent, the fallible. That in itself
would solve much of our society's problems and be a long ways toward
anarchy.
Stan Rothwell
> | > >> It seems to me that anarchists would want to organize the economy
> | > >
> | > >WARNING! CONTRADICTION ALERT!
> | > >
> | > >(sound of idiot so-called 'anarchist's brain imploding...)
>
> "redrum" <na...@na.da> wrote in
> | > I see that you don't realize that our current conspicuous consumption
> | > economy was CREATED, deliberately, in the early part of the 20th
> | > century by capitalist barons who wanted to absorb industrial output.
>
> "Stan Rothwell" <roth...@ix.netcom.com>:
> | Bullshit. Conspicuos consumption has been around for
> | millennia. If you don't believe me, go do some research
> | on Ancient Rome, Athens, Egypt, and India, and you
> | will see that the desire to acquire and display wealth has
> | been around since the beginning of mankind. Even in
> | primitive cultures, status is often identified by personal
> | ornamentation that could hardly be describes as
> | utilitarian. ...
>
> There's a considerable difference between conspicuous
> possession, which was certainly an aspect of the slave
> societies you mention, and conspicuous consumption, which
> couldn't get going until the Industrial Revolution took
> hold, and applies not to the great but the average, middle-
> class citizen.
Lay off the bullshit, will you? Despite whatever nonsense
your sociology prof. has laid on you, mankind has always
sought to rise above menial existence, acquire items viewed
as luxuries, and even display them as a sign of status.
By all means, the fact that the masses are able to enjoy
priveleged formerly restricted to an elite should be a reason
to celebrate capitalism and industrialism, but socialists seem
to have a problem with societies that won't behave the way
they think they should...
> And the display of possessions was by no means
> universal even in slave societies. On the other hand, vigorous
> consumption, conspicuous or not, is critically necessary to
> contemporary industrial capitalism to keep the system going,
> and so requires an enormous, expensive propaganda machine
> and, often enough, various kinds of imposition by the
> authorities.
Once again, it's not imposition by any authorities that
encourages people to acquire possessions. If anything,
impositions by authorities tend to either prohibit or
confiscate goods, and are therefore socialist in nature.
I don't whether you regurgitate this from some Lefty
Liberal academic, or make it up as you go along,
but you are painfully ignorant of economic reality,
Goron. :O(
G*rd*n
| > There's a considerable difference between conspicuous
| > possession, which was certainly an aspect of the slave
| > societies you mention, and conspicuous consumption, which
| > couldn't get going until the Industrial Revolution took hold,
jam...@echeque.com (James A. Donald):
| Oh come on: Recollect the infamous Roman feasts, where the
| destruction of enormously expensive items was more an objective
| than eating decent food.
|
| Recollect the conspicuous wast and destruction of the Potlatch
| feasts, where the objective was to demonstrate how much property,
| slave labor, and slaves one could waste.
Well, yes, but these were special occasions, were they not?
And I don't think there were quite as many orgies in Rome as
the cold, hungry monks and peasants of the Dark Ages chose
to imagine. The idea that everyone should spend their lives
constantly acquiring and using up large amounts of stuff is
pretty recent.
G*rd*n
|>|>>WARNING! CONTRADICTION ALERT!
|>|>>
|>|>>(sound of idiot so-called 'anarchist's brain imploding...)
"redrum" <na...@na.da> wrote in
|>|> I see that you don't realize that our current conspicuous consumption
|>|> economy was CREATED, deliberately, in the early part of the 20th
|>|> century by capitalist barons who wanted to absorb industrial output.
"Stan Rothwell" <roth...@ix.netcom.com>:
|>| Bullshit. Conspicuos consumption has been around for
|>| millennia. If you don't believe me, go do some research
|>| on Ancient Rome, Athens, Egypt, and India, and you
|>| will see that the desire to acquire and display wealth has
|>| been around since the beginning of mankind. Even in
|>| primitive cultures, status is often identified by personal
|>| ornamentation that could hardly be describes as
|>| utilitarian. ...
