From: Julio R. Vaquer (jvaquer@primenet.com)
Date: Fri Jan 03 1997 - 23:24:00 MST
Jamal Hannah wrote:
>
> Back on Sat, 12 Oct 1996 15:32:39 -0400 <Enigl@aol.com>
> wrote an essay titled "Collectivist anarchy vs. Individualist anarchy".
> In it he described his idea of a collectivist or socialistic
> anarchy vs. a individualistic and misnamedly capitalistic
> anarchy. I think he had his definitions mixed up, however, and
> I'll attempt to set the record straight.
>
> > Anarcho-syndicalism looks to me like "Anarcho-communism, communism without
> > the state" or because communism is though of a state, more accurately:
> > spontaneous socialism/ collectivist anarchy. AKA Libertarian-socialism.
>
> This is more or less true, however, what is left out is that
> anarcho-syndicalism, or libertarian socialism, is not a philosophy
> based on altruism but in fact on rational, enlightened self-interest.
> There are in fact both win-win, and lose-win situations in a socialistic
> context AS WELL as in a capitalistic context. Consider the situation
(snip)
Collectivist anarchy
Individualist anarchy
Socialist anarchy
Capitalist anarchy
Anarcho-syndicalism
Anarcho-communism
Spontaneous socialism
Libertarian socialism
Anarcho-capitalism
Anarchist individualist.
I am 30 years old and fairly new to the extropian movement. I come from
the
standard Libertarian viewpoint of: Yes, I want a goverment. One whose
only purpose
is to help me protect my individual rights. The ten two-word phrases
I've listed
above seem contradictory to me. Are these phrases important parts of
the Extropian
movements? I ask this out of sheer ignorance. The only one of these
phrases that I
remember reading in the extropian FAQ's was Anarcho-capitalism. I
remember similar
phrases to these in one of those early-20th-century-Union-Movement
books. From what I
understand, every "ism" mentioned above wants a gov't to do certain
things for them.
Has this usage changed? Is it assumed that Trans/Posthumans will not
take actions that
affect individual rights, for good or bad? Won't Trans/Posthumans try to
create
organizations to deal with (and/or deal *out*) use of force? In my
jargon these
organizations are called governments..whether they are corporate,
dictatorial,
constitutional, democratic, etc..
(snip)
> To expect
> capitalists to "hold themselves back" from making profits because it
> harms other besides themselves (and even themselves in the
> LONG run),
How does an individual improve his existence without profit? How is
profiting harmful to others?
> is to expect capitalists to be altruistic, and of course,
> they cannot be, because the capitalist meme is forever at war against
> any altruist meme. (except, in the case of FDR style liberal
> capitalism.. also called "social democracy).
I wish this were true. I've never seen any corporate leader (alive
today)
blatantly attack altruism at its philosophical roots...actually
attacking the meme "altruism".
>
> Collectivist anarchy and Individualist anarchy vs "anarcho-" capitalism:
>
> There are two groups of Libertarians: the Spontaneous
> Socialists (Collectivist anarchy) and the Individualist Anarchists.
> There is another group, the so-called anarcho-capitalists, but
> they in fact are one of the current incarnations of a form
> of liberalism that existed before the more common Liberalism
> of the post-FDR years. This type of "liberalism" bases it's
> "liberal" emphasis on the fact that it opposes the State and
> the Church as entities that control capital. It does not,
> however, have much to say about liberty of labor, or the rights
> of individuals in the labor force, beyond that they have the "choice"
> of whom to take order from, or the opportunity to become a boss
> and give orders to someone else.
You either produce the products you want for life's enjoyment yourself
or you get them from some other source. That other source wants
something
in return. This is why the Customer/boss gives orders.
>
> The first group is where Rudolf Rocker, Noam Chomsky
> and Gregory P. Maximoff stand. A common misconception is that their
> systems are based on the illegalization of private property. This
> is not true. anarcho-syndicalism, or libertarian socialism, is based
> on working class individualists putting their own self-interests
> first and _abandoning_ the system of private property that
> exploits them.
I like private property. I've put alot of effort to acquire the private
property
that I own (no real estate yet). Abandoning my private property is not
in my
self-interest.
> The survival of such a group is not based on
> "expelling" win-lose meme private property people, but rather
> in keeping the win-win libertarian socialist people.
If the word "socialist" still means he who offers or receives
self-sacrifice,
then a libertarian socialist (huh?) is operating on a win-loose (at
best) meme.
