The "Anarcho-"Capitalists criticism in your FAQ
Sharon Elizabeth Crowley
gary elkin wrote:
>
> In article <320E6F56...@sol.unizar.es>, Alejandro Rivero
> <riv...@sol.unizar.es> wrote:
>
> >
> Only the name is new. Some have been calling it crypto-fascism
> for quite a while. Actually I think it's more correct to call it simply
> radical laissez-faire capitalism, as "fascism" implies a public state,
> whereas the radical laissez-faire-ists want to privatize the state.
> Other than that, however, their *mentality* has certain fascistic
> elements, e.g. a respect for hierarchy and authoritarianism, and they
> seem to get much of their constituency from the same class the fascists
> drew on in the thirties in Europe: i.e. small businesspeople.
>
> Gary
How do you get "a respect for hierarchy and authoritarianism" as an
element of laissez-faire capitalism? The free market is anything but
hierarchical, and what free mind will submit to authoritarianism?
Laissez-faire capitalists don't want to simply privatize the state, but
to eradicate much of what we now call "the federal government" and let
"the market" decide whether or not the services once provided by the
state are needed via the action of supply and demand. It is silly to
compare small businesspeople in Europe of the early part of this century
with small businesspeople of the U.S., today. I think the mindset then,
and in Europe no less, was very different than the mindset in the U.S.
then or today.
Alejandro Rivero
Tim Starr wrote:
> Alejandro Rivero <riv...@sol.unizar.es> wrote:
> >Tim Starr wrote:
> >> In article <320E6F56...@sol.unizar.es>,
> >> Alejandro Rivero <riv...@sol.unizar.es> wrote:
> >> >Elkin,
> >> >I have seen your criticim on "libertarianism" in your FAQ,
> >> >ans it seems to me basically correct, but there is a point
> >> >which continuess puzzling me:
> >> >National-sindicalism starts building on top of anarcho-sindicalism,
> >> >by suggesting:
> >> >- to introduce an elite of "señores" (lords) who
> >> >would take in chargue the organization of the economical production.
> >> >- to stimulate social unity by recalling local and national
> >> >"traditions".
> >> This has got to be the most unique misrepresentation of anarco-
> >> capitalism I've ever seen. Neither of these elements are part of
> >> anarco-capitalism.
> >> Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! Think Universally, Act Selfishly
> >I take your word, Tim.
> >So, libertarianist groups do not emphatize
> >patriotism, historical heritages or close ideas.
> Whether they do or don't has nothing to do with the fact that such
> appeals to tradition aren't an essential part of anarco-capita ...
> >So, libertarianist groups do not request that employers must have full
> >control of its employees, either to admit them, to fire them,
> >or to decide how much to pay to them.
> That's hardly "full control." For instance, they can't kill their
> employees at will.
I expect the final remark "at will" to be only a joke, sure they
can't kill with justification, either... Anyway, It seems from
your answer that you effectively ask for "control" in the
sense I define (admit, fire, pay).
> Frankly, anarco-capitalism is neutral on the subject of whether the
> economy will be characterized by wage relationships or not. An economy
> of nothing but sole proprietors who trade with each other would be
> perfectly consistent with anarco-capitalism.
Hmm. If everyone is owner of its industry or land, you say that such
thing would be anarcho-capitalism? AH, I see... some people could
retain, as "capital", part of its land or industry in a improductive
status, as a tool for trade. A really old trick.
> >So, libertarianist groups do not teach that all the society must
> >be easily organized by letting industry and land owners to act
> >freely.
> I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but libertarians don't
> exclude the rights of non-industrialists & non-landowners. They
> propose equal protection for the negative liberties of all.
How? Charity institutions seem not the prototipe of an equal
protection system. Will LandOwners found a "round table" to
defend people, make justice and look for the saint grial?
Thanks, MyLord. Or must we sway "MyIndustrialLord"
> >And, of course, libertarianist groups do not think that potential
> >conflicts will not occur because finally the competence will
> >"naturally" select the best men to drive the bussiness.
> Not really. Most libertarians probably believe that the best will
> tend to rise to the top, but I don't know of any who think this will
> be a conflict-avoidance mechanism.
Which are the conflict-avoidance mechanisms in anarcho-capitalism, then?
Or you prefer fighting (either owners against non-owners, or
owners between them) to be a permanent status?
> >And they and do no expect such men to claim they have proved their
> >"natural right" to organize their property, their land, their town, or
> >their nation...
> Real narrow criterion you've got there. As if no one else but your
> national syndicalists have ever claimed to have natural right on their
> side.
Well, in the two last parragraphs I was using "natural" in the
evolutionish sense, as "natural selection". It is funny you understand it
in such sense when answering the first parragraph, and then change
interpretation when answering the second one. It seems you are used to
play fast with words in your discourse, sorry Im not. Anyway if you
want to use "natural" in the old sense, as used by old kings, ask
in which of the two systems a successfull bussinessman has the right
to pass control of a big, perhaps country sized, industry to
a stupid son unable to make a correct management.
Seriusly, It seems that your discourse accepts in a generic way my
original affirmation, and only clarifies puntual facts.
> Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! Think Universally, Act Selfishly
Yours,
Alejandro
PS: I have seen other posting, related to the discussion, telling
thar anarchist theory has been made by pseudo intelectuals payed
by the state. I would ask such guy to read history. In spain,
both Pablo Iglesias (socialist) and Anselmo Lorenzo (anarchist) were
real workers, and they organized the two branches of AIT-Spain.
Same can be told of the people from the CNT, such as Buenacasa
or Peiro (a big theoretical of the moderated anarchism).
Check anarchist websites for info.
Lazarus Long
riv...@sol.unizar.es pontificated in a message to All:
rs> PS: I have seen other posting, related to the discussion, telling
rs> thar anarchist theory has been made by pseudo intelectuals payed by
rs> the state. I would ask such guy to read history. In spain, both
rs> Pablo Iglesias (socialist) and Anselmo Lorenzo (anarchist) were real
rs> workers, and they organized the two branches of AIT-Spain. Same can
rs> be told of the people from the CNT, such as Buenacasa or Peiro (a
rs> big theoretical of the moderated anarchism).
rs> Check anarchist websites for info.
The point is..that the modern "anarcho-theftists", that are
defending and advocation theftism mostly are posting from
university sites. Very few "workers" are posting in support of
theftism. Therefore the conclusion can be made that theftism is
a ideological toy of a small group of elitists.
rs> ___
rs> - Origin: Usenet:Universiad de Zaragoza - Spain (350:2/100.5)
Point made.
Visit the Rational Anarchist HomePage at:
http://vaxxine.com/rational/lazarus.html
Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com
... Abolish the state but keep my taxpayer funded cheque coming.(Doodah)
Alejandro Rivero
Lazarus Long wrote:
>
> riv...@sol.unizar.es pontificated in a message to All:
>
> rs> PS: I have seen other posting, related to the discussion, telling
> rs> thar anarchist theory has been made by pseudo intelectuals payed by
> rs> the state. I would ask such guy to read history. In spain, both
> rs> Pablo Iglesias (socialist) and Anselmo Lorenzo (anarchist) were real
> rs> workers, and they organized the two branches of AIT-Spain. Same can
> rs> be told of the people from the CNT, such as Buenacasa or Peiro (a
> rs> big theoretical of the moderated anarchism).
> rs> Check anarchist websites for info.
>
> The point is..that the modern "anarcho-theftists", that are
> defending and advocation theftism mostly are posting from
> university sites. Very few "workers" are posting in support of
> theftism. Therefore the conclusion can be made that theftism is
> a ideological toy of a small group of elitists.
>
> rs> ___
> rs> - Origin: Usenet:Universiad de Zaragoza - Spain (350:2/100.5)
>
> Point made.
>
This reminds me a joke about statistics.
A lot of studies on wounded soldiers in WWI were made, and between them one of
them made measurements relating partial brain loss (bullets hitting inside your
heads, you know...) with movility losses and with loss of mental faculties.
From this study, and other on Asian wars, appeared the now famous conclusion
that "Men only uses a 15% of his brain".
But by carefully examinig the sample, it can bee seen that the real result is
far more obvious:
"Military only uses a 15% of his brain"
Now, note that in the countries where anarchism got some attention, Internet
(and even Usenet news) are mainly contributed from universities. So you must
expect that a majority of such messages will come throught university channels.
It is not so, by example, with mailing coming from sites in the USA, where
independent sites are by now well stablished.
Anyway, and letting apart such mathematical considerations, I would
admit that some prominent anarchist are currently researchers payed by
the state, and that a big part of anarchists work inside the system they
say to fight against.
I can not see the contradiction, as it is exactly the same situation
that every worker has. Adittionally, note that anarchism is not
a movement to get the worker class controlling the bourguese one; anarchism
theory looks to eliminate class struggle by pointing directly to the
mechanism giving power to some men over others. So under the capitalism
world, they atack ownership; under the "real socialism", they atacked
statal burocrats.
Anarchism theory looks to transform sociery into a more productive one. The
main solution to get anarchy working is overproduction of every vital tool.
So it is clear that anarchism needs of all the society, not only a small class.
(By the way, note that capitalism can not reach the overproduction point,
as market control is devised just to avoid it. This is one of the motivations
to fight agains property, or ownership; To get overproduction, every group
able to start a "bussiness" will be really able to do it, ie, to get
all the needed tools and raw material).
Anarchism movements "out of the system" have been devised and tryed. They
happens to have a very low reach, and are unlikely to coalesce in big areas.
Same with pathological variants, with propose to simplify existence, return
to Nature, or even destroy technology. Such things are out of the mainstream,
and totally out of the objetive.
So it is logical that anarchism will continue lying hidding under the current
system, and you will find them a lot or anarchists working inside (but
not subsidized!!! I grant you that I m not payed for writing this, and
I dont know anyone being payed for)
It has been proposed, a one hundred years ago, that a way to implement
anarchism was to get all of a big part of the productive
population (not only low rank workers) inside the anarchism ideas. Then
transition would be done by means of a peaceful move, taking control of
all the bussiness in a same day. Production focus would change then from the
goal of maximal benefit to the goal of maximal covering of everyone needs.
That was referred as the "General Strike", and this was the original
meaning of the "final fighting" singed by almost every leftist party.
Again, note that all the society is needed for this.
Last, let me name that since 1930 anarcho-syndicalism (which seems by now the more
easy road to implement anarchism) is divided in two factions: a moderate one,
which accepts to participate on state-organized labour polls, etc; and a
radical one, which doesnt accept any help from Estate (not internet!), not any statal-ruled
participation mechanism. Every branch has its arguments and it is good to know that
both methods are been tested... In Spain, the scision becomes effective
around 1980, the unions been called now CGT and CNT.
Yours,
Alejandro
Lazarus Long
> defending and advocation theftism mostly are posting from
> university sites. Very few "workers" are posting in support of
> theftism. Therefore the conclusion can be made that theftism is
> a ideological toy of a small group of elitists.
>
rs> Internet (and even Usenet news) are mainly contributed from
rs> universities. So you must expect that a majority of such messages
rs> will come throught university channels. It is not so, by example,
rs> with mailing coming from sites in the USA, where independent sites
rs> are by now well stablished.
Actually most of the US based anarchists post from EDU sites.
Very few workers posting advocating the end of property
rights.
rs> Anyway, and letting apart such mathematical considerations, I would
rs> admit that some prominent anarchist are currently researchers payed
rs> by the state, and that a big part of anarchists work inside the
rs> system they say to fight against.
rs> I can not see the contradiction, as it is exactly the same situation
rs> that every worker has. Adittionally, note that anarchism is not a
Nope. No one is forced, outside of conscripted soldiers, to
work for the government. Does the state conscript these people
and force them to accept their paycheque?
rs> Anarchism movements "out of the system" have been devised and tryed.
rs> They happens to have a very low reach, and are unlikely to coalesce
rs> in big areas. Same with pathological variants, with propose to
rs> simplify existence, return to Nature, or even destroy technology.
rs> Such things are out of the mainstream, and totally out of the
rs> objetive.
In other words...using a roundabout method of saying
so..anarchism is not viable unless it is based on seizing
material and means of production created by other systems.
[historical notes snipped]
Visit the Rational Anarchist HomePage at:
http://vaxxine.com/rational/lazarus.html
Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com
... In anarchy there is NO LAW... G. ALT
|CLasLibNet: Lazarus Long 350:2/100.1
|Internet: 2-100-1!Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com
You cannot make a man worth a given amount by making it illegal for anyone to
offer him anything less. You merely deprive him of the right to earn the
amount that his abilities and situation would permit him to earn, while you
deprive the community even of the moderate services that he is capable of
rendering. In brief, for a low wage, you substitute unemployment. You do
harm all around, with no comparable compensation.
-- Henry Hazlitt, Economics In One Lesson
Greg Alt
In article <7a3_960...@rational.vaxxine.com> 2-100-1!Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com (Lazarus Long) writes:
> The point is..that the modern "anarcho-theftists", that are
> defending and advocation theftism mostly are posting from
> university sites. Very few "workers" are posting in support of
> theftism. Therefore the conclusion can be made that theftism is
> a ideological toy of a small group of elitists.
Let's see how this logic works...
1) Most of the anarchists posting on the internet are posting from
university accounts.
2) There are are very few anarchist workers posting from non-university
accounts.
Therefore:
3) "theftism is a ideological toy of a small group of elitists"
I shouldn't have to point out that the "logic" used here is more than a
bit of a stretch, but what the heck.