"G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com>:
|> There's a considerable difference between conspicuous
|> possession, which was certainly an aspect of the slave
|> societies you mention, and conspicuous consumption, which
|> couldn't get going until the Industrial Revolution took
|> hold, and applies not to the great but the average, middle-
|> class citizen.
"Stan Rothwell" <roth...@ix.netcom.com>:
| Lay off the bullshit, will you? Despite whatever nonsense
| your sociology prof. has laid on you, mankind has always
| sought to rise above menial existence, acquire items viewed
| as luxuries, and even display them as a sign of status.
| By all means, the fact that the masses are able to enjoy
| priveleged formerly restricted to an elite should be a reason
| to celebrate capitalism and industrialism, but socialists seem
| to have a problem with societies that won't behave the way
| they think they should...
People who are hooked to the global work machine trying to
acquire more and more stuff are not rising above menial
existence -- just the opposite. We could say "to each his
own", but inevitably the positive-feedback organization of
such a system must cause it to blow up, probably taking much
of its social and physical environment with it. So I wish
to encourage those who prefer freedom to acquisition.
"G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com>:
|> And the display of possessions was by no means
|> universal even in slave societies. On the other hand, vigorous
|> consumption, conspicuous or not, is critically necessary to
|> contemporary industrial capitalism to keep the system going,
|> and so requires an enormous, expensive propaganda machine
|> and, often enough, various kinds of imposition by the
|> authorities.
"Stan Rothwell" <roth...@ix.netcom.com>:
| Once again, it's not imposition by any authorities that
| encourages people to acquire possessions. If anything,
| impositions by authorities tend to either prohibit or
| confiscate goods, and are therefore socialist in nature.
First of all, there's virtually no socialism in the modern
world. Socialism is the ownership or control of the means
of production by the workers or the people in general,
whereas almost all means of production are in the hands of
elites of one sort or another.
States, or more exactly, the elites who govern the states,
force people to acquire and consume in various ways. One
common method is taxes which are used to buy things theoretically
belonging to the people, chiefly for "defense" in the American
case. The material quickly obsolesces or is destroyed by use,
requiring replacement and addition. States also build
infrastructures of various kinds which inspire or require
further consumption: for example, many parts of the United
States have been developed in such a way that it is difficult
or virtually impossible to get around without a car. The car
then becomes the subject of further consumption-requiring
state activity, such as laws and regulations requiring insurance,
and opportunities for police harassment, fines, and fees, to
mention just a few items. Once the cars, being minimally
efficient, jam the roads, new roads must be constructed, and
so on. Besides the overt transactions, such business offers
many opportunities for skimming and graft because the normal
limitations provided by consumer price resistance are short-
circuited.
In my view, the elites who control nominally private
corporations should also be regarded as part of the State,
and their behavior often requires consumption on the part of
other people. For instance, many business have moved their
operations to remote suburban or rural areas, in effect
offloading some of their real estate and regulatory costs
onto their employees who must now drive to the site of work
and pay higher taxes where they live (or move to the area
where the business has moved, and pay taxes there).
"Stan Rothwell" <roth...@ix.netcom.com>:
| I don't whether you regurgitate this from some Lefty
| Liberal academic, or make it up as you go along,
| but you are painfully ignorant of economic reality,
| Goron. :O(
I suggest you deal with the facts I present, rather than
attempt to deprecate my intellectual pedigrees. Everything
I talk about can be observed in daily life, if not in one's
own then in the lives of one's neighbors. All that is
necessary is to wake up, look around, and ask oneself what's
going on and why things are as they are.
| ...
Matt
wrote:
> g...@panix.com (G*rd*n)
> | > But, see, markets are about _stuff_. If you want freedom
> | > instead of stuff, you have to minimize the amount of time
> | > and effort you have to spend dealing with stuff, unless, of
> | > course, stuff is your bag -- you just enjoy it for itself.
>
> Matt <ma...@anarchomail.com>:
> | Freedom presumably includes the freedom to do the things you enjoy doing
> | and to get the things you enjoy having. But doing and getting these
> | things require stuff. So even if your goal is not to get more stuff
> | simply for the sake of having more, you still will probably want more
> | stuff in order to exercise your freedom. ...
