From: Alexander Sheppard (alexandersheppard@hotmail.com)
Date: Sat Nov 16 2002 - 16:33:34 MST
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 01:01:09 -0500
From: "John K Clark" <jonkc@att.net>
Subject: Re: Thoughts on anarchism, socialism, capitalism
s
>or having a group which is around the size of a nation all become
>socialism at the same time?
In other words force people to become socialist. I agree, that's socialism's
only hope.
(Reply) Well, I mean, if you want to leave and go to a capitalist country,
nobody is going to stop you, if you want to characterize the community as
still libertarian, and still socialist for that matter (because if some
group has the power to force some other group to stay in the confines of the
country, then that group is probably also monopolizing resources and giving
itself excess priviledge at the expense of everyone else, and so the
community has lost its socialistic nature... this is why I say that
"authoritarian socialism" is not a self consistent concept, and that the
USSR & company was not socialistic in any meaningful sense).
> I also am unclear about what you mean by "powerful".
Are you? I doubt it.
(Reply) No, I really have very little idea of what you mean by this. I mean,
my guess is that you mean militarily powerful--but what sort? Aggressive
power? Defensive power? "Power" can mean all sorts of things.
>if I assume that you mean libertarian socialism--then yes,
> I think it would generate tremendous fear in the powers that be
Right, I'm sure President Bush wakes up lake at night in a cold sweat
worrying about the great convent revolution and how that way of life will
take over the world, and those nuns can get pretty mean too. And I shudder
ust thinking about the Amish.
(Reply) I mean they would generate tremendous fear if they ever actually
achieved some larger number of individuals. At present, the anarchist
movement in this country is very small, although it is bigger than it has
been for a long time.
>Such people are very dangerous to the capitalist system
Yes, the technical term is "thieves". By the way if the store keeper is a
libertarian socialist too would it be OK for him to take the food back?
(Reply) No, because he has enough food. It would only be legitimate to take
food from someone who has an excess of food if you had less food than you
needed. So, why would people work? Well, they'd work because they wanted to
work, because they saw some purpose in working--not because they were afraid
of the threat of enforced starvation or homelessness by the state. I mean,
if you don't see any purpose in working on something, then in my view you
ought not be forced to work on it, whether by the threat of a bullet to the
brain or enforced starvation. I think that's a pretty essential component of
any idea which claims to represent a form of anarchism.
>Well, I'm not sure where the "powers that be" lie in a libertarian
>socialist society.
The Mother Superior.
(Reply) No, really, I don't know how to answer this--I mean, as far as I can
tell, there are no "powers that be" in a libertarian socialist society. But
in anarcho-capitalism, which I think should really be called
proprietarianism because I don't believe it has any legitimate resemblance
to anarchism, and because it rests completely upon private property as its
basis, there are very clear "powers that be"--rich people. For anyone who
favors real liberty, that should be rather disturbing, I think. I mean,
look, the idea that the rich, who have all the powers of society at their
command, are just going to be benevolent with that power in a society which
is, furthermore, expressly devoted to individuals bringing resources under
their personal control and keeping it there by force, is in my view
completely crazy. My guess is that the result of trying to institute
anarcho-capitalism, or proprietarianism as I think it should really be
called, would ultimately result in one or more murderous dictatorships.
>if some commander today ordered the military to slaughter Congress,
>kill the President, etc., nobody would listen.
I agree because most people in the army want to do the right thing most of
the time and I don't see why the same sort of people wouldn't work in a PPA
too.
(Reply) In a society where the purpose of life is supposed to be bringing
resources under your personal control and keeping them there by force, I
don't see why "market systems" are something that the powerful are likely to
care about very much. Again, I mean, if you are powerful enough inside a
proprietarian society, you can kill anyone you like, simply by denying them
the money to buy the food they need to survive. Of course, if they consent
to be your slave, you may choose to give them just enough to survive... So,
death threats and murder run rampant in such a society. If that's the case,
then it's less than a stone's throw to situations where someone is putting a
gun to your head and saying "Work or die". In fact, it's really just a
matter of technicality, or mabye efficiency. So, if the private "protection"
agency (rather like calling the SS Hitler's protection agency, protecting
his property, that is, all of Germany) is doing things like that, and is
devoted to this wonderful goal of acquiring the personal control of
resources and keeping them there by force, I really don't see any reason why
they wouldn't actually be something resembling the Nazi SS.
>But in a PPA, everybody is devoted to bringing resources under their
>control. That's the only goal, effectively--that's what profit is.
Yes, the goal is in making money, and you don't do that by making your
customers angry at you.
(Reply) If you have force up your sleeve, and you want to make profit, and
they don't have force up their sleeves, and you're devoted enough to making
profit, you don't have to worry about what they think...
In my last post I asked a question and I couldn't make any sense in your
answer, I don't know if you mean yes or no so I will ask again.
If I am a better architect than you and a harder worker than you then I'll
have a better house than you. If you have a larger family than me are you
going to take my house from me?
(Reply) Well, mabye, with leanings toward yes, but I'm not certain about
this. But I don't understand what is so hard to understand about what I said
in response to this in my last post. I don't understand why we should coerce
people into being good architects, or good bankers, or good scientists by
threatening them with a system that will give them a small house or no house
at all if they don't. I think they should be able to decide that for
themselves, using reason, not be coerced into it by a system which
ultimately represents the wealthy classes and those who protect their power
and priviledge (usually thought of as the state). I don't think that is a
humanistic arrangement.
_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:11 MST