First of all, especially outside the U.S., the internet IS a tool of a
small elite. What you find, even in the U.S., is a high proportion of
computer professionals and students, because these are the ones with the
easiest access (in terms of cost and access to the necessary technical
knowledge). That this would be true of Anarchists, as well as
laissez-faire capitalists, Republicans, Democrats, Nazis, etc. shouldn't
be terribly surprising.
Second of all, within the anarchist movement, there are a large number of
people who have no access to internet, and don't particularly want it,
even when online anarchists tell them how neat it all is. They have
many reasons for not wanting to do it. There is the expense--while most
can afford it if it was important to them, many see it as a waste of
money. Many are computer illiterate (as most of the population) and
feel that it would take too much effort to learn how to use it. Many
don't trust it because of the government and corporate control.
Now, why is it that these people that don't want net access don't post
themselves, explaining it? It should be obvious.
But I suppose to some it would be "Rational" to assume that these people
don't exist merely because they don't post to the internet.
>Visit the Rational Anarchist HomePage at:
Well, it's a "HomePage", I suppose...
Greg
--
Visit the Utah Anarchism and Revolution Page at:
http://www.cs.utah.edu/~galt/revolt.html
Lazarus Long
ga...@lal.cs.utah.edu pontificated in a message to All:
gl> In article <7a3_960...@rational.vaxxine.com>
gl> 2-100-1!Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com (Lazarus Long) writes:
> The point is..that the modern "anarcho-theftists", that are
> defending and advocation theftism mostly are posting from
> university sites. Very few "workers" are posting in support of
> theftism. Therefore the conclusion can be made that theftism is
> a ideological toy of a small group of elitists.
gl> Let's see how this logic works...
gl> 1) Most of the anarchists posting on the internet are posting from
gl> university accounts.
gl> 2) There are are very few anarchist workers posting from
gl> non-university accounts.
First, most of the Anarchists are posting from EDU accounts. TRUE.
There are few anarchist workers posting from non-university
accounts.
TRUE
gl> Therefore:
gl> 3) "theftism is a ideological toy of a small group of elitists"
TRUE
gl> I shouldn't have to point out that the "logic" used here is more
gl> than a bit of a stretch, but what the heck.
However, he is not able to demonstrate how it is a stretch.
Significant.
gl> First of all, especially outside the U.S., the internet IS a tool of
gl> a small elite. What you find, even in the U.S., is a high
gl> proportion of computer professionals and students, because these are
gl> the ones with the easiest access (in terms of cost and access to the
gl> necessary technical knowledge). That this would be true of
gl> Anarchists, as well as laissez-faire capitalists, Republicans,
gl> Democrats, Nazis, etc. shouldn't be terribly surprising.
Actually dear boy, there are many commercial providers ..more
than university providers. Add in the Freenets and the
percentage of EDU accounts falls even further.
And if Alt's reasoning was correct, then most libertarian,
conservative, liberal etc posters would be posting from EDU
sites. However, a quick scan of any newsgroup would show that
these other groups post from a wide variety of sites.
Thus it is reasonable to assume that in North America, the
anarchist movement is limited to a small elitist group who
deeply involved in receiving state money.
gl> Second of all, within the anarchist movement, there are a large
gl> number of people who have no access to internet, and don't
gl> particularly want it, even when online anarchists tell them how neat
gl> it all is. They have many reasons for not wanting to do it. There
gl> is the expense--while most can afford it if it was important to
gl> them, many see it as a waste of money. Many are computer
Freenets typically cost nothing with only voluntary donations
being accepted.
gl> illiterate (as most of the population) and feel that it would take
gl> too much effort to learn how to use it. Many don't trust it because
gl> of the government and corporate control.
However, there is little evidence that there exists any
workers outside of 19th century style movements in Europe.
Looking at Canada, a country with a long tradition of
tolerance for left wing groups, one finds few anarchists,
outside of nihilistic groups hanging out at arcades.
Most of those anarchists are receiving state handouts, and
complain bitterly when the state reduces their monthly cheque.
gl> Greg
gl> --
gl> Visit the Utah Anarchism and Revolution Page at:
gl> http://www.cs.utah.edu/~galt/revolt.html
The page that glorifies the MURDER of Priests and Nuns as
enemies of the revolution.
A glorification that is supported by other pseudochrists..
"> Do you support the murder of priests and nuns?
so> In a war it's common practice to kill your enemy. Bad
example."staffan...@ortivus.se
This should make it into the next version of my periodically revised
Anarcho-Leftism: A philosophy of theft?
Visit the Rational Anarchist HomePage at:
Stavros N. Karageorgis
Human rights are said to be 'inalienable', in the classical Liberal tradition.
In the U.S. context, 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' are said to
be 'unalienable' rights that belong to human beings ex hypothesi.
Now, inalienable means 'cannot be taken away', (forcibly) alienated. Yet, it
also means not 'alienable' by the (adult) human being (the 'chooser', not the
'learner') voluntarily. Are any restrictions to the VOLUNTARY 'alienation' of
individual human rights 'kosher' in the anarcho-capitalist and minarchist
schools of thought?
Regards,
SNK
"Oh, the comfort, the inexpressible comfort of feeling safe with a person;
having neither to weigh thoughts nor measure words, but to pour them all
out, just as they are, chaff and grain together, knowing that a faithful
hand will take and sift them, keep what is worth keeping, and then, with
the breath of kindness, blow the rest away." T.S. Eliot
Stavros N. Karageorgis
E-mail: kara...@ucla.edu
fire ant collective
On 16 Aug 1996, Lazarus Long wrote:
> Newsgroups:
> alt.anarchism,alt.society.anarchy,talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,
> alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,
> alt.individualism
>
> A Conversion to Anarcho-Socialism
>
> Having been exposed to the irrefutable evidence of the
> inevitability of the worker's revolution, I have decided to join. After all,
> why should I slave to eventually own my own property, when with the aid of
> others, I can forcibly dispossess the
> evil-doers and take their property. Not only does this save me a lot of
> labour, it leaves me time to enjoy my expresso.
>
I'll have you know that much as many anarchists are not college
students, (in fact since unlike marxism or Capitalism, anarchism is
seldom if ever taught in any universities, I'd say most aren't,
certainly to my experience...) very few outside of your characature flat
earth world sit around coffee shops all day and sip cafinated beaverages.
Fire @nts for example susbist entirely on Rye whiskey and sauteeed
filet of landlord (with a little lemon and butter to kill that sour flavor...)
Other residents of the lunatic fringe subsist on glass and nails, an excellent
dish which helps to preserve that sharp edge. But the one thing we all
have in common is a dislike for eating shit and breathing carbon monoxide,
which is all you think we are entitled to, washed down with a little
urine you helpfully 'trickle down' your leg for us.
> Looking at the number of societies that have developed high levels of
> technology while based on a collectivist socio-economic system, it becomes
> clear that capitalism is unnecessary. Look at the example of the northern Cree,
> who held no private property save for personal effects and compare their level
> of society with that of the hierarchal communities of the Haida and other
> Northwestern tribes....well.. maybe we had better not. Oh well... let's take it
> as a matter of faith...
No you are right, given the shining example of harmony,
efficiency, progress and beauty of our Capitalist utopia here, we should
all forgoe any concept of progress and just enjoy the milk and honey...
but in that case what the hell are you talking about with your minarchist
theories? This isn't REAL capitalism, you say? How much real can it
get? How many more centuries are they going to keep trying before we are
allowed to consider any alternatives? Oh I suppose we are the ones who need
to keep faith...
> "I think workplaces should be associations one joins rather than companies
> owned by someone else that one sells labor to. Today if you want to be a
> partial owner of a certain clubhouse, you join the club, and then you are. In
> my concept of socialism, I can choose a facility which does the work I like,
> and -- note carefully -- I do not "apply for a job" there -- what I do is I
> walk in and notify them that I am joining. With that act I am a a partner in
> the ownership and the management." M. Lepore
>
> With this in mind, I can satisfy my desire to become a surgeon by simply
> walking into the local hospital and picking up a scalpel. The patients have no
> reason to complain...after all, they are not being gouged in the pocketbook by
> a capitalist medical system.
>
Um, I believe fw Lepore considers himself a marxist, not an
anarchist (correct me if I'm wrong, theres a lot of mikes on these
lists..) if this is indeed the case, perhaps Lazarus is showing us a text
book example of that famous 'straw dog' he's always talking about...
> he is guilty..we can redistribute his ill-gotten gains.
>
Lazarus spends half his time on Usenet biting his nails over
these hordes of anarchists out there who, unsatisfied with java, want to
take all of his stuff! Laz, baby, chill out a second. We don't want to
take any of your stuff! Relax! We just aren't going to pay YOU no more
ROYALTIES, Taxes, or Rents, unless somehow you can convince us that we
should. You are more than welcome to accumulate as much as you can!
Just think of how full your garage will be!
> ... In anarchy there is NO LAW... G. ALT
So if you have the balls to call yourself an anarchist, I guess
you wont rely on any kind of Monopolisitic, Socialized ARMY or POLICE
force to enforce those deeds, right? We wont have any minimum wage law,
and you wont have any formalized piracy anymore, and we can quit sending
you all our bread! I know I'm ready, are you?
Eyebrow biting,
mouth foaming,
Fist waving
anarchist
"Rent is the lowest form of Taxation without representation."
some lunatic
Lazarus Long
fire...@deltanet.com pontificated in a message to All:
> A Conversion to Anarcho-Socialism
>
> Having been exposed to the irrefutable evidence of the
> inevitability of the worker's revolution, I have decided to join. After all,
> why should I slave to eventually own my own property, when with the aid of
> others, I can forcibly dispossess the
> evil-doers and take their property. Not only does this save me a lot of
> labour, it leaves me time to enjoy my expresso.
>
fd> I'll have you know that much as many anarchists are not college
fd> students, (in fact since unlike marxism or Capitalism, anarchism is
fd> seldom if ever taught in any universities, I'd say most aren't,
fd> certainly to my experience...) very few outside of your characature
Obviously from this sentence...not many are graduates of grade
school.
> Looking at the number of societies that have developed high levels of
> technology while based on a collectivist socio-economic system, it becomes
> clear that capitalism is unnecessary. Look at the example of the northern
fd> Cree,
> who held no private property save for personal effects and compare their
level
> of society with that of the hierarchal communities of the Haida and other
> Northwestern tribes....well.. maybe we had better not. Oh well... let's take
fd> it
> as a matter of faith...
fd> No you are right, given the shining example of harmony,
fd> efficiency, progress and beauty of our Capitalist utopia here, we
fd> should all forgoe any concept of progress and just enjoy the milk
fd> and honey... but in that case what the hell are you talking about
fd> with your minarchist theories? This isn't REAL capitalism, you
fd> say? How much real can it get? How many more centuries are they
fd> going to keep trying before we are allowed to consider any
fd> alternatives? Oh I suppose we are the ones who need to keep
fd> faith...
Sorry, but when you graduate from grade school and learn what
laissez-faire economics is, then you will begin to realise
that a mix of state interventionism and capitalism is not a
pure capitalist system. The word mix should give you a clue.
> "I think workplaces should be associations one joins rather than companies
> owned by someone else that one sells labor to. Today if you want to be a
> partial owner of a certain clubhouse, you join the club, and then you are.
In
> my concept of socialism, I can choose a facility which does the work I like,
> and -- note carefully -- I do not "apply for a job" there -- what I do is I
> walk in and notify them that I am joining. With that act I am a a partner in
> the ownership and the management." M. Lepore
>
> With this in mind, I can satisfy my desire to become a surgeon by simply
> walking into the local hospital and picking up a scalpel. The patients have
no
> reason to complain...after all, they are not being gouged in the pocketbook
by
> a capitalist medical system.
>
fd> Um, I believe fw Lepore considers himself a marxist, not an
fd> anarchist (correct me if I'm wrong, theres a lot of mikes on these
fd> lists..) if this is indeed the case, perhaps Lazarus is showing us a
fd> text book example of that famous 'straw dog' he's always talking
fd> about...
Actually, Lepore uses anarchist and anarcho-socialist
interchangeably.
> he is guilty..we can redistribute his ill-gotten gains.
>
fd> Lazarus spends half his time on Usenet biting his nails over
fd> these hordes of anarchists out there who, unsatisfied with java,
fd> want to take all of his stuff! Laz, baby, chill out a second. We
I never worry about anarchists taking anything, since as a
beleiver in property rights, I reserve the right to defend my
property.
fd> don't want to take any of your stuff! Relax! We just aren't going
fd> to pay YOU no more ROYALTIES, Taxes, or Rents, unless somehow you
fd> can convince us that we should. You are more than welcome to
fd> accumulate as much as you can! Just think of how full your garage
fd> will be!
Oh good, anarcho-capitalists and libertarians are anti-tax as
well. And .... I have no problem if you choose not to pay
rent, I just hope you dress warmly...the nights can get
chilly on a park bench.
fd>
> ... In anarchy there is NO LAW... G. ALT
fd> So if you have the balls to call yourself an anarchist, I guess
fd> you wont rely on any kind of Monopolisitic, Socialized ARMY or
fd> POLICE force to enforce those deeds, right? We wont have any
fd> minimum wage law, and you wont have any formalized piracy anymore,
fd> and we can quit sending you all our bread! I know I'm ready, are
fd> you?
Nope. Private protection agencies...
I am glad you see the ridiculousness of a minimum wage law.
I am quite ready. drink up your cup of Joe, and get busy.