>
> Well, that _is_ a possible problem. People, generally,
> fetishize stuff (and money, the pure elixir of stuffness)
> which is the other side of fetishizing scarcity.
Some people are like that, but in my experience the vast majority of
people pursue wealth mainly to finance other, healthier objectives. You
seem to confuse trying to get wealth to pay for things that are
important to you with trying to get wealth merely for the sake of having
more wealth.
Let's imagine, for example, a person who enjoys listening to music,
waterskiing, and rock climbing. If that's all we know about him, we
would surely not describe him as driven by greed; but if he wants to do
the things he enjoys in life, he will probably want a cd player, a boat,
and rock climbing equipment.
Chances are he doesn't have the skills to make these things himself.
And even if he has the skills to build a boat, for example, he probably
does not have the ability to build a cd player. So he needs to find a
way to induce other people to provide them to him. A market economy
makes this possible: he gets a job, makes some money, uses the money to
make it worth their while for boat builders etc. to give him the things
he wants.
It's not clear how else he could accomplish this, short of some kind of
command economy nice enough to permit him resources for personal
leisure. Your solution is apparently to deny that he really needs the
things he thinks he wants, so it is no problem if, in your non-market
economy, those things are unavailable. But it is in fact going to be a
problem for those of us who want more things in life than bare
subsistence.
> The primary
> source of scarcity/surplus is slavery, people working for
> someone else and making stuff they don't want and can't use.
That is not slavery. Slavery occurs where one person owns another, not
where one person works for another making things he doesn't want
himself. How you concluded a division of labor is a form of slavery, I
have no idea.
If people only worked to produce things they personally intended to use,
no kind of advanced society is possible. Are you contending we should
go back to living in grass huts and eating berries? You're free to try
that yourself, but I don't think most people are interested in following
you.
> Certainly, stuff-fetishists have to be free to pursue happiness
> just like everyone else, but if everyone is like that, we're
> not going to ever be able to evolve a free society or avoid
> the catastrophe which master- slave culture makes certain --
> the global work machine being a positive-feedback mechanism.
Your argument is vague and unsupported. We don't have a clear idea of
what a "stuff-fetishist" is, much less why stuff-fetishism is
incompatible with freedom, much less how the "global work machine" is a
positive feedback mechanism.
> Those who want freedom need to evolve at least local
> mechanisms to provide it. That is, if they're serious about
> their desires.
We already have such a mechanism: it is called the market. We know a
lot about markets, when they work well, when they don't.
We don't know anything about the "mechanisms" you speak of. And you
didn't answer my earlier questions about producing buses. It seems as
though you wish to assume these "mechanisms" exist and will function,
but you don't care to think about what they are and whether they are
actually feasible.
It's like an inventor rambling on about flying cars or time machines,
without actually bothering to explain how they could work. "I'll fill
in the details later, just keep the money coming."
Jeff Thompson
And the systems follow the nature of man.
But it doesn't make it right and the scale of it now is very imbalanced.
The question isn't getting rid of it but re educating consumers to make
decisions based on needs not on wants.
It is when resources are spent on wants more than needs that the imbalance
shows its weakness.
The current prodcution model which has pieces manufactured in areas of least
cost and shipped all over the place with farm land being converted to call
centers and distribution centers. Creates a dependence on the structure of
distribution. If the structure of distribution is harmed or challenged the
effects on the price of foods will be amazing. The United States is lucky
that it has its food supplies centralized and well produced. The rest of
the world has been seeing more reliance on food imports as farm land is
shifted to production land. This would be ok if their haven't been cases
where people living on the land have been forced out by the governments in
turn for industry to move in. This revaluation of land and land use right
now is a good business model as long as the fuel and means of transport
goods remains inexpensive. When it does not, this land will become
worthless and the countries that have displaced their farming with industry
will be left out. That is the imbalance. The United States can be isolated
from this because of its size and the resources contained within its
borders. Nigerian people fighting SHell for lands despoiled by oil are the
losers, the Indonesian farmers whose production is under valued lose. Taken
in isolated frames this is ok, the economy is better when farming moves to
production, taken in totality farming is becoming centralized and dependent
for people to retrieve the necessity of food on the supply lines and means
of transportation. I don't think the balance is in fatal levels yet but
would not want to see it reach that point. I am shocked constantly by the
number of countries reforming farming industry because the profit in farming
is not there.
