From: William (williamweb@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Nov 12 2002 - 11:08:38 MST
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 23:40:09 -0500
> From: "Alexander Sheppard" <alexandersheppard@hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: extropians-digest V7 #309
>
> Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 09:05:45 -0600
> From: "William" <williamweb@hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: PLEA: Re: Extrops on socialism - U.S. Perspective -
>
> "Socialism is simply diluted communism. Socialism allows for some
> private property but saves the most important "means of production" for
> the state. The state decides what is important enough to nationalize."
>
> Ok, first of all, I don't understand this idea that communism and
socialism
> are not on equal footing about how opposed to capitalism they are. I don't
> see communists as being any more opposed to capitalism, or socialists as
any
> less. Second, I don't see how you can characterize socialists and
communists
> as necessary even favoring the state at all. In fact, many socialists and
> communists are libertarians, especially in Europe. The libertarian left in
> Europe may well still be more established than the "libertarian" right
> there. Libertarian socialism and libertarian communism is often denoted
> simply as anarchism, and vise versa. There's a long anarchist tradition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
The term "Libertarian" in the United States, from my experience and talks
with
an economics professor I know, refers to views such as Milton Friedman's
and,
politically, tend to refer to the US Libertarian party at www.lp.org which
is not
anarchistic. In fact, the US understanding of Libertarian political economy
tends towards thinking the state's only legitimate functions are (1) a
judiciary to
enforce binding contracts and (2) a strong police force/ military to protect
against foreign and domestic enemies. (I've noticed that the "foreign"
enemies
have infiltrated or been home-grown lately. Whether Tim McVeigh,
Moussaoui or John Mohammed - not just Muslim Arabs are terrorists.)
>From the usage I am familiar with a communist or socialist Libertarian is an
oxymoron - a clear-cut contradiction in terms like "black whiteness" or
"wet dryness".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
> starting with Proudhon and Bakunin--and anarchist tendencies which were
> evolving in the Enlightenment much before that--which are anti-capitalist
in
> nature. In fact, as far as I can tell, the Enlightenment was
anti-capitalist
> in nature. Not anti-market or anti-private property, now, but definitely
> anti-capitalist.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
I definately was not including this kind of thing as "Libertarian".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
> I mean, Adam Smith wrote that "the vile maxim of the
> masters of mankind" was "all for ourselves and nothing for other people".
> Smith's ideas of a pre-capitalist free market were effectively outdated
with
> the arrival of the industrial revolution. So far as I can see, Smith would
> have been horrified to see the effects of modern capitalism, and quite
> opposed to them.
> Second of all, there's an extremely distorted lexicon, as far as I can
tell,
> that is currently in use when refering to political ideas. Private
property,
> or private control of resources, is taken as being something that is
> necessarily different from state control. I find this to be a not only
> unnecessary but actually impossible proposition, as the state is necessary
> to defend private property against being redistributed in ways which
reflect
> the needs of the group (see the quote after this paragraph by Adam Smith).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
I agree that realistically today a state is required and I do not advocate
anything like anarchy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
> In fact, to say that Stalin was not the property owner of the USSR is, as
> far as I can see, an Orwellian distortion. Maoism, Stalinismism, Nazism,
> etc. can just as well be concieved as a perversion of Marxist theory as a
> situation in which one property owner owns everything. And after all, if
you
> own everything, then why not simply command the state yourself, as you are
> effectively the only one it serves?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
I agree that Stalin did, essentially, own the USSR. Something like that
could
be said for military dictatorships and absolute monarchies. After all
monarchy
literally means "rule by one".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
> "Laws and governments may be considered in this and indeed every case, a
> combination of the rich to oppress the poor, and preserve to themselves
the
> inequality of the goods, which would otherwise be soon destroyed by the
> attacks of the poor, who if not hindered by the government would soon
reduce
> others to an equality with themselves by open violence." --Adam Smith
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
Adam did get the above quote correct.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:03 MST