Visit the Rational Anarchist HomePage at:
http://vaxxine.com/rational/lazarus.html
Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com
... After the next expresso...the revolution begins! You go first.
Lazarus Long
Newsgroups:
alt.anarchism,alt.society.anarchy,talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,
alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,
alt.individualism
A Conversion to Anarcho-Socialism
Having been exposed to the irrefutable evidence of the
inevitability of the worker's revolution, I have decided to join. After all,
why should I slave to eventually own my own property, when with the aid of
others, I can forcibly dispossess the
evil-doers and take their property. Not only does this save me a lot of labour,
it leaves me time to enjoy my expresso.
Looking at the number of societies that have developed high levels of
technology while based on a collectivist socio-economic system, it becomes
clear that capitalism is unnecessary. Look at the example of the northern Cree,
who held no private property save for personal effects and compare their level
of society with that of the hierarchal communities of the Haida and other
Northwestern tribes....well.. maybe we had better not. Oh well... let's take it
as a matter of faith... the collective can develop the means of production that
capitalism does..only humanely and without the inequalities. Besides, who
cares...if we can't produce..we can always declare anyone who owns productive
property, an evil
capitalist and take his property for the good of all.
One of the benefits of socialism is that there will no longer be those
artificial barriers of education to prevent a person from entering any kind of
profession.
"I think workplaces should be associations one joins rather than companies
owned by someone else that one sells labor to. Today if you want to be a
partial owner of a certain clubhouse, you join the club, and then you are. In
my concept of socialism, I can choose a facility which does the work I like,
and -- note carefully -- I do not "apply for a job" there -- what I do is I
walk in and notify them that I am joining. With that act I am a a partner in
the ownership and the management." M. Lepore
With this in mind, I can satisfy my desire to become a surgeon by simply
walking into the local hospital and picking up a scalpel. The patients have no
reason to complain...after all, they are not being gouged in the pocketbook by
a capitalist medical system.
Life will be much more simple and less labourious. If one of my neighbours
chooses to acquire more than his "fair share", me and my mates have the option
of demanding that he prove to our local committee court(me and my mates) that
he didn't use capitalist means to gain that property...and if in our opinion,
he is guilty..we can redistribute his ill-gotten gains.
Oh yes... let us all join the workers revolution...that is.. if we can ever get
those enslaved workers convinced to give up their paycheques and worldly goods
and join us here at the cafe. Then it will be *solidarity forever* and we can
march on the local works singing Le Internationale. Perhaps if we get lucky...
we can succeed in our revolution and be able to get back here in time for a
second cup.
So "raise high the flag of revolution and march towards a
collective victory for all" and those who oppose us...well... we can peacefully
stand them against the wall and non-aggressively shoot them.
... In anarchy there is NO LAW... G. ALT
|CLasLibNet: Lazarus Long 350:2/100.1
Tim Starr
In article <321329E0...@sol.unizar.es>,
The anarcho-syndicalists killed anyone they wanted to in the Spanish Civil
War, at will, & get lionized for it by their apologists today, who write
big long elaborate variations on "The Fascists made them do it!" See McKay's
lame apologia that Brad Hatch keeps posting, for example.
Contracts at will do not constitute "full control" over employees by their
employers. Often contracts which can't be broken by either party for a
certain period of time amount to far more control by employers over their
employees. The best illustration I've ever seen of this is fictional but
has real-life analogues. In the movie "The Naked Jungle," based upon the
short story "Leinengen And the Ants," a Brazilian coffee plantation owner
gets a visit from a neighboring plantation owner, looking for two of his
Mayan indian workers who ran out on him before their contracts were up. He
finds them amongst Leinengen's workers - identifying them by the scars left
by his whip on their backs. Leinengen says they're his workers, not the
other guy's. The other guy demands to see their contracts. Leinengen says:
"I make no contracts with my men."
"Then how do you get them to stay?" The other plantation owner asks.
"They stay as long as they like - perhaps because I don't have a bullwhip."
A real-world analog to this happened in South Africa, when Cecil Rhodes
forced the blacks who worked in his mines to sign long-term contracts, then
kept them in barracks behind barbed wire to ensure they didn't run out as
soon as they'd made enough money to pay their taxes with (which was the main
reason they were working in the mines to begin with).
Contracts based upon the mutual consent of all parties aren't examples of
"control" of one party by the other. They're relationships in which both
party's interests are protected.
>> Frankly, anarco-capitalism is neutral on the subject of whether the
>> economy will be characterized by wage relationships or not. An economy
>> of nothing but sole proprietors who trade with each other would be
>> perfectly consistent with anarco-capitalism.
>
>Hmm. If everyone is owner of its industry or land, you say that such
>thing would be anarcho-capitalism? AH, I see... some people could
>retain, as "capital", part of its land or industry in a improductive
>status, as a tool for trade. A really old trick.
Trick? What trick? All the sole proprietors would be private property owners,
who all owned their own capital, land, labor, etc.
Capitalism is defined by private ownership of capital, not by wage-relation-
ships.
>> >So, libertarianist groups do not teach that all the society must
>> >be easily organized by letting industry and land owners to act
>> >freely.
>> I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but libertarians don't
>> exclude the rights of non-industrialists & non-landowners. They
>> propose equal protection for the negative liberties of all.
>
>How? Charity institutions seem not the prototipe of an equal
>protection system.
How? By letting everyone carry guns in self-defense, that's how.
>> >And, of course, libertarianist groups do not think that potential
>> >conflicts will not occur because finally the competence will
>> >"naturally" select the best men to drive the bussiness.
>> Not really. Most libertarians probably believe that the best will
>> tend to rise to the top, but I don't know of any who think this will
>> be a conflict-avoidance mechanism.
>
>Which are the conflict-avoidance mechanisms in anarcho-capitalism, then?
Arbitration.
>> >And they and do no expect such men to claim they have proved their
>> >"natural right" to organize their property, their land, their town, or
>> >their nation...
>> Real narrow criterion you've got there. As if no one else but your
>> national syndicalists have ever claimed to have natural right on their
>> side.
>
>Well, in the two last parragraphs I was using "natural" in the
>evolutionish sense, as "natural selection". It is funny you understand it
>in such sense when answering the first parragraph, and then change
>interpretation when answering the second one. It seems you are used to
>play fast with words in your discourse, sorry Im not.
Liar. You've been playing fast & loose with words ever since you started
accusing libertarians of being "national syndicalists," even though we
never propose to organize industries in producer cartels, nor do we ever
do anything else that has anything essential to do with syndicalism. The
best you can do is find some "nationalistic" elements in some libertarian
ideas, but that's it. (Which aren't "nationalistic" at all, since there
is a difference between patriotism & nationalism. Libertarians are some-
times patriots, but never nationalists.)
**********
"Yes, I do." - Anne Pearson, of the Snowdrop campaign to ban guns in Britain,
on the Jim Hawkins TV show, 5/17/96, in reply to being accused of wanting to
live in a slave state by Sean Gabb, editor of FREE LIFE, the journal of the
Libertarian Alliance.
**********
Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! Think Universally, Act Selfishly
Assistant Editor: Freedom Network News, the newsletter of ISIL,
The International Society for Individual Liberty,
1800 Market St., San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 864-0952; FAX: (415) 864-7506; is...@isil.org
http://www.isil.org/
Liberty is the Best Policy - tims...@netcom.com
Tim Starr
In article <karageor.12...@ucla.edu>,
Stavros N. Karageorgis <kara...@ucla.edu> wrote:
>Human rights are said to be 'inalienable', in the classical Liberal tradition.
>In the U.S. context, 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' are said to
>be 'unalienable' rights that belong to human beings ex hypothesi.
>
>Now, inalienable means 'cannot be taken away', (forcibly) alienated. Yet, it
>also means not 'alienable' by the (adult) human being (the 'chooser', not the
>'learner') voluntarily. Are any restrictions to the VOLUNTARY 'alienation' of
>individual human rights 'kosher' in the anarcho-capitalist and minarchist
>schools of thought?
Hi, Stavros, welcome back! How was Greece?
Libertarian legal scholar Randy Barnett has written some about inalienable
rights in some articles he's written on contract law. Unfortunately, I can't
find my copy right now, so I can't tell you the title or publication :-(. But
I find his argument plausible. His conclusion is that inalienable rights can't
even be voluntarily alienated, but that they can be forfeited (through some
crime, etc.). The difference being that if I forfeit my right to life, no one
else gets it. Whereas if I could alienate it, someone else would get it.
Libertarian scholar George H. Smith disagrees with me & Randy about this, since
he finds the origins of the concept of "inalienable rights" to be in theories
of social contract which tried to come up with some rights that could never
have been lost to the Crown by the People, but unfortunately he hasn't publish-
ed much about this.
Stavros N. Karageorgis
>In article <karageor.12...@ucla.edu>,
>Stavros N. Karageorgis <kara...@ucla.edu> wrote:
>>Human rights are said to be 'inalienable', in the classical Liberal tradition.
>>In the U.S. context, 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' are said to
>>be 'unalienable' rights that belong to human beings ex hypothesi.
>>
>>Now, inalienable means 'cannot be taken away', (forcibly) alienated. Yet, it
>>also means not 'alienable' by the (adult) human being (the 'chooser', not the
>>'learner') voluntarily. Are any restrictions to the VOLUNTARY 'alienation' of
>>individual human rights 'kosher' in the anarcho-capitalist and minarchist
>>schools of thought?
>Hi, Stavros, welcome back! How was Greece?
Nice to see us conversing like adults, and out of flame mode. It's nice to be
back and Greece was great, if hot, until the last few days, during which the
cold-blooded murders of two Greek Cypriots by our 'allies' the glorious Turks
in the 'green zone' in Cyprus depressed me to no end.
>Libertarian legal scholar Randy Barnett has written some about inalienable
>rights in some articles he's written on contract law. Unfortunately, I can't
>find my copy right now, so I can't tell you the title or publication :-(. But
>I find his argument plausible. His conclusion is that inalienable rights can't
>even be voluntarily alienated, but that they can be forfeited (through some
>crime, etc.). The difference being that if I forfeit my right to life, no one
>else gets it. Whereas if I could alienate it, someone else would get it.
This is my own position as well, and so far as a I know that of democratic
socialists as well. Imagine that! The distinction between forfeiture and
alienation is cogent. Now, is there any agreement whatever amongst
libertarians of various stripes as to WHICH rights over what are in fact so
inalienable. Our fellow netter, Keith Weaver, aka Lazarus Long, has, amidst
all the flames and insults, made the point that a community's (especially if
via its state) outlawing of voluntary slavery and servitude 'contracts' and
'transactions' was a violation of liberty and an infringment on individual
rights. Outside any political back and forth, is this position tenable given a
concept of inalienable human rights?
>Libertarian scholar George H. Smith disagrees with me & Randy about
this, since>he finds the origins of the concept of "inalienable rights" to be
in theories>of social contract which tried to come up with some rights that
could never>have been lost to the Crown by the People, but unfortunately he
hasn't publish->ed much about this.
In my view, without a concept of inalienable individual human rights, that
cannot be lost to others, be they individual, organized others, or instituted
states (democratically elected or otherwise) no Liberal SOCIETY can function.
Without it, there is either no society, or it is not Liberal (notice, as I am
sure you have, the capital 'L').
Once again, I am elated at the civilized and civil tone of your learned
response, and look forward to many more of those in the future.
>Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! Think Universally, Act Selfishly
>Assistant Editor: Freedom Network News, the newsletter of ISIL,
>The International Society for Individual Liberty,
>1800 Market St., San Francisco, CA 94102
>(415) 864-0952; FAX: (415) 864-7506; is...@isil.org
>http://www.isil.org/
>Liberty is the Best Policy - tims...@netcom.com
SNK
Alejandro Rivero
Tim Starr wrote:
>
> In article <321329E0...@sol.unizar.es>,
> Alejandro Rivero <riv...@sol.unizar.es> wrote:
> >Tim Starr wrote:
> >
> The anarcho-syndicalists killed anyone they wanted to in the Spanish Civil
> War, at will, & get lionized for it by their apologists today, who write
> big long elaborate variations on "The Fascists made them do it!" See McKay's
> lame apologia that Brad Hatch keeps posting, for example.
>
I m NOW just 40 kilometers away from the old frontbattle which were controled by
anarchists in the first nine months of war (after this they were substitued by
the Estate toops -which, incidentally, lost the war). It is a very nice desert,
which I cross to go climbing in some valleys of the nearby Pirinees. My grand-grand-mam
was born in Barbastro, at the center of the anarchist area, and I have some friends
and university companions from those villages. Say this, let me tell that I have not
hear any claims of massive assesinations by anarcho syndicalists. People of the
area calls the anarcho-syndicalism proposals "cantons", referring so close
ideas from the beginnig of the century.
"Revolutionary" attacks to landowners and local priests happened and were used
as propaganda. Even Franco planes made a fake attack to our cathedral (700 meters
away from my home) presenting it as a leftist "heretical" attack. Alog time,
such events heve been ampified and amplified until reaching the level of
some present panflets. Note that revolution was expected, and a lot of people
was waiting for disturbs to arrive, using the initial confusion to solve
personal conflicts... We are mediterranean people, you know?
> Contracts at will do not constitute "full control" ...
bla bla bla. No point is made in anarchist theory -and I dont
made it, neither- about in, it is a minor point still under discussion
how the relationship between man ans asocciation must be "legalized", if you
want to use that term.