I think I am more worried about the inefficiencies in distribution of goods
and the lack of awareness by first world countries of what is necessity and
what is luxury. This can devalue necessities to the point that free
economics does not want to produce them.
Jeff Thompson
je...@nolovelost.cc
http://www.nolovelost.cc
http://www.mp3.com/nolovelost_usa
http://www.mp3.com/ninthwave
"Stan Rothwell" <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:9nf1n7$dbv$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
G*rd*n
|>|> But, see, markets are about _stuff_. If you want freedom
|>|> instead of stuff, you have to minimize the amount of time
|>|> and effort you have to spend dealing with stuff, unless, of
|>|> course, stuff is your bag -- you just enjoy it for itself.
Matt <ma...@anarchomail.com>:
|>| Freedom presumably includes the freedom to do the things you enjoy doing
|>| and to get the things you enjoy having. But doing and getting these
|>| things require stuff. So even if your goal is not to get more stuff
|>| simply for the sake of having more, you still will probably want more
|>| stuff in order to exercise your freedom. ...
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n)
|> Well, that _is_ a possible problem. People, generally,
|> fetishize stuff (and money, the pure elixir of stuffness)
|> which is the other side of fetishizing scarcity.
Matt <ma...@anarchomail.com>:
| Some people are like that, but in my experience the vast majority of
| people pursue wealth mainly to finance other, healthier objectives. You
| seem to confuse trying to get wealth to pay for things that are
| important to you with trying to get wealth merely for the sake of having
| more wealth.
|
| Let's imagine, for example, a person who enjoys listening to music,
| waterskiing, and rock climbing. If that's all we know about him, we
| would surely not describe him as driven by greed; but if he wants to do
| the things he enjoys in life, he will probably want a cd player, a boat,
| and rock climbing equipment.
|
| Chances are he doesn't have the skills to make these things himself.
| And even if he has the skills to build a boat, for example, he probably
| does not have the ability to build a cd player. So he needs to find a
| way to induce other people to provide them to him. A market economy
| makes this possible: he gets a job, makes some money, uses the money to
| make it worth their while for boat builders etc. to give him the things
| he wants.
|
| It's not clear how else he could accomplish this, short of some kind of
| command economy nice enough to permit him resources for personal
| leisure. Your solution is apparently to deny that he really needs the
| things he thinks he wants, so it is no problem if, in your non-market
| economy, those things are unavailable. But it is in fact going to be a
| problem for those of us who want more things in life than bare
| subsistence.
I agree that if people like things the way they are, they
aren't going to want to hear anything I have to say.
Probably, most people are like that -- they've given up.
It's sort of sad -- it reminds me of one of my dogs. When
she got old she was afraid to go out the door unless I put
the leash on her, even if we were going no further than the
car, poor thing. Her dog nature had been crushed by the
habits of servitude and restraint.
I really don't know what to do about that sort of thing. I
guess I hope there are young people coming along who haven't
been crushed.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n)
| > The primary
| > source of scarcity/surplus is slavery, people working for
| > someone else and making stuff they don't want and can't use.
Matt <ma...@anarchomail.com>:
| That is not slavery. Slavery occurs where one person owns another, not
| where one person works for another making things he doesn't want
| himself. How you concluded a division of labor is a form of slavery, I
| have no idea.
|
| If people only worked to produce things they personally intended to use,
| no kind of advanced society is possible. Are you contending we should
| go back to living in grass huts and eating berries? You're free to try
| that yourself, but I don't think most people are interested in following
| you.