> This group does not force itself to not see the "win-win" aspects
> of capitalism: it's pretty obvious that there are some win-win
> transactions, where two powerful capitalists might make a transaction
> and each side be satisfied... however, what they recognize is
> that there is ALWAYS a win-lose side to capitalism in how workers
> are treated.
If it's truly a capitalist society, then the worker is free to get up
and leave.
But, if he expects to consume goods and services, someone will have to
produce them.
If he expects someone else to produce for him, he'll have to pay the
producer. As we see from today's America: if you set up a system where
you don't pay the Piper, the vermin take over.
>
> Individualist and Socialistic anarchy are not fundamentally different.
> Some capitalist theorists have argued that capitalism is an
> individualist philosophy based on the idea that the "individual"
> capitalist is pitted against the "mass" of workers. But the
> reality is that it is the individual worker against the
> individual boss.
My model pits my resources against my desire to live and enjoy life.
It's a battle I would rather not fight without the ability to trade
(division of labor and all that).
> The model of "mass" representing the left,
> something boosted by Stalinist ideology, only helped re-enforce
> the illusion of "individual" on the capitalist side. However,
> the early individualist anarchists were not in favor of capitalism
> per se, they were simply opposed to mass state organizations like the
> Communist Party. Individualist-leaning philosophers like Thomas Jefferson,
> Adam Smith, Lysander Spooner, Henry David Thoreau, Max Stirner and so on
> all believed that workers had fundamental rights, and the right to their
> fair share of labor... but they had to claim it themselves, through
> their own efforts, and through acts of resistance, strikes,
> and civil disobedience.. not by imposing ones will on the
> capitalist individual, but by refusing to be exploited by the capitalist
> individual. Take the delemma of the con-man: he has only his
> wits to rely on.. no money, no resources: just his mind. His
> answer to those who wail "how could you trick and exploit me!?"
> is: "You allowed it to happen to yourself." Libertarian Socialism,
> or anarcho-syndicalism is no more and no less than the idea
> of no longer permitting oneself to be conned, used, exploited, coerced,
> or tricked. Not by a capitalistic boss, or a political party "leader".
Jamal, I have to disagree with you on this. This paragraph equates
free, voluntary trade with fraud, theft and coercion.
> Another name for libertarian socialists might be "Laissez-Faire
> Socialists": the saying goes that if a group of libertarian
> workers were approached by a government official who asked them
> "what can I do for you?", the answer would be "leave us alone:
> labor united can solve it's own problems". The Communist and
> Socialist parties turned to electorialism and the
> state as a tool to solve the working class's problems... but
> libertarian and individualist anarchists historically
> rejected this.
>
> Laissez-Faire Socialists (individualist and syndicalist anarchy)
> believe people like to work hard and get paid fairly for it. Win-win...
> (though capitalists often force themselves to refuse to see the win-win
> aspect of such a situation and only see it as win-lose, thus opposing
> working-class individuals who ask for nothing more than freedom
> from exploitation)
What is a Laissez-Faire Socialist?
> Libertarian Socialism/ anarcho-syndicalism encourages people to work and
> be paid a fair wage (WIN-WIN) when they are employed.
>
> Libertarian socialism assumes people own their own bodies, unlike
> "anarcho-capitalism" where the individual is "owned" by the corporation
> they work for. In "anarcho-" capitalist society human behavior is regulated
> by the imposition of regulatory patents, copyright laws, and so on.
Who owns the property in Libertarian Socialism. Can I produce and trade
as I please? Does socialism not imply the existence of a State that
owns the means of production? I'm getting the feeling that I'm actually
responding to some "Initiation meme/post".
OK guys, you caught me with my mouth open, ha, ha!
> BTW, Fascism is a form extreme capitalism. Fascism occours when small business
> owners, frightened of a rising, militant and organised working class,
> turn to the extreme right which uses workerist rhetoric and emotional
> appeals to build a counter-revolutionary movement to stop the spread
> of (libertarian) socialist ideas.
>
> Dynamically Optimistic,
> Jamal
>
> For more info:
> Liberty for the People web page:
> http://tigerden.com/~berios/liberty.html
> ...and...
> Prominent Anarchists & Left-Libertarians:
> http://tigerden.com/~berios/libertarians.html
It was fun and, yes, I fell right into it like a fly on fly-paper!!!!
Julio R. Vaquer
jvaquer@primenet.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:43:57 MST