> >Hmm. If everyone is owner of its industry or land, you say that such
> >thing would be anarcho-capitalism? AH, I see... some people could
> >retain, as "capital", part of its land or industry in a improductive
> >status, as a tool for trade. A really old trick.
>
> Trick? What trick? All the sole proprietors would be private property owners,
> who all owned their own capital, land, labor, etc.
>
> Capitalism is defined by private ownership of capital, not by wage-relation-
> ships.
>
Exactly. And capitalism explotation is based in manegement of the capital,
which can be offered or retired from market at will of the "owner".
I suposse you understand the capitalist mechanism, and how the market
value is changued simply by movement of capital. This is the main trick
capitalim uses for the so-called explotation.
> >> >So, libertarianist groups do not teach that all the society must
> >> >be easily organized by letting industry and land owners to act
> >> >freely.
> >> I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but libertarians don't
> >> exclude the rights of non-industrialists & non-landowners. They
> >> propose equal protection for the negative liberties of all.
> >
> >How? Charity institutions seem not the prototipe of an equal
> >protection system.
>
> How? By letting everyone carry guns in self-defense, that's how.
>
Well, perphaps I would prefer public institutions to give a free
soup, after all...
Non-owners must be protected mainly from explotation. They must
have a minimum set of possibilities for bargaining, as I suposse you know
if you have bargained a trade some time. So they will have the possibilities
for self-organizing, for studying, or simply for avoiding starvation and
perpahs death if they reject the owners proposals.
Such is the concept of social protection, at least in Europe. Hospitals,
housing, food, you know...
About the guns issue, let me to say, it would probably be OK in a very
rich economy, with all vital needs covered. I guess such is not the case
in anarcho-capitalism. The so-called self defense groups, of private
character, existed in Spain, and contributed to the radical atmosphere
in the period between wars. I have heard that it happens currently in
south america, but i dont know at which level information can be trusted.
Self-defense groups controlled by owners have a tendence to confront
workers groups and leaders. A example could be perhaps the assesination
of Salvador Segui, "el noi del sucre", in Catalonia 1923.
> >
> >Which are the conflict-avoidance mechanisms in anarcho-capitalism, then?
>
> Arbitration.
>
Hey, I like this point. Genuine in the main anarchism line... As I told,
anarcho-capitalism builds "on top" of anarcho-synd.
>
> Liar. You've been playing fast & loose with words ever since you started
> accusing libertarians of being "national syndicalists," even though we
> never propose to organize industries in producer cartels, nor do we ever
> do anything else that has anything essential to do with syndicalism.
Same that national syndicalism. I was not playing with words, I was using
the historical term. Check the main national-synd author, Jose Antonio
primo de rivera. They addopted the buzzword national-syndicalism only to get
some contact with some other groups, I think Im been explicit enought.
Anarcho-capitalism is a neares term. In fact, a falagist legend tell that
the only republican side trying to get Jose Antonio freedom was the FAI!!!
Im sure your libertarian authors have read him.
Funny you finish your message with the reference to patriotism, It is
also a main message in any falangist introductory book.
About syndicalim, I think you are confusing it with actual USA or west-europa
unios. It so, I understand your protest. Would be more happier if I speak
of a world based on franquicies and confederations (of producers)? Such is
anarcho-sindicalism goal, but without capitalism.
Im going to paste an small description of anarchist economy tomorrow
or past tomorrow
Please wait for it before arguing, I feel that there is not sense in discussing a lot
of small minor points.
Alejandro
Lazarus Long
riv...@sol.unizar.es pontificated in a message to All:
> Having been exposed to the irrefutable evidence of the
> inevitability of the worker's revolution, I have decided to join. After all,
> why should I slave to eventually own my own property, when with the aid of
> others, I can forcibly dispossess the
> evil-doers and take their property. Not only does this save me a lot of
rs> labour,
> it leaves me time to enjoy my expresso.
rs> Three errors in the first parragraph:
rs> -Revolution in not know to be anavoidable, that was old Marx idea.
rs> But it is a fact that
rs> revolutions happen, and anarchist work on it. Very unsucessfully, by
rs> the way. -You dont join anything. All the society becomes
rs> anarchist.
Willingly or not. those that don't wish to cede ownership
become communal occupants of common graves or refugees.
-You dont save a lot of labour. Between bour or five
rs> hours of dayly labour are to be expected at current technological
rs> level.
not according to some of the utopian posts from the theftists.
> Looking at the number of societies that have developed high levels of
> technology while based on a collectivist socio-economic system, it becomes
rs> (*** Irony deleted ***)
rs> OK, it is probably true that without explotation of non-owners
rs> progress had evolded more slowly. This concept was exemplified by
rs> Tales de Mileto (I m not joking!)
rs> and it was the only solution at that time, when public interest for
rs> science and tecnique was really low. Even now, there are a public
rs> feel seeing science as a devil play, and it must be removed.
rs> To put a example, if workers revolution had got the triumph last
rs> century, the planet had got severe ecological damage. Fortunately,
rs> along one hundred years a sense of nature has developed, and any
rs> hypotetical social revolution would
rs> easily admit pollution control and sustained development
rs> limitations.
The fact remains...without the structures provided by
capitalism, a society built on a concept of common property has
never developed to any level of technology comparable with
propertarian societies of the same time period.
> "I think workplaces should be associations one joins rather than companies
> owned by someone else that one sells labor to. Today if you want to be a
> partial owner of a certain clubhouse, you join the club, and then you are.
In
> my concept of socialism, I can choose a facility which does the work I like,
> and -- note carefully -- I do not "apply for a job" there -- what I do is I
> walk in and notify them that I am joining. With that act I am a a partner in
> the ownership and the management." M. Lepore
>
> With this in mind, I can satisfy my desire to become a surgeon by simply
> walking into the local hospital and picking up a scalpel. The patients have
no
> reason to complain...after all, they are not being gouged in the pocketbook
by
> a capitalist medical system.
>
rs> Error again. I think you have not been really in a .edu area, at
rs> least not a classical European one. Here when you join to the
rs> hospital, say medical sciences, you are automathicaly in the
rs> management. The central management assembly is compossed by a third
rs> students, a third teachers, and a third workers. It is not
rs> anarchist pure, but we are in a capitalist country remember...
Just using a quote taken from a post by one of the theftists.
rs> Now, after six years, the history divides:
rs> -In a capitalist world, althought your senior companions will put
rs> all the effort for you to continue serious working, you must either
rs> wait to pass a big examination which is made every two years and its
rs> restricted by goverment budget reasons, or you can try to get work
rs> on a private clinic, or you can try to get money to buy the place
rs> and tools needed to start a independent work.
rs> -In a anarchist world, you would manifest your interest on
rs> continuing work here, and the seniors would inform the hospital
rs> asambly about it and suggest you the job between the currently
rs> needed. Or you could associate with other companions to bould a new
rs> hospital in other place where you feel it is needed. Or your could
rs> go to other hospital, from where the local asambly would ask about
rs> your qualifications to the original one, and then show you the jobs
rs> where you could fit. You can also easily get a independent place,
rs> but dont forget to hang someplace the letter from your teachers, or
rs> almost nobody must put confiance on you.
And in an anarcho-capitalist society, one would set up practice,
however, the amount of trade you would recieve would depend on
convincing the community that you knew what you were doing. TO
that end, the would be surgeon would be wise to obtain
certification from a recognised school. His insurer would
probably insist on proof of competency before insuring him for
liability.
> Life will be much more simple and less labourious. If one of my neighbours
> chooses to acquire more than his "fair share", me and my mates have the
option
> of demanding that he prove to our local committee court(me and my mates) that
> he didn't use capitalist means to gain that property...and if in our opinion,
> he is guilty..we can redistribute his ill-gotten gains.
rs> Well, perphaps you have an enemy from other times. But ir is
rs> difficult to understand
rs> why somone would ask exactly for your "share" when almost everithing
rs> you have is freely avalaible at the local store. In every economical
rs> system if you got an enemy, you got a problem... but I dont see the
rs> relationship with economy or ownership.
Again, this paragraph was derived from a post by one of the
anarcho-theftists.
rs> Finally, about the last comment on minimum wage.
rs> I thought it was simply a .sig, but in other reply there was some
rs> reference to minimum wages, so lets go:
rs> First note that it is a comment from Hazlitt, so I suposse it is a
rs> parragraph analyzed a lot of times by you. So answering it is as
rs> playing a sicilian defense letting you access to all the chess
rs> manuals; you would easily get a win
rs> Second, note that the comentary is a critics to social-democracy,
rs> not to socialism or anarchism. I guess that this newsgroup is not
rs> very good in defending a kind of moderated capitalism.
rs> Now, lets remark the key word in the parragraph:
> You cannot make a man worth a given amount by making it illegal for anyone to
> offer him anything less. You merely deprive him of the right to earn the
> amount that his abilities and situation would permit him to earn, while you
rs> ^^^^^^^^^
> deprive the community even of the moderate services that he is capable of
> rendering. In brief, for a low wage, you substitute unemployment. You do
> harm all around, with no comparable compensation.
> -- Henry Hazlitt, Economics In One Lesson
rs> Situation is the key of capitalist bargain, and not abilities. This
rs> man IS NOT TO BE PAYED ACCORDING HIS ABILITIES; he is going to be
rs> payed according some external reason, unrelated to its training.
His abilities are the situation. along with market needs.
Visit the Rational Anarchist HomePage at:
http://vaxxine.com/rational/lazarus.html
Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com
... After the next expresso...the revolution begins! You go first.
|CLasLibNet: Lazarus Long 350:2/100.1
Alejandro Rivero
Lazarus Long wrote:
>
> A Conversion to Anarcho-Socialism
>
> Having been exposed to the irrefutable evidence of the
> inevitability of the worker's revolution, I have decided to join. After all,
> why should I slave to eventually own my own property, when with the aid of
> others, I can forcibly dispossess the
> it leaves me time to enjoy my expresso.
Three errors in the first parragraph:
-Revolution in not know to be anavoidable, that was old Marx idea. But it is a fact that
revolutions happen, and anarchist work on it. Very unsucessfully, by the way.
-You dont join anything. All the society becomes anarchist.
-You dont save a lot of labour. Between bour or five hours of dayly
labour are to be expected at current technological level.
>
> Looking at the number of societies that have developed high levels of
> technology while based on a collectivist socio-economic system, it becomes
(*** Irony deleted ***)
OK, it is probably true that without explotation of non-owners progress had
evolded more slowly. This concept was exemplified by Tales de Mileto (I m not joking!)
and it was the only solution at that time, when public interest for science
and tecnique was really low. Even now, there are a public feel seeing science
as a devil play, and it must be removed.
To put a example, if workers revolution had got the triumph last century,
the planet had got severe ecological damage. Fortunately, along one hundred
years a sense of nature has developed, and any hypotetical social revolution would
easily admit pollution control and sustained development limitations.
>
> "I think workplaces should be associations one joins rather than companies
> owned by someone else that one sells labor to. Today if you want to be a
> partial owner of a certain clubhouse, you join the club, and then you are. In
> my concept of socialism, I can choose a facility which does the work I like,
> and -- note carefully -- I do not "apply for a job" there -- what I do is I
> walk in and notify them that I am joining. With that act I am a a partner in
> the ownership and the management." M. Lepore
>
> With this in mind, I can satisfy my desire to become a surgeon by simply
> walking into the local hospital and picking up a scalpel. The patients have no
> reason to complain...after all, they are not being gouged in the pocketbook by
> a capitalist medical system.
>
Error again. I think you have not been really in a .edu area, at least
not a classical European one. Here when you join to the hospital, say medical
sciences, you are automathicaly in the management. The central management
assembly is compossed by a third students, a third teachers, and a third
workers. It is not anarchist pure, but we are in a capitalist country remember...
Is in that sense you must understand the club. Ot do you think that by aplying to
the same tennis club that Agassi are you going to train with him the
first day? Or than in a martial arts gymnasium you are going to train
everyday with the skilled "black" course simply because you are there?
(BTW, in my faculty a student becomes mad at this level at he claimed
himself professor and even giving some class. Nobody stopped him, and
people let him to give a class afterhours in the big hall... which becomes
fast empty, and so in the next try. Another man in the computer center
claimed himself the Manager, but people simply ignored him. In this case
the university got some chargues from food consumed by this individual
in the nearby restaurant, funny)
You will take four years of theoretical studice and minor practice, and
then you will begin major practice, supervised by your older companions and
eventually by senior teachers. This would take other two or three years,
depending on you. Along this time, you can volunteer for minor techniques
or in the case of big emergency (eg, I can cite a bombing in 1987, we
drove a friend, third year student,
Now, after six years, the history divides:
-In a capitalist world, althought your senior companions will put all
the effort for you to continue serious working, you must either wait
to pass a big examination which is made every two years and its restricted
by goverment budget reasons, or you can try to get work on a private
clinic, or you can try to get money to buy the place and tools needed to
start a independent work.
-In a anarchist world, you would manifest your interest on continuing work
here, and the seniors would inform the hospital asambly about it and suggest
you the job between the currently needed. Or you could associate with other
companions to bould a new hospital in other place where you feel it is
needed. Or your could go to other hospital, from where the local asambly would
ask about your qualifications to the original one, and then show you the
jobs where you could fit. You can also easily get a independent place, but
dont forget to hang someplace the letter from your teachers, or almost
nobody must put confiance on you.
Of course, in both ways patients are guaranteed about your cualifications,
and they are free to ask. Perhaps even they are more free on anarchism
that in statism. Personally I like more to go to the university hospitals
than to the nearby public one, because the athmosfere is friendly, and
you can speak of science while you are examinated.