I was thinking of how the scarcity-surplus model got
started in the first place. No, I don't think we should, or
could, to back to grass huts and berries -- unlike our
"primitive" ancestors, we're rather disabled. That's one of
the problems we have to deal with.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n)
| > Certainly, stuff-fetishists have to be free to pursue happiness
| > just like everyone else, but if everyone is like that, we're
| > not going to ever be able to evolve a free society or avoid
| > the catastrophe which master- slave culture makes certain --
| > the global work machine being a positive-feedback mechanism.
Matt <ma...@anarchomail.com>:
| Your argument is vague and unsupported. We don't have a clear idea of
| what a "stuff-fetishist" is, much less why stuff-fetishism is
| incompatible with freedom, much less how the "global work machine" is a
| positive feedback mechanism.
Sure I do. You just haven't read my writings earnestly
enough. It's all been explained many times over. I suppose
I should put it all on a web site so people could memorize
it and gather in small groups to chant it.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n)
| > Those who want freedom need to evolve at least local
| > mechanisms to provide it. That is, if they're serious about
| > their desires.
Matt <ma...@anarchomail.com>:
| We already have such a mechanism: it is called the market. We know a
| lot about markets, when they work well, when they don't.
|
| We don't know anything about the "mechanisms" you speak of. And you
| didn't answer my earlier questions about producing buses. It seems as
| though you wish to assume these "mechanisms" exist and will function,
| but you don't care to think about what they are and whether they are
| actually feasible.
I've given the evolution of such mechanisms a lot of thought.
There's not much use carrying on about them, though, until
more people are interested in them. It doesn't seem like a
big deal, though, which is exactly where it's at variance
with capitalism, where the provision of ordinary goods and
services is this gigantic condundrum eveyone has to be on
about all the time.
| It's like an inventor rambling on about flying cars or time machines,
| without actually bothering to explain how they could work. "I'll fill
| in the details later, just keep the money coming."
Nevertheless, stuff is not freedom, and thus the market
cannot supply it.
Constantinople
Talk about evasion. "They've given up" - given up what? Matt describes
some desires (a person enjoys listening to music, waterskiing, and
rock climbing), and then argues that a market best serves these goals.
The person Matt is describing obviously *has not* given up the
described goals. So from where do you pull "they've given up"?
Obviously you want to imply that they have some - unmentioned - goals,
which you are, one infers, making it your business to pursue on their
behalf. Your only "description" of these goals is vagueness itself
(discarding a leash, escaping servitude and restraint). The comparison
of someone who likes music and rock climbing with a dog who refuses to
leave the house without a leash is bizarre to say the least. I'm sure
you'd like to argue that people today are (somehow) not free, but
unable to, you simply slip it in among the presuppositions of your
argument.
Matt
my server was giving me trouble. Clearly I think Gordon's views are
pretty nutty, but, considering he works in NYC (I think) and does not
seem to be posting, I hope he is still with us. Considering the poor
competition on these groups, we sure need someone to give us target
practice now and then!
In article <9niidl$ql5$1...@panix3.panix.com>, g...@panix.com (G*rd*n)
wrote:
> she got old she was afraid to go out the door...
I say a viable economy must provide the things people want to do to
enjoy life, and you retort that it's sad that so many people have given
up. It's sad to see people resigned to being able to do the things they
want to do (e.g. read books, go rockclimbing, enjoy music), when they
would be so much happier if they couldn't do any of these things. What
kind of sense does that make?
> g...@panix.com (G*rd*n)
> | > The primary
> | > source of scarcity/surplus is slavery, people working for
> | > someone else and making stuff they don't want and can't use.
>
> Matt <ma...@anarchomail.com>:
> | That is not slavery. Slavery occurs where one person owns another, not
> | where one person works for another making things he doesn't want
> | himself. How you concluded a division of labor is a form of slavery, I
> | have no idea.
> |
> | If people only worked to produce things they personally intended to use,
> | no kind of advanced society is possible. Are you contending we should
> | go back to living in grass huts and eating berries? You're free to try
> | that yourself, but I don't think most people are interested in following
> | you.
