From: Alexander Sheppard (alexandersheppard@hotmail.com)
Date: Sat Nov 09 2002 - 12:39:48 MST
On Friday, November 08, 2002 5:18 PM Rafal Smigrodzki rms2g@virginia.edu
wrote:
>>So the problem becomes: How to create a
>>social structure where either there are no
>>centralizations of power, or where those who
>>control the centralized power can have no
>>effect on it's continued existence. This isn't
>>an easy job, but it's what is required for a
>>stable libertarian society. (You may achieve
>>a libertarian society without this, but it won't
>>be stable.)
Well, I think a basic question that mabye we need ask is, what IS power? I
mean, how do you meantain power? Power, as far as I can see, comes from
threats. What kind of threats? Well, any sort of threats which deconstruct
the ability of a human being to live effectively or at all will generate
power, as far as I can see. Stalin had tremendous power inside his own
tyranny because everyone knew that they had the threat of death hanging over
their heads. But what other ways are there to maintain power? Human beings
have essential resources which they need for their continued existance. If
you can control those resources, then you effectively do the same thing as
Stalin--because everyone knows that if they don't obey you, they will die.
So, as far as I can see, the exact way in which this kinds of situation
comes about is not very relevant--whether we call it "socialist" or
"capitalist" or "communist"--this sort of situation is just not tolerable to
a free society, and we should try to construct it and its lesser cousins
wherever possible.
In a message dated 11/9/2002 2:06:56 AM Central Standard Time,
avatarpolymorph@hotmail.com writes: I should say I don't think Americans
understand socialism or social democracy in general. They tend to constantly
confuse communism and socialism. Europeans understand these concepts.
Well, I think mabye we should ask: what is communism? What is socialism?
Actually, if you look up the definitions in the dictionary, they are very
similiar. What does this point to? Well, I don't think it means that
socialism = communism = authoritarian dictatorship. Rather, I think what it
means is that the USSR, the PRC, and all of these other places were never
communist OR socialist--or at least never communalist, if we take those to
be the same (which I don't really see how we can't). Certainly Maoism or
Stalinism were not communist or socialist even by authoritarian definitions
(which are, in my view, inconsistent) of the word. Marx's ideas about
communism I think are different from simple communalism anyway...
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:01 MST