The objetive of anarchism economy is to get everyone working, and always
in the best fit avalaible for him.
> Life will be much more simple and less labourious. If one of my neighbours
> chooses to acquire more than his "fair share", me and my mates have the option
> of demanding that he prove to our local committee court(me and my mates) that
> he didn't use capitalist means to gain that property...and if in our opinion,
> he is guilty..we can redistribute his ill-gotten gains.
Well, perphaps you have an enemy from other times. But ir is difficult to understand
why somone would ask exactly for your "share" when almost everithing you have
is freely avalaible at the local store. In every economical system if you
got an enemy, you got a problem... but I dont see the relationship with
economy or ownership.
> we can succeed in our revolution and be able to get back here in time for a
> second cup.
I agree in this critic. Some people claims to be doing revolutionary
acts almost everyone. I find that major protest on newsgroups comes
against a very restricted concept of anarquism, probably based only
on observations of such individuals, and not in reading of theoretical
discussions.
Finally, about the last comment on minimum wage.
I thought it was simply a .sig, but in other reply there was
some reference to minimum wages, so lets go:
First note that it is a comment from Hazlitt, so I suposse it is a parragraph
analyzed a lot of times by you. So answering it is as playing a sicilian
defense letting you access to all the chess manuals; you would easily get a win
Second, note that the comentary is a critics to social-democracy, not to
socialism or anarchism. I guess that this newsgroup is not very good in
defending a kind of moderated capitalism.
Now, lets remark the key word in the parragraph:
> You cannot make a man worth a given amount by making it illegal for anyone to
> offer him anything less. You merely deprive him of the right to earn the
> amount that his abilities and situation would permit him to earn, while you
^^^^^^^^^
> deprive the community even of the moderate services that he is capable of
> rendering. In brief, for a low wage, you substitute unemployment. You do
> harm all around, with no comparable compensation.
> -- Henry Hazlitt, Economics In One Lesson
Situation is the key of capitalist bargain, and not abilities. This man IS NOT
TO BE PAYED ACCORDING HIS ABILITIES; he is going to be payed according some
external reason, unrelated to its training.
The objetive of the owner (the capitalist) is to get maximal benefit in his
bargain with the worker. As the worker situation becomes more critical,
the bid can be lower. Now, capitalism is a highly complex economy, and
extreme situations can be reached frequently in each branch of labour.
The objetive of minimum wage is to give workers a stop point to start
the bargain. It must be combined with other social measures to work.
It is true that such set of measures doesnt solve essentially any problem,
but it is because the real problem is capitalism, and not wages.
A minimum wage system could be even benefical for capitalism, as it estabilizes
a bit its economical cicle, probaly avoiding highly depresive cicles.
Yours,
Alejandro
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
Alejandro Rivero <riv...@sol.unizar.es> wrote:
>Now, note that in the countries where anarchism got some attention, Internet
>(and even Usenet news) are mainly contributed from universities. So you must
>expect that a majority of such messages will come throught university channels.
>It is not so, by example, with mailing coming from sites in the USA, where
>independent sites are by now well stablished.
What you are saying, then, is that countries which seriously looked at
anarchy are so poor that Internet connections are available only
through tax-funded universities, but in countries that didn't,
non-government connections are common?
Seems to me, then, that one positive step toward achieving the
anarchist's goals is to never take anarchy seriously.
:-)
Tim Starr
In article <321634CF...@sol.unizar.es>,
Alejandro Rivero <riv...@sol.unizar.es> wrote:
>Tim Starr wrote:
>>
>> In article <321329E0...@sol.unizar.es>,
>> Alejandro Rivero <riv...@sol.unizar.es> wrote:
>> >Tim Starr wrote:
>> >
>
>> The anarcho-syndicalists killed anyone they wanted to in the Spanish Civil
>> War, at will, & get lionized for it by their apologists today, who write
>> big long elaborate variations on "The Fascists made them do it!" See McKay's
>> lame apologia that Brad Hatch keeps posting, for example.
>>
>I m NOW just 40 kilometers away from the old frontbattle which were controled by
>anarchists in the first nine months of war (after this they were substitued by
>the Estate toops -which, incidentally, lost the war). It is a very nice desert,
>which I cross to go climbing in some valleys of the nearby Pirinees. My grand-grand-mam
>was born in Barbastro, at the center of the anarchist area, and I have some friends
>and university companions from those villages. Say this, let me tell that I have not
>hear any claims of massive assesinations by anarcho syndicalists.
That's funny, even their most abject apologists like McKay & Hatch admit that
there was a wave of murders of nuns & priests by the anarco-syndicalists. They
just try to blame it on rogue elements within the anarcho-syndicalists, or
pretend that the militia & trucks weren't sent in to carry off bodies by any
central plan. Check out Bryan Caplan's article "The Anarcho-Statists of
Spain," on his web page (http://www.princeton.edu/~bdcaplan) for more details.
Or check out James Donald's web pages on the same subject (http://www.jim.com).
>"Revolutionary" attacks to landowners and local priests happened and were used
>as propaganda.
Oh, so you HAVE heard of the murders of nuns & priests by the anarchosyndical-
ists after all! You just pretend that they were exagerrated or committed by
others.
>> >Hmm. If everyone is owner of its industry or land, you say that such
>> >thing would be anarcho-capitalism? AH, I see... some people could
>> >retain, as "capital", part of its land or industry in a improductive
>> >status, as a tool for trade. A really old trick.
>>
>> Trick? What trick? All the sole proprietors would be private property owners,
>> who all owned their own capital, land, labor, etc.
>>
>> Capitalism is defined by private ownership of capital, not by wage-relation-
>> ships.
>>
>Exactly. And capitalism explotation is based in manegement of the capital,
>which can be offered or retired from market at will of the "owner".
I can't quite make out what you're trying to say here, probably because English
doesn't seem to be your first language. No offense - I'm sure your English is
WAY better than my Spanish (which is barely enough to ask for directions with).
But could you clarify what you're saying for me, please?
>I suposse you understand the capitalist mechanism, and how the market
>value is changued simply by movement of capital. This is the main trick
>capitalim uses for the so-called explotation.
I'm not sure what you're talking about at all here. Sounds like some strange
economic theory to me.
>> >> >So, libertarianist groups do not teach that all the society must
>> >> >be easily organized by letting industry and land owners to act
>> >> >freely.
>> >> I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but libertarians don't
>> >> exclude the rights of non-industrialists & non-landowners. They
>> >> propose equal protection for the negative liberties of all.
>> >
>> >How? Charity institutions seem not the prototipe of an equal
>> >protection system.
>>
>> How? By letting everyone carry guns in self-defense, that's how.
>>
>Well, perphaps I would prefer public institutions to give a free
>soup, after all...
Paid for by whom? The workers, who'd be deprived of the fruit of their labor
at gunpoint? Some anarchist you are!
>Non-owners must be protected mainly from explotation. They must
>have a minimum set of possibilities for bargaining, as I suposse you know
>if you have bargained a trade some time. So they will have the possibilities
>for self-organizing, for studying, or simply for avoiding starvation and
>perpahs death if they reject the owners proposals.
>
>Such is the concept of social protection, at least in Europe. Hospitals,
>housing, food, you know...
Oh, so you aren't even an anarchist at all, you're a fan of Bismarckian
welfare-warfare statism!
>About the guns issue, let me to say, it would probably be OK in a very
>rich economy, with all vital needs covered.
It worked in the poor economies of America & Switzerland long before they
became the rich countries they are today.
>I guess such is not the case in anarcho-capitalism.
Why not?
>The so-called self defense groups, of private character, existed in Spain,
>and contributed to the radical atmosphere in the period between wars.
Yes, that seems to be the one good thing about that period.
>I have heard that it happens currently in south america, but i dont know
>at which level information can be trusted.
I seriously doubt it, except perhaps in Guatemala.
>> >Which are the conflict-avoidance mechanisms in anarcho-capitalism, then?
>>
>> Arbitration.
>>
>Hey, I like this point. Genuine in the main anarchism line... As I told,
>anarcho-capitalism builds "on top" of anarcho-synd.
Except that we don't propose to monopolize industries under producers'
cartels in order to put the squeeze on other any competition & consumers.
For starters.
>> Liar. You've been playing fast & loose with words ever since you started
>> accusing libertarians of being "national syndicalists," even though we
>> never propose to organize industries in producer cartels, nor do we ever
>> do anything else that has anything essential to do with syndicalism.
>
>Same that national syndicalism. I was not playing with words, I was using
>the historical term.
Your word-play is in trying to apply that historical term to anarco-capitalism.
Tim Starr
In article <karageor.12...@ucla.edu>,
Stavros N. Karageorgis <kara...@ucla.edu> wrote:
>In article <timstarrD...@netcom.com> tims...@netcom.com (Tim Starr) writes:
>
>
>>In article <karageor.12...@ucla.edu>,
>>Stavros N. Karageorgis <kara...@ucla.edu> wrote:
>>>Human rights are said to be 'inalienable', in the classical Liberal tradition.
>>>In the U.S. context, 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' are said to
>>>be 'unalienable' rights that belong to human beings ex hypothesi.
>>>
>>>Now, inalienable means 'cannot be taken away', (forcibly) alienated. Yet, it
>>>also means not 'alienable' by the (adult) human being (the 'chooser', not the
>>>'learner') voluntarily. Are any restrictions to the VOLUNTARY 'alienation' of
>>>individual human rights 'kosher' in the anarcho-capitalist and minarchist
>>>schools of thought?
>
>>Hi, Stavros, welcome back! How was Greece?
>
>Nice to see us conversing like adults, and out of flame mode. It's nice to be
>back and Greece was great, if hot, until the last few days, during which the
>cold-blooded murders of two Greek Cypriots by our 'allies' the glorious Turks
>in the 'green zone' in Cyprus depressed me to no end.
How nice. It was hot when I was in Greece last year in October, but probably
not as hot as it was for you in the middle of summer. (ISIL's last conference
was in Athens, & we went to Delphi & Meteora afterwards.)
>>Libertarian legal scholar Randy Barnett has written some about inalienable
>>rights in some articles he's written on contract law. Unfortunately, I can't
>>find my copy right now, so I can't tell you the title or publication :-(. But
>>I find his argument plausible. His conclusion is that inalienable rights can't
>>even be voluntarily alienated, but that they can be forfeited (through some
>>crime, etc.). The difference being that if I forfeit my right to life, no one
>>else gets it. Whereas if I could alienate it, someone else would get it.
>
>This is my own position as well, and so far as a I know that of democratic
>socialists as well. Imagine that!
Will wonders never cease :-).
>...The distinction between forfeiture and
>alienation is cogent. Now, is there any agreement whatever amongst
>libertarians of various stripes as to WHICH rights over what are in fact so
>inalienable. Our fellow netter, Keith Weaver, aka Lazarus Long, has, amidst
>all the flames and insults, made the point that a community's (especially if
>via its state) outlawing of voluntary slavery and servitude 'contracts' and
>'transactions' was a violation of liberty and an infringment on individual
>rights. Outside any political back and forth, is this position tenable given a
>concept of inalienable human rights?
Barnett argues that people should be free both to enter into voluntary
"slavery" contracts & to break them at any time, so long as they return any
consideration they may have received & forfeited any performance bond they
may have put up.
>In my view, without a concept of inalienable individual human rights, that
>cannot be lost to others, be they individual, organized others, or instituted
>states (democratically elected or otherwise) no Liberal SOCIETY can function.
>Without it, there is either no society, or it is not Liberal (notice, as I am
>sure you have, the capital 'L').
I'd agree.
>Once again, I am elated at the civilized and civil tone of your learned
>response, and look forward to many more of those in the future.
You asked a good question, that deserved a good answer. Unfortunately, I'm
about to leave for Canada for a week, so I won't be able to participate in
Usenet debates for a while (to the eternal delight of my opponents, I'm sure.)
Stavros N. Karageorgis
In article <DwCJy...@iceonline.com> ale...@iceonline.com (Alexander J Russell) writes:
<snip>
>All you socialists: when are you going to tell us why it is GOOD to steal?
>I wouldn't want to part of a society based on systematic theft.
If you define 'steal' as unlawfully usurping something one has no legal
property rights over, and you define legality and property rights according to
bourgeois doctrines, then you would be justified in calling what socialists
call for 'stealing'. Otherwise you would not.
While 'justice' may in fact be transhistorical ( a claim I seriously doubt
anyway) legality certainly is not. There is no systematic (or intermittent
theft) involved in socialism, unless you apply to it bourgeois standards of
legality.
While you are at it, why don't you justify why it is good to have private
property over means of subsistence and production wildly beyond one's possible
current and future needs to a socialist, using a socialist's concept of
legality, and a socialist's concept of property (yes, we do have a concept of
property, only it is not bourgeois private property).
And, BTW, try justifying making into private property of 'commons' to all the
pre-capitalistically organized peoples of the world, according to THEIR
precepts of legality, and according to THEIR understanding of property. Good
luck!
Regards,
>--
>The AnArChIsT! Anarchy! Not Chaos!
>aka
>Alex Russell
>ale...@iceonline.com
Alejandro Rivero
Sorry guys, I pasted this message first with other subject,
and even thought I cancelled it, perhaps some machines will
distribute both copies.
----------------
As promised, here come the small (200 lines) article on
anarchism and economy. I expect it to help the newsgroups to
clarify (and to discuss) how anarchist philosophy is translated to
"applied social sciences". Anyway. I made it too fast, so
it could be a bit unclear. Comment freely!