>
> I was thinking of how the scarcity-surplus model got
> started in the first place.[...]
Ah, but that's not what you said, and I can't read minds.
> g...@panix.com (G*rd*n)
> | > Certainly, stuff-fetishists have to be free to pursue happiness
> | > just like everyone else, but if everyone is like that, we're
> | > not going to ever be able to evolve a free society or avoid
> | > the catastrophe which master- slave culture makes certain --
> | > the global work machine being a positive-feedback mechanism.
>
> Matt <ma...@anarchomail.com>:
> | Your argument is vague and unsupported. We don't have a clear idea of
> | what a "stuff-fetishist" is, much less why stuff-fetishism is
> | incompatible with freedom, much less how the "global work machine" is a
> | positive feedback mechanism.
>
> Sure I do. You just haven't read my writings earnestly
> enough. It's all been explained many times over.
I know. I've read your writings rather earnestly, in fact.
My experience was to read some people with some intelligent-sounding
ideas, ideas which happened to correspond with my general world view.
Without analyzing them more critically, and without giving adequate
attention to competing ideas, I decided that they were the correct
ideas, so I did not have to do much thinking about them. "It's all been
explained many times over." My heresy was to begin questioning the
Truths of socialist thought, and the more I did so, the less socialist I
became, even though my basic values have not changed much.
I asked you to substantiate your argument, but I probably know almost
exactly what you would write. My objection was really to the
trance-like state of your writing. You get so absorded by old Marxist
buzzwords like commodity fetishism, and old explanations you have
written a thousand times, that your posts have a hackneyed feel to them,
almost as if the authors of that Postmodern generator turned their
attention to you to see what they could come up with.
A reader passing through these newsgroups would probably find himself
mystified by your arcane references to stuff-fetishism and positive
feedback loops. But, I hope, they would understand easily my line of
questioning. "I can buy a stereo or a pair of shoes in the marketplace,
so how do I get that stuff in communism? If I collect hundreds of pairs
of women's shoes, that might make me a foot fetishist, but does wanting
one pair of sneakers make me a 'stuff fetishist'"?
> I suppose I should put it all on a web site so people could memorize
> it and gather in small groups to chant it.
You see my point.
> g...@panix.com (G*rd*n)
> | > Those who want freedom need to evolve at least local
> | > mechanisms to provide it. That is, if they're serious about
> | > their desires.
>
> Matt <ma...@anarchomail.com>:
> | We already have such a mechanism: it is called the market. We know a
> | lot about markets, when they work well, when they don't.
> |
> | We don't know anything about the "mechanisms" you speak of. And you
> | didn't answer my earlier questions about producing buses. It seems as
> | though you wish to assume these "mechanisms" exist and will function,
> | but you don't care to think about what they are and whether they are
> | actually feasible.
>
> I've given the evolution of such mechanisms a lot of thought.
> There's not much use carrying on about them, though, until
> more people are interested in them.
I'm interested. That's why I asked. I've seen some ideas on such
mechanisms, but what I've seen has not seemed very attractive.
> It doesn't seem like a
> big deal, though, which is exactly where it's at variance
> with capitalism, where the provision of ordinary goods and
> services is this gigantic condundrum eveyone has to be on
> about all the time.
If abandoning capitalism means we can no longer obtain ordinary goods
and services and have to live in universal poverty, you better believe
we're going to make a fuss about it. So does it mean that, and if not,
why not?
> | It's like an inventor rambling on about flying cars or time machines,
> | without actually bothering to explain how they could work. "I'll fill
> | in the details later, just keep the money coming."
>
> Nevertheless, stuff is not freedom, and thus the market
> cannot supply it.
Markets don't just supply physical stuff, but also services and even
very abstract things: for example, someone once recommended AAA to me
because it supplies "peace of mind." Markets can (and already do to a
limited extent) supply protection from coercion, which is pretty close
to if not the same thing as supplying freedom. Sadly, states manage to
suppress them, which we hope is not a permanent situation.