Note that this is based on generic notions dating from first
years of the century. Regretly anarchist moral and social theories
have got a lot more attention than economy. It would be
interesting to test anarchist hypothesis with up-to-date numerical
calculations (Hey guys at MIT, do you have some good flow
simulator able to simulate a country-sized economy? It could be a
nice PhD work). Even in the descriptive side, a lot of work seems
yet to be done.
A slightly larger version in Spanish will be available at end
of the month in "Flexion" archives. Please refer to it for reading
corrections, as I have not the english tools near...
=============================================
Overproduction goal, or Why property is thief
=============================================
(by Alejandro Rivero. Copylefted, citing sources)
Abstract. We compare the principles of anarchist economy with
the ones of capitalist and ("real") socialist, economies.
Countries under anarchism are expected to have a higher GNP than
previous systems, but the transition to such system is unclear.
=============================================
The implementation of an anarchist system implies strong
modifications an almost every social mechanism, as power
relationships must be eliminated and each individual must be able
to develop his self as far as possible.
Because of this, anarchy theory covers a wide range of areas
beyond economy, and it is easy to misunderstand proposals in
politics or moral taking them -and mistakenly critiquizing them-
as proposals for the productive system.
The main line of thought in anarchy economical theory is the
one from Kropotkine, abstracted in the famous "OK, simply take it
from the stack". Although he is unable to get an adequate
transition process to such economy, and it lacks of some minor
details, it estimates in a realistical way how an stable anarchist
system would work.
In his analysis, Kropotkine atacks (pseudo)scientific
socialism because it sloppyly translates philosophical remarks to
incorrect mathematical relations: it is said that sometimes Marx
seems to think that every continuously raising function is linear,
when he analizes how to give "to each one depending of his work".
He correctly predicts that state-organized economy, as tested in
real socialism, will cause a productivity loss because of the lack
of iniciative and increasing burocratic errors, and he even tries
to warn Lenin about it, unsucessfully.
By other hand, he coincides with the usual leftist criticism
to capitalism, where the worker is not in a real position to time-
sustained bargain, as he needs to get the essential goods for
subsistence. Note that in addition capitalism system put
difficulties to a group of individuals to start self production of
some object, as access to capital is blocked or, in the best,
highly subjected to interest rates. I.e, the owner of the capital
also is able to get a "plusvalia" from any self-organized work of
producers, not only from individual workers.
As alternative both to capitalism and to planified socialism,
he proposes overproduction of all the essential goods. He correctly
predicts that such overproduction will be reachable with a work of
five hours a day, which is the current level in developed
countries, and probably near the minimum.
Capitalism optimizes productivity by worker, but as
compensation it try to mantain production always under the
critical level of price fall. Here is where capitalism steals to
humanity: it is not giving us as many objects as industry could be
able to manufacture.
For capitalism to be able to retain production and mantain
prices, it will have a system to put off the market (either
temporally or ethernally) part of the produced objets, or part of
the production tools and raw materials. Depending of the retained
object, the retention method or the duration of it, different
techniques are described in the text books: monopolist systems,
trusts, carteles, industrial closings, etcetera. All these methods
are based in a only concept: the "ownership" of the industry by a
group of so-called capitalists.
So, we see that capitalism steals to the society (call it
world, or nation, or as you want) by giving us less objects than
the quantity which could be made using the society taskforce. And
we see that this stealing is effectively made by claiming
"ownership" at some step of the productive chain. Is in this sense
that we say that "property is thief": capitalist are stealing to
the whole society. They steal when they reduce the overall
production of its industries, they steal when they associate to
control market, and they steal when they conspirate to avoid any
other free association of men to go ahead and to make the same
product.
(There is a minor sense, more restricted, but perhaps closer
to the pre-kropotkinian origin, of such phrase: "Ownership" also
steals by asking every worker to sell himself to get the final
products he needs, by menazing him either to lock-out the industry
or to raise the final price of the product. I think that Marx
analysis made emphasis in this microscopic -individual- stealing
or "plusvalia", but mathematics in such time were too weak to
sucessfully relate it to the macroscopic -global- one, and they
are yet, so marxists are not to be blamed for this specific
focus...)
Now, giving that capitalism works near the critical point of
production of its market, this is not so difficult to be surpassed.
Even putting into account the international trading, it would be
expected that an entry into production of all the unoccupped
workers in Europe, at the same conditions that the currently
working ones, would push the whole system into the overproduction
regime.
Giving the actual technological status, with four-five hours
per day per person as dayly labor time, it seems that
overproduction would be easier to control that near-critical
production, so the anarchist system, once started, would have an
easier domino expansion than capitalism. (Some computer simulation
could be interesting here too, guys;-) This would be because other
regions would turn to anarchism in order to be not overflown by
its production.
The overcritical status of anarchist economy must not be
confused with the similarly deflactionist, but depressive, phase of
capitalist cycle. In capitalism under depression, prices are cut
down and stacks filled, but workers have not posibility to buy the
produced goods, as control of capital continues making its
way. Note that a depressive phase is characterized by a high level
of unemployement while, par contra, anarchist overproduction
mantains a full employ status.
The main problem theoretical problem now is how to get the
transition from capitalism to anarchism. It seems that both state
and property must be atacked at the same time: Historically,
attacks only to state bounced back (across fascism) to capitalism
in a time between four and fourty years (say, Mussolini or
Franco). Attacks only to property bounced back to capitalism in
sixty or seventy years. By other hand, the slow move predicated by
west-socialism is really slooooowww, and the revolutionary work
class move is really minoritary (and remember that industry must
be preserved in the move). Perhaps some mutation of cooperativism
or sindicalism, able to win capitalists in his own terrain, alone
of combinated with worker class techniques, could be devised.
It is also unclear if the transition will start in developed
countries or in the ones currently developing. Pros and contras
for different economical status must be discussed elsewhere. Lets
finish this letter with a pair of remarks:
- It can seem paradoxical that we claim capitalism and its
variants (any one retaining ownership) are currently
underproducing, as it is the same old blame that capitalism puts
on communism by comparing gross production rates.
Note that anarchism correctly claimed that state communism
would decrease strongly productivity, probably before any
capitalist theorist. Burocratic problems and lack of iniciative
were evidents in the theory, and become clearly relevants after
fifty years of practice.
In capitalism, burocratic issues are minor when compared with
state communism, but lack of iniciative comes from the self-
protecting practices of capitalists, merely ownership.
Capitalism ask any association of producers to buy or rent
capital from the owner, then slaving them to put priority on
capitalist requeriment, and not in social or market objetives. As
the producers become aware of capitalist control -which eventually
can be made explicit by ruling the company organization- their
iniciative goes down.
(By example, consider Apple technological innovation with and
without the founders, or the two years delay on PDA technology dued
to Apple capitalism control of the ARM chip)
Anarchist system completely blows away any blockings to
iniciative, and then gross national product is to be expected
higher than under capitalist, ownership based, systems. If you are
unable to imagine this, try at least to imagine a zero-interest
rate mechanism, where you are entitled to give back the bank no
more than the capital they gave you. (asking in exchange to give
to "the stack" the rest of goods overproduced by you).
-Count unit (money) is one of the minor details we referred to
in the beginning of this letter. It must be understood that money
is a major detail in our current economical system, when fast
conversion between money and capital is adequate to evaluate
benefits of capital control. With overproduction, and without
capitalist mechanism, market is dinamited and pricings will more
closely evaluate real work. In a long range term, money could be
disposed.
Due to the fast conversion mechanism, it is a common error to
identify money and capital. It is even a common insult between
economists, in the same mood than a physicist can attack other by
shooting "You are confusing between heat and temperature, go back
to the school!". This error is, voluntary or involuntary, made
both by leftist and rightist analists when critiquizing taxes,
social expenses, or military budgets... To put a example, when we
ask "How many doctors can be paid with the cost of a military
plane" the nearest answer, "the number of engineers involved
divided by the number of planes manufactured, if you are intending
to cut down all the military air industry", is almost never got.
The same kind of failures raises when a libertarianist ask to
substitute public health by private one, or to modify salary laws,
based mainly in wrong monetarist calculus.
In the overproduction phase, money is unidentified from
capital, and its equivalence rules can be simplified, so it could
be a valuable tool for statististical estimates. From the
individual point of view, to have some money would certify your
right to get from the stack, but to accumulate a lot of money
would proof unuseful: With no possibility of capitalist trade, the
interest rates would be zero or close, as insinuated in the
previous remark.
Small scale experiences with a secundary currency, non able to
be converted to capital, are currently being done in some European
towns. Independently from this, and allthougth its low significance
for anarchist fundamentals, a mathematical classification of
currency systems under Kropotkinian economics would be valuable by
itself, as both capitalist and socialist economical flows could be
calculated as perturbations to the "free" Kropotkinian ones.
-Alejandro Rivero
Alexander J Russell
In article <Pine.SCO.3.91.960816...@delta1.deltanet.com>,
fire...@deltanet.com says...
>
>
>
>On 16 Aug 1996, Lazarus Long wrote:
>
>> Newsgroups:
>> alt.anarchism,alt.society.anarchy,talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,
>>
alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,
>> alt.individualism
>>
>> A Conversion to Anarcho-Socialism
>>
[snip - valid concern with LL's statistics]
Lazurus, you should just admit that your argument that most posts from
socialists are EDU based is based on a sample too small to be valid. Even if
they DID turn out to be mainly from EDU sites, it doesn't do anything to
invalidate their arguments. The ideas posted must be evaluted on their content,
not their source.
All you socialists: when are you going to tell us why it is GOOD to steal?
I wouldn't want to part of a society based on systematic theft.
Alejandro Rivero
wann...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
(***big unneeded citation deleted***)
>
> > Alejandro
>
> Just a wild guess, Alejandro...you're either a professional student or
> a member of the faculty of some unversity. Only a university
> professor has the time to weave such immemse amounts of bullshit.
My current status is "unemployed". But Ok, my education is
Physics PhD, and I like these small towns in Soria crowded of
green pine in the fields and bullshit in the streets.
***START SOLEMN MUSIC HERE
And sorry, your civilization is not built on roots of capitalism.
It is built over that logos-bullshit developed 2500 years ago
by the greeks... No civilation have got so high technological
state without adhere to the Greek ideas.
*** FADE MUSIC SLOWLY
Alejandro Rivero
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin wrote:
>
> What you are saying, then, is that countries which seriously looked at
> anarchy are so poor that Internet connections are available only
> through tax-funded universities, but in countries that didn't,
> non-government connections are common?
>
> Seems to me, then, that one positive step toward achieving the
> anarchist's goals is to never take anarchy seriously.
>
> :-)
:-)
Anyway I would not say "so poor". I would say "so old".
Poor litte Europe, exhausted over his own land,
after two thousand years efforts... Poetic, is it? :-)
Lazarus Long
ale...@iceonline.com pontificated in a message to All:
ai> [snip - LL's amusing conversion to socialist bliss]
ai> [snip - valid concern with LL's statistics]
ai> Lazurus, you should just admit that your argument that most posts
ai> from socialists are EDU based is based on a sample too small to be
ai> valid. Even if they DID turn out to be mainly from EDU sites, it
ai> doesn't do anything to invalidate their arguments. The ideas posted
ai> must be evaluted on their content, not their source.
Actually the sample is only of those who xpost into
talk.politics.libertarian. However the large percentage does
say something about where the support for anarcho-socialism
lies.
What I find amusing, is that people advocating the total
elimination of the state, are those who have chosen to enter
into a field that is dependent on State subsidy.
ai> All you socialists: when are you going to tell us why it is GOOD to
ai> steal? I wouldn't want to part of a society based on systematic
ai> theft. --
The sound bite answer.."for the good of all"
an answer that I still see posted by many...although,
thankfully not from the anarchist-socialists..mainly from the
"social-democrats".
Visit the Rational Anarchist HomePage at:
http://vaxxine.com/rational/lazarus.html
Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com
... Economy makes men independent.
|CLasLibNet: Lazarus Long 350:2/100.1
|Internet: 2-100-1!Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com
You cannot make a man worth a given amount by making it illegal for anyone to
offer him anything less. You merely deprive him of the right to earn the
amount that his abilities and situation would permit him to earn, while you
Michael Fern
Alejandro Rivero <riv...@sol.unizar.es> wrote:
>wann...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>(***big unneeded citation deleted***)
>***START SOLEMN MUSIC HERE
No, what Greece contributed to Western civilization was the notion of
a republican/democratic form of government. Economic systems based
somewhat on the capitalist model Adam Smith theorized did exist in
Greece however, after all, the simplest form of capitalism being the
antiquated barter system.
Michael Fern
-------------
"Wealth is a product of man's capacity to think." - Ayn Rand
"There is much discussion of the haves and the have-nots, but very little discussion of the doers and the do-nots." - Thomas Sowell
James A. Donald
Alejandro Rivero <riv...@sol.unizar.es> wrote:
> I have alredy writed the comment on economics,
> please read it before continuing with this intherchangue.
Your economics resembles your spelling, and you do not seem to know
the difference between syndicalism and anarchism. In short the
comment on economics you "writed" was utter incoherent nonsense, to
which no reply is possible.
Some hints: Franco was a syndicalist. Most of the anarcho-socialists
of Catalonia were also syndicalists, though of a different version of
syndicalism
Anarcho capitalists regard syndicalism as indistinguishable from
socialism, and reject it utterly. Most, though very far from all
anarcho-socialists are syndicalists.
Does this shed any light in your darkness?
Probably not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com
Libertarius
In <timstarrD...@netcom.com> tims...@netcom.com (Tim Starr)
Good to see your discussion, Tim. You are right: Athens was great
last year, and I hope Whistler will be equally good, tho not quite as
"historical".
Just wish to add one point: it was apparently important enough for
Jefferson to name another of the "unalianable rights" - having
mentioned "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as bein "among
these". He stresses the peoples "right to alter or to abolish it" i.e.
any form of government that "becomes destructive of these ends", i.e.
the expressed purpose of government being "to secure these rights". And
he repeats it further down, when he says "it is their right, it is
their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for
their future security." Incidentally, as far as I can see it, this is
the only "duty" of the people mentioned in the Declaration.
See you in Whistler.
Libertarius
wann...@ix.netcom.com
Alejandro Rivero
Tim,
I have alredy writed the comment on economics, please read it
before continuing with this intherchangue. And please read
all the message before to answer it. It seems you appreciate
to interrupt in the half of a parragraph, and then be shocked
again when the complete argument is written.
Tim Starr wrote:
>
> In article <321634CF...@sol.unizar.es>,
> Alejandro Rivero <riv...@sol.unizar.es> wrote:
> >Tim Starr wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <321329E0...@sol.unizar.es>,
> >> Alejandro Rivero <riv...@sol.unizar.es> wrote:
> >> >Tim Starr wrote:
> >> >
> >
> >> The anarcho-syndicalists killed anyone they wanted to in the Spanish Civil
> >>
> >I m NOW just 40 kilometers away from the old frontbattle which were controled by
> >anarchists in the first nine months of war (after this they were substitued by
> >the Estate toops -which, incidentally, lost the war). It is a very nice desert,
> >which I cross to go climbing in some valleys of the nearby Pirinees. My grand-grand-mam
> >was born in Barbastro, at the center of the anarchist area, and I have some friends
> >and university companions from those villages. Say this, let me tell that I have not
> >hear any claims of massive assesinations by anarcho syndicalists.
>
> That's funny, even their most abject apologists like McKay & Hatch admit that
> there was a wave of murders of nuns & priests by the anarco-syndicalists. They
I said "heard", not "read".
Total dead toll for republicans and franquists are very similar. But, as
for my personal experience, I dont know of any one claiming his grand-dad
to be dead or troubled by anarchist troops, and I know some guys claiming it
about franquist troops. Memory is big here, so I would estimate that impact
of anarcho-synd troops was small.
Popular memory assigns the convent destructions simply to "the other
side", not distinction is made.
> just try to blame it on rogue elements within the anarcho-syndicalists, or
> pretend that the militia & trucks weren't sent in to carry off bodies by any
> central plan. Check out Bryan Caplan's article "The Anarcho-Statists of
> Spain," on his web page (http://www.princeton.edu/~bdcaplan) for more details.
> Or check out James Donald's web pages on the same subject (http://www.jim.com).
>
Ckecked (the bdcaplan one; jim.com dont found). It simply shows a big ignorance about spanish
political discourses when refering to them. And I would suspect of deliberated
ignorance of the course of spanish history between 1924 and 1939.
> >"Revolutionary" attacks to landowners and local priests happened and were used
> >as propaganda.
>
> Oh, so you HAVE heard of the murders of nuns & priests by the anarchosyndical-
> ists after all! You just pretend that they were exagerrated or committed by
> others.
>
Such things started around 1933. War started 1936, and anarchist control of north
Spain was effective only the first year of war in a small group of towns
between Catalonia and Aragon. This obviusly forbids a post-revolutionary
cleaning, as such phase takes more time to starr. So remember please you are
refering to revolutionary AND pre-revolutionary events.
If so big "cleaning" was done, it seems to me very inefficient, as
Barbastro is now a main catholic center, controled by Opus Dei. (*irony*)
English are much better in the work of cleaning catholics away (*irony again*)
A priest was as observer in Durruti headquarters, and after end of the war (1939)
he returned back to Spain and wrote a book remembering it. It makes not claims
on big assesinations by anarchist troops, but he tells some histories of
exalted guys... by example when a soldier try to convince him to join a group
to go to his town and kill the priest... this is, to himself!
It is very usual that revolutionary times are used by individuals to
adjust personal differences.
Please not be shocked by my irony about all this question. It is the Spanish
stile to speak of the war. It became a big surrealist representation sometimes.
> >>
> >Exactly. And capitalism explotation is based in manegement of the capital,
> >which can be offered or retired from market at will of the "owner".
>
> I can't quite make out what you're trying to say here, probably because English
> doesn't seem to be your first language. No offense - I'm sure your English is
> WAY better than my Spanish (which is barely enough to ask for directions with).
> But could you clarify what you're saying for me, please?
>
> >I suposse you understand the capitalist mechanism, and how the market
> >value is changued simply by movement of capital. This is the main trick
> >capitalim uses for the so-called explotation.
>
> I'm not sure what you're talking about at all here. Sounds like some strange
> economic theory to me.
>
I expect to clarify a little in the next message. But guy, if you dont
get it, you are not going to make big money in you capitalist society.
And worse, others will do.
> >> >> >So, libertarianist groups do not teach that all the society must
> >> >> >be easily organized by letting industry and land owners to act
> >> >> >freely.
> >> >> I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but libertarians don't
> >> >> exclude the rights of non-industrialists & non-landowners. They
> >> >> propose equal protection for the negative liberties of all.
> >> >
> >> >How? Charity institutions seem not the prototipe of an equal
> >> >protection system.
> >>
> >> How? By letting everyone carry guns in self-defense, that's how.
> >>
> >Well, perphaps I would prefer public institutions to give a free
> >soup, after all...
>
> Paid for by whom? The workers, who'd be deprived of the fruit of their labor
> at gunpoint? Some anarchist you are!
Hey, that was irony again... must I always flag it?
>
> >Non-owners must be protected mainly from explotation. They must
> >have a minimum set of possibilities for bargaining, as I suposse you know
> >if you have bargained a trade some time. So they will have the possibilities
> >for self-organizing, for studying, or simply for avoiding starvation and
> >perpahs death if they reject the owners proposals.
> >
> >Such is the concept of social protection, at least in Europe. Hospitals,
> >housing, food, you know...
>
> Oh, so you aren't even an anarchist at all, you're a fan of Bismarckian
> welfare-warfare statism!
>
I think I didnt catch all the point of negative liberties. It seems you
are not speaking of protection of non-owners against starvation, by example.
Or cancer, or who knows what.
You are only worried about minor delinquence. I emphatised that in some
Arthuric reference which has been deleted. Or was it in other message?
> >About the guns issue, let me to say, it would probably be OK in a very
> >rich economy, with all vital needs covered.
>
> It worked in the poor economies of America & Switzerland long before they
> became the rich countries they are today.
>
> >I guess such is not the case in anarcho-capitalism.
>
> Why not?
>
> >The so-called self defense groups, of private character, existed in Spain,
> >and contributed to the radical atmosphere in the period between wars.
>
> Yes, that seems to be the one good thing about that period.
>
Would do you like to live in it? Guy, you americans really dont know
what such of thing terrorism is! Even now, with the bombing rate around
six or seven at year, we take precautions when walking in the street.
> >I have heard that it happens currently in south america, but i dont know
> >at which level information can be trusted.
>
> I seriously doubt it, except perhaps in Guatemala.
>
Note I Say "contributed to the radical atmosphere", and then I quoted an
example of criminal act by such groups and explained how such groups are
used as pressure groups to control workers:
>>Self-defense groups controlled by owners have a tendence to confront
>>workers groups and leaders. A example could be perhaps the assesination
>>of Salvador Segui, "el noi del sucre", in Catalonia 1923.
But you ask "why not" before this parragraph is exposed (in fact you dont
care about it). So I dont know if you have not read it, or if
you want me to extend on arguments about why armed groups are not a good
idea in a capitalist side.
Anyway, Im taking too time for this discussion. Let me to pass
to pontificate about economy...
Alejandro
Alejandro Rivero
> > please read it before continuing with this intherchangue.
>
> Your economics resembles your spelling, and you do not seem to know
> the difference between syndicalism and anarchism. In short the
> comment on economics you "writed" was utter incoherent nonsense, to
> which no reply is possible.
How fast you read? I posted it one hour or two ago!
My apologises (or was apologize?) to english readers. True my
spelling is going worse and worse. I ll try to wrote close
to standard rules, but it takes a lot of time. Can I speak
directly spanish, and read your answers in english?
I m happy to see that discussion is changing into FLAME mode,
so it is going to finish soon.
>
> Some hints: Franco was a syndicalist. Most of the anarcho-socialists
> of Catalonia were also syndicalists, though of a different version of
> syndicalism
>
> Anarcho capitalists regard syndicalism as indistinguishable from
> socialism, and reject it utterly. Most, though very far from all
> anarcho-socialists are syndicalists.
>
> Does this shed any light in your darkness?
>
> Probably not.
>
Uff, it almost shed a lightning ball! Fortunately I can even survive
a direct kame-hame-ha.
Nice to know Franco was syndicalist. I began all the
thread by explaining how fascism started correcting such
revolutionary ideas (preserving ownership by example). In this sense
your affirmation can be interpreted as truth. It seems that this point is really
clear then. Well, it is really a bit darker... Franco took the
national-syndicalist schema around 1936-37, so he got control
of the Falange.
Before to read next hint, let me check if
perhaps the problem is something related to English. Lets see:
syn.di.cal.ism \'sin-di-k*-.liz-*m\ \-l*st\ n [F syndicalisme, fr. chambre syndicale trade
union] 1: a revolutionary doctrine by which workers seize control of the economy and the
government by the general strike and other direct means 2: a system of economic
organization in which industries are owned and managed by the workers 3: a theory of
government based on functional rather than territorial representation -
Hmm, perhaps a litte different, but not important for previous postings.
With this definition, CNT militants would be called "syndicalists" and
UGT militants would be simply "unionists". As we use ths same word, "sindicalista",
for both concepts, it is traditional to put the prefix "anarcho-" to
refer to CNT and like.
Most of catalonian anarcho-socialist (I suposse you refer to first AIT anarchism)
were syndicalists. Correct too. Almost every anarcho-socialist WORKER was
affiliated to the CNT. Anarcho-socialists had not a own organization, as the
AIT-FE was dissolved time ago, and the FAI was an extremist group.
Perhaps it must be emphatized that CNT translates to "CONFEDERATION nacional de
trabajadores". It is not a unique central union, it is a federation of
free autonomous unions. At least, such is the concept.
About socialism, it is funny you can not distinguish it from syndicalism.
So you will be also unable to understand why just now there are five AITs
adscribed to different variants of socialism. Are you interested on it, anyway?
Clue: socialism does not imply centralized state, nor even implies state.
Marxism, Marxim-Leninism, Troskim and other variants ask for a central state,
and it can be transitional or permanent...
Yours,
Alejandro
Michael Fern
Alejandro Rivero <riv...@sol.unizar.es> wrote:
>Sorry guys, I pasted this message first with other subject,
>and even thought I cancelled it, perhaps some machines will
>distribute both copies.
>----------------
> As promised, here come the small (200 lines) article on
> anarchism and economy. I expect it to help the newsgroups to
> clarify (and to discuss) how anarchist philosophy is translated to
> "applied social sciences". Anyway. I made it too fast, so
> it could be a bit unclear. Comment freely!
Actually, it was 241 lines.
> Note that this is based on generic notions dating from first
> years of the century. Regretly anarchist moral and social theories
> have got a lot more attention than economy. It would be
> interesting to test anarchist hypothesis with up-to-date numerical
> calculations (Hey guys at MIT, do you have some good flow
> simulator able to simulate a country-sized economy? It could be a
> nice PhD work). Even in the descriptive side, a lot of work seems
> yet to be done.
Economy simulation? Sim City 2000, the award-winning city simulation
game by Maxis has an excellent taxation simulator. When you raise
your taxes above 10% your economic growth starts contracting and you
end up earning less money in two years than you would have earned at a
taxation rate of 5%.
> A slightly larger version in Spanish will be available at end
> of the month in "Flexion" archives. Please refer to it for reading
> corrections, as I have not the english tools near...
>
> =============================================
> Overproduction goal, or Why property is thief
> =============================================
>
> (by Alejandro Rivero. Copylefted, citing sources)
> Abstract. We compare the principles of anarchist economy with
> the ones of capitalist and ("real") socialist, economies.
> Countries under anarchism are expected to have a higher GNP than
> previous systems, but the transition to such system is unclear.
>
> =============================================
>
> The implementation of an anarchist system implies strong
> modifications an almost every social mechanism, as power
> relationships must be eliminated and each individual must be able
> to develop his self as far as possible.
An anarchistic economic system involves the *elimination* of all
social mechanisms. Right off the bat you've got something wrong with
your definitions.
> Because of this, anarchy theory covers a wide range of areas
> beyond economy, and it is easy to misunderstand proposals in
> politics or moral taking them -and mistakenly critiquizing them-
> as proposals for the productive system.
That is very true. I'll be watching for complete adherence to
economic arguments.
> The main line of thought in anarchy economical theory is the
> one from Kropotkine, abstracted in the famous "OK, simply take it
> from the stack". Although he is unable to get an adequate
> transition process to such economy, and it lacks of some minor
> details, it estimates in a realistical way how an stable anarchist
> system would work.