G*rd*n
| I wrote this post to Gordon yesterday, the 10th, but didn't post because
| my server was giving me trouble. Clearly I think Gordon's views are
| pretty nutty, but, considering he works in NYC (I think) and does not
I'm still around. Fortunately I was late for work (which is
or was about two blocks from the WTC). I haven't posted
anything because panix was down due to loss of power as a
result of the attack.
David James Polewka
>Matt <ma...@anarchomail.com>:
>| I wrote this post to Gordon yesterday, the 10th, but didn't post because
>| my server was giving me trouble. Clearly I think Gordon's views are
>| pretty nutty, but, considering he works in NYC (I think) and does not
>| seem to be posting, I hope he is still with us. ...
>
>I'm still around. Fortunately I was late for work (which is
>or was about two blocks from the WTC). I haven't posted
>anything because panix was down due to loss of power as a
>result of the attack.
Oh look, another corporatist:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/family.html
Origins of the bin Laden family
Today one of the biggest construction groups in the kingdom [of Saudi Arabia] and the
Middle East, the "bin Laden empire" traces its origins to Sheik Mohammed bin Laden, a
native of the Chafeite (Sunni) Hadramout who emigrated [from South Yemen] to Saudi Arabia
at the beginning of the century.
The beginnings of his activity are shrouded in mystery. It is said that, having satisfied
King Abdul Aziz with construction work on the royal palace, Mohammed bin Laden was awarded
a much more prestigious contract: the renovation of Mecca. Whatever the actual
circumstances, it is a fact that the Saudi royal family gave the bin Laden family--and
group--exclusive rights to all construction of a religious nature, whether in Mecca,
Medina or--until 1967--the Holy Places in Jerusalem. This enabled the bin Ladens to
establish an industrial and financial empire which now extends far beyond religious
construction projects.
Chills
na...@na.da (redrum) wrote in message news:<tpio8be...@corp.supernews.com>...
Michael A. Clem
G*rd*n wrote:
> g...@panix.com (G*rd*n)
> |>|> But, see, markets are about _stuff_. If you want freedom
> |>|> instead of stuff, you have to minimize the amount of time
> |>|> and effort you have to spend dealing with stuff, unless, of
> |>|> course, stuff is your bag -- you just enjoy it for itself.
>
> Nevertheless, stuff is not freedom, and thus the market
> cannot supply it.
> --
>
> (<><>) /*/
> }"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
> { http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 8/30/01 <-adv't
A very interesting comment to make, and one that needs a certain amount of
clarification.
Certainly, on the face of it, it makes sense. The more "stuff" you have to deal
with, the less time you have to do other things. My father has been a packrat
to the point of having a house so full of stuff he can't really live in the darn
place. He's making a tremendous effort right now to get rid of things that he
doesn't really need. I myself seem to have "inherited" his packrat tendencies,
but I've mainly limited my "stuff" to books, comics, and music.
There is, of course, the obvious difference (you've probably already pointed
it out yourself) between material things that you need, or even things that are
very useful, compared to things that you really don't need and don't improve
your life. I can speak from personal experience when I say that an automobile
is not something that you strictly "need", but having the use of one is more
than just a luxury or a convenience; it greatly improves one's quality of life.
Another point, though, is the use of the word "freedom", here. This is not in
terms of political liberty, but of a different use of the word. Nobody forced
my father (or me) to collect all the stuff that he doesn't need. Nobody
forcibly prevented him from doing so, either. This was a personal,
self-inflicted restriction on his own life.
So while this comment is related to our personal lives, I don't see how it is
relevant to our political lives, or political theory.
--
--Michael Clem-----------------------------------
I love mankind...It's people I can't stand!
-Linus
--http://macsnafu.freeyellow.com-----------------
Michael A. Clem
David James Polewka wrote:
>
>
> No, you're thinking of the *corporatists*--the ones who buy political
> influence in order to gain unfair advantage over their competitors.
> They want to institutionalize things. OTOH, the *capitalists* love change.
> It invigorates them.
>
>
A nice distinction...
Michael A. Clem
G*rd*n wrote:
It's good to hear that you're all right. I had no idea that you were so close
to it.