> In his analysis, Kropotkine atacks (pseudo)scientific
> socialism because it sloppyly translates philosophical remarks to
> incorrect mathematical relations: it is said that sometimes Marx
> seems to think that every continuously raising function is linear,
> when he analizes how to give "to each one depending of his work".
> He correctly predicts that state-organized economy, as tested in
> real socialism, will cause a productivity loss because of the lack
> of iniciative and increasing burocratic errors, and he even tries
> to warn Lenin about it, unsucessfully.
So far so good.
> By other hand, he coincides with the usual leftist criticism
> to capitalism, where the worker is not in a real position to time-
> sustained bargain, as he needs to get the essential goods for
> subsistence. Note that in addition capitalism system put
> difficulties to a group of individuals to start self production of
> some object, as access to capital is blocked or, in the best,
> highly subjected to interest rates. I.e, the owner of the capital
> also is able to get a "plusvalia" from any self-organized work of
> producers, not only from individual workers.
Please come up with a scenario where this is true. Since no man works
against his own self-interest in a state of anarcho-capitalism, fair
agreements will always be reached, since otherwise it would risk a
worker's strike for low pay that would hurt both parties.
> As alternative both to capitalism and to planified socialism,
> he proposes overproduction of all the essential goods. He correctly
> predicts that such overproduction will be reachable with a work of
> five hours a day, which is the current level in developed
> countries, and probably near the minimum.
Could you clarify this as to separate it from anarcho-capitalism,
which continually makes an oversupply of goods as a response to future
demand. Also, how is this to be implemented?
> Capitalism optimizes productivity by worker, but as
> compensation it try to mantain production always under the
> critical level of price fall. Here is where capitalism steals to
> humanity: it is not giving us as many objects as industry could be
> able to manufacture.
No. If you go to a nearby McDonald's you will notice that they've
overproduced several BigMacs prior to consumer demand. Production is
a response to demand, not price rise or fall, which is also controlled
by the producer also as a response to market demand.
> For capitalism to be able to retain production and mantain
> prices, it will have a system to put off the market (either
> temporally or ethernally) part of the produced objets, or part of
> the production tools and raw materials. Depending of the retained
> object, the retention method or the duration of it, different
> techniques are described in the text books: monopolist systems,
> trusts, carteles, industrial closings, etcetera. All these methods
> are based in a only concept: the "ownership" of the industry by a
> group of so-called capitalists.
In an anarcho-capitalist system there is continually room for
improvement and efficiency and scientific breakthroughs, allowing
constant competition and the elimination of obsolete goods, thus
avoiding a monopolistic scenario.
<rest of argument snipped>
Understood. However, you still have yet to clearly explain how
capitalism "underproduces", since it is pretty much agreed upon that
there is enough food to feed the entire world at this point, and only
war-torn pockets of starvation exist.
Staffan Vilcans
2-100-1!Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com (Lazarus Long) wrote:
> The point is..that the modern "anarcho-theftists", that are
> defending and advocation theftism mostly are posting from
> university sites. Very few "workers" are posting in support of
> theftism. Therefore the conclusion can be made that theftism is
> a ideological toy of a small group of elitists.
Yes, that shows how wrong conclusions you can make if you try to tell
anything from how it looks on the net. Just take a look at the male
dominance here and compare it to what the reality looks like.
Most people doesn't have access to the net which gives the result that
those that are on the net either do it from their school or their
employer or they can afford to get access by paying for it.
--------- All ideas expressed are my own, but a licence is availabe. --------
Staffan Vilcans Ortivus Medical AB
staffan...@ortivus.se http://www.ortivus.se
----- Windows '95 is idiot proof. It's proof that Microsoft are idiots! -----
M Simon
fire ant collective <fire...@deltanet.com> wrote:
> No you are right, given the shining example of harmony,
>efficiency, progress and beauty of our Capitalist utopia here, we should
>all forgoe any concept of progress and just enjoy the milk and honey...
>but in that case what the hell are you talking about with your minarchist
>theories? This isn't REAL capitalism, you say? How much real can it
>get? How many more centuries are they going to keep trying before we are
>allowed to consider any alternatives? Oh I suppose we are the ones who need
>to keep faith...
Thank you so much. I have always believed that capitalism was a
system where man exploited man. Marxism is a system devised to
insure the opposite outcome.
Simon
"Republicans campaign like Libertarians and govern like
Democrats." -- Harry Browne, _Why Government Doesn't Work
Check out Harry Browne's (Libertarian for president) WEB page
http://www.harrybrowne96.org/
Libertarian Party
1-800-682-1776.
Alexander J Russell
In article <karageor.12...@ucla.edu>, kara...@ucla.edu says...
>
>In article <timstarrD...@netcom.com> tims...@netcom.com (Tim Starr)
writes:
>
>
>>In article <karageor.12...@ucla.edu>,
>>Stavros N. Karageorgis <kara...@ucla.edu> wrote:
>>>Human rights are said to be 'inalienable', in the classical Liberal
tradition.
>>>In the U.S. context, 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' are said
to
>>>be 'unalienable' rights that belong to human beings ex hypothesi.
>>>
>>>Now, inalienable means 'cannot be taken away', (forcibly) alienated. Yet,
it
>>>also means not 'alienable' by the (adult) human being (the 'chooser', not
the
>>>'learner') voluntarily. Are any restrictions to the VOLUNTARY 'alienation'
of
>>>individual human rights 'kosher' in the anarcho-capitalist and minarchist
>>>schools of thought?
>
>even be voluntarily alienated, but that they can be forfeited (through some
>crime, etc.). The difference being that if I forfeit my right to life, no one
>else gets it. Whereas if I could alienate it, someone else would get it
Putting aside the US consitution for a moment, what would you list as
'unalienable' rights?
Are these 'rights' immune to thugs with guns?
Can a person voluntarily give up a 'right'. eg can he decide he would be
happier without 'liberty', and decide to sell himself into slavery.
If he can't, why doesn't he have the liberty to give up his liberty?
James A. Donald
I assumed you were referring to your original posting in this thread.
Are you perhaps instead referring to your proposal for overproduction
of basic goods in a totally different thread?
Simple question. Suppose some large number of people do not feel like
producing basic goods that are in abundant supply and available free,
and instead prefer to produce luxuries for their own use, while
continuing to consume this "free" stuff.
When you start filling in the details, you will find that your
proposal still involves death camps somewhere slightly off stage. If
you vary your proposal to avoid this problem you will find you have
just shifted the need for death camps from one part of your proposal
to the other part.
You propose that "society shall produce ..." If you deal with failure
to produce what "society" decides it needs in the same way you deal
with thieves and rapists, your proposal makes the vast majority of
people into slaves, requiring terror to hold them in their place.
Any proposal to make people do desirable things in the same way that
we now restrain them from doing undesirable things is a proposal for
slavery and serfdom, sustained by systematic terror.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Staffan Vilcans
mic...@ix.netcom.com (Michael Fern) wrote:
>Economy simulation? Sim City 2000, the award-winning city simulation
>game by Maxis has an excellent taxation simulator. When you raise
>your taxes above 10% your economic growth starts contracting and you
>end up earning less money in two years than you would have earned at a
>taxation rate of 5%.
Well, I wouldn't trust a game to give the answers to nation wide
economics...
Jamal Hannah
>>and university companions from those villages. Say this, let me tell that I have not
>>hear any claims of massive assesinations by anarcho syndicalists.
>
>That's funny, even their most abject apologists like McKay & Hatch admit that
>there was a wave of murders of nuns & priests by the anarco-syndicalists. They
>just try to blame it on rogue elements within the anarcho-syndicalists, or
Face it Tim, even the Spainiards dont fall for it, The people killed
were fascists and landlords who had abused the working people,
and it was a CIVIL WAR, where a coup had been initiated by
the army, with the landlords and the Church taking sides with
them. So all that means is for propaganda purposes, James
Donald and Byran Caplan say "nuna and priests", but dont point
out that they were fascists and had taken the side of a
hostile government army. You obviously would have
no problem with stories of Communists and Communist sympathizers
killed, and niether would James Donald and Caplan.
"Thats funny"... right, its funny that people can see that
Caplan and Donalds essays are just phony propaganda.
- JH
Liberty for the People web page:
http://tigerden.com/~berios/liberty.html
Tim Starr
In article <50alpk$6...@bronze.lcs.mit.edu>,
Jamal Hannah <ja...@bronze.lcs.mit.edu> wrote:
>Tim Starr <tims...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>In article <321634CF...@sol.unizar.es>,
>>>and university companions from those villages. Say this, let me tell that I have not
>>>hear any claims of massive assesinations by anarcho syndicalists.
>>
>>That's funny, even their most abject apologists like McKay & Hatch admit that
>>there was a wave of murders of nuns & priests by the anarco-syndicalists. They
>>just try to blame it on rogue elements within the anarcho-syndicalists, or
>
>were fascists and landlords who had abused the working people,
>and it was a CIVIL WAR, where a coup had been initiated by
>the army, with the landlords and the Church taking sides with
>them. So all that means is for propaganda purposes, James
>Donald and Byran Caplan say "nuna and priests", but dont point
>out that they were fascists and had taken the side of a
>hostile government army.
Ah, so being a fascist & taking "the side of a hostile army" is enough to merit
summary execution, eh? Do you apply the same standard to, say, Maoists who
took the side of the Viet Cong as anti-war protesters in America during the
Vietnam War?
Not me. They gotta right to express their opinion peacefully, no matter what
their political affiliation.
>You obviously would have no problem with stories of Communists and Communist
>sympathizers killed, and niether would James Donald and Caplan.
How many commies & commie symps did the Anarco-Statists of Spain murder? I
wasn't aware that they included commies & commie symps amongst the targets for
their reign of terror.
Or are you just trying to change the subject again, to:
"Yes, but, the Devil-Fascists made them do it!"
Greg Alt
>summary execution, eh? Do you apply the same standard to, say, Maoists who
>took the side of the Viet Cong as anti-war protesters in America during the
>Vietnam War?
Hate to pick nits, but... In Spain, you had nearly the whole military rise up
in a fascist coup, complete with Nazi and Italian fascist troops and airforce.
The country was split in half, with the fascist side setting up mass public
executions, with large crowds showing up to enjoy the festivities, complete
with food vendors selling the Spanish equivalent of hotdogs and popcorn. The
Spanish Catholic church declared the fascist cause to be a holy crusade, and
the faithful did their part to ensure that the fascists won and that anyone
who had ever spoken out against the church or had been an outspoken labor
leader was put up against the wall and shot.
Now, before I get into the discussion about the right or wrongs of killing
fascists in such a situation, I wanted to first point out the flaw in your
analogy. A much more accurate analogy would be to consider VC supporters
in South Vietnam, as opposed to the U.S. These people WERE shot. If somehow
the Vietnam war somehow spilled over to the U.S., with millions of armed
maoists slaughtering every god-fearing capitalist they could find, along with
the support of Chinese and Soviet troops and airforce, I think the situation
would be more comparable. You would find that flying a viet cong flag
behind the lines of the god-fearing capitalists would most certainly get
you shot (especially if you happened to do it in a city that had just been
bombed into rubble by Soviet bombers).
Now, as to right and wrong, I think that killing people for being merely
passive supporters of the fascist cause would be wrong, even during a
bloody civil war. At the same time, I find it hard to believe that many people
were passive supporters of anything during the civil war. And there is
certainly a lot of grey area between being a fascist leader or combatant and
being a passive admirer of Franco and his buddies, Hitler and Mussolini.
More importantly, there is the question of what do we mean by being against
killing fascists. On one level it means that if we were in the same position
we would not do it. On another level it means that we might do everything in
our power to prevent it or punish those who do it. On another level it means
that we would condemn it and try to persuade people to not do it (either
because we are unable or unwilling to physically risk our lives to defend
the lives of fascists).
In Spain, the CNT and anarchists in general did all of this...
(The CNT had somewhere between one and four million members, yet the highest
estimate of civillians killed in republican-held territory by all republican
factions (Stalinists, Anarchists, Socialists, Liberals, Basque and Catalonian
nationalists, etc) is 75,000, and the victims included the whole spectrum).
Even if you take this ridiculously high figure, it is clear that the killings
by anarchists were carried out by a small minority of the CNT, and the CNT
actively tried to stop such killings, even to the point of putting its own
members on trial and executing them. The CNT and the anarchists in general
didn't participate in the killings, spoke out against them, and actively
tried to stop it.
The ironic thing is that what most makes the CNT share responsibility for the
killings is that in word and in deed, they supported the idea of arming the
people. By giving out guns to large numbers of people, it is inevitable that
some of those people would use them in a bad way, though I would have thought
this is one issue where the laissez-faire capitalists and anarchists would be
on the same side.
Personally, I would be interested in hearing just how many people the
laissez-faire capitalists think we are talking about here... Specifically,
innocent civillians killed by people who either were anarchists or claimed to
be anarchists behind the republican lines. This would include nuns and
priests that were supporters of the fascist uprising and slaughter, but did
not aid it except by giving it their moral support. It seems as if the
laissez-faire capitalists would have us believe that this number is in the
hundreds of thousands or millions, even though the Stalinists and Fascists
would probably only put the number in the tens of thousands. Or perhaps the
laissez-faire capitalists are in agreement with Stalin's and Franco's numbers.
It would really help the discussion if we had at least a ballpark idea of the
laissez-faire capitalist claims, instead of just a couple anecdotal quotes
and vague claims of mass killings.
Greg
--
Visit the Utah Anarchism and Revolution Page at:
http://www.cs.utah.edu/~galt/revolt.html