Libertarian and Liberal

[Blagsta]

.

 

[Blagsta]

.

 

[Blagsta]

.

 

[Blagsta]

To be fair, Marx implied that mutualism couldn't exist outside of capitalism, so perhaps Darios is just following the party line.

tbh, I find mutualism a little confused/confusing. Mutualists appear to want private ownership of land, resources, mop but a non-exploitative relationship between humans, what they term a free voluntary exchange in a free market. I don't see how you can have non-exploitative relationships without socialising resources, mop etc. Unless I'm missing something?

(btw I've put Darios on ignore, I can't be arsed with anyone who lies so blatantly)

 

[danny la rouge]

I don't think there are actually many pure mutualists around these days. But historically, the biggest problem for them is their People's Bank, money, and wage system.

Proudhon was an important figure, but not a coherent one.

 

[Blagsta]

I find Darios' attempt to claim Proudhon as a forerunner of anarcho-capitalism an odd one.

 

[danny la rouge]

I find Darios' attempt to claim Proudhon as a forerunner of anarcho-capitalism an odd one.

Kevin Carson.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

<snip> Proudhon was an important figure, but not a coherent one.

Deliciously put.

 

[Blagsta]

Kevin Carson.

I'm not sure I follow you.

 

[danny la rouge]

I'm not sure I follow you.

Kevin Carson has done the damage.

 

[DotCommunist]

To dissolve, submerge, and cause to disappear the political or governmental system in the economic system by reducing, simplifying, decentralizing and suppressing, one after another, all the wheels of this great machine, which is called the Government or the State. --Proudhon, General Idea of the Revolution



when was this bloke writing? government and megacorp are close enough in bed already

 

[danny la rouge]

when was this bloke writing?

Proudhon? 1840s.

 

[Blagsta]

Kevin Carson has done the damage.

He calls himself an anti-capitalist though.

 

[danny la rouge]

His best-known rant is:

To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place[d] under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.

Still a good rant, even now.

 

[danny la rouge]

He calls himself an anti-capitalist though.

So do agorists. (See SEK 3).

I think Carson's sincerely socialist, but he has welcomed some "Anarcho" capitalists.

 

[DotCommunist]

His best-known rant is:



Still a good rant, even now.

excellent rantage

 

[FridgeMagnet]

excellent rantage

I'd ban him.

 

[Blagsta]

So do agorists. (See SEK 3).

I think Carson's sincerely socialist, but he has welcomed some "Anarcho" capitalists.

Yeah, I've just been perusing his site. He claims to be a socialist but welcomes co-operation with (US style) libertarians.
http://www.mutualist.org/id32.html

He apparently seems to think that the enemy of his enemy is his friend.

 

[danny la rouge]

I'd ban him.

He'd way flounce before you could hit the button, pal.

 

[danny la rouge]

Yeah, I've just been perusing his site.

Mixed up kid, huh?

Anyway, not at all the mainstream of anarchism.

 

[Blagsta]

Mixed up kid, huh?

Anyway, not at all the mainstream of anarchism.

I do find a lot of US strands of anarchism a bit confused.

 

[Darios]

tbh, I find mutualism a little confused/confusing. Mutualists appear to want private ownership of land, resources, mop but a non-exploitative relationship between humans, what they term a free voluntary exchange in a free market. I don't see how you can have non-exploitative relationships without socialising resources, mop etc. Unless I'm missing something?

Jesus wept. He only had to go read something by mutualists to clear this one up. Too lazy (or self-assured) to even check, so he shoots from the hip again. The de facto and de jure distinctions re: land etc soon clear up his confusion. Poor lad.

(btw I've put Darios on ignore, I can't be arsed with anyone who lies so blatantly)

Smear and deceit. Lie and repeat.

Yay! Poor Blagsta. That's a higher signal to noise ratio for these debates then. Now I don't have to deal with his regular misrepresentations and "predictions" about what he thinks I *might* think.

However, now he can continue to make up shit without being challenged, such as the following:

I find Darios' attempt to claim Proudhon as a forerunner of anarcho-capitalism an odd one.

As the big B has me on ignore, can anyone else point out where I claimed Proudhon "as a forerunner of anarcho-capitalism"? And to anticipate the dimwits - i) pointing out that some of what Proudhon says sounds very much like miniarchism is not synonymous with what Blagsta says and likewise ii) miniarchism is not synonymous with anarcho-capitalism (i.e. for example it's possible to imagine a minimal state society where everything else is taken care of through collectives).

 

[Darios]

Kevin Carson has done the damage.

Danny, do you fundamentally disagree with Carson when he says the following:

“But if both facets of our understanding of the present system (that corporate capitalism is exploitative; and that its exploitation depends solely on the state) were sincerely held by libertarians of left and right, it could serve as the basis for an alliance against state capitalism.

The Left must be made to understand that their proper grievance is not against private property (properly understood), or markets (in the sense of free exchange between equal, unprivileged producers), but with the state.

The Right must be made to understand the extent to which Wal-Mart, Microsoft, and GM are parasitic outgrowths of the state, and not products of “good old American know-how” or “elbow grease.”

If both sides are sincerely motivated primarily by an opposition to statist coercion, rather than a reflexive sympathy for big business or aversion to market exchange, the potential exists for coexistence on the basis of something like Voltairine de Cleyre’s “anarchism without adjectives.”

?

Source

 

[danny la rouge]

Danny, do you fundamentally disagree with Carson when he says the following:



?

Source

Yes.

 

[butchersapron]

I do too. And i cannot see how anyone who understands the anarchist-communist postion would think we would do otherwise. It might explain why darios is so sure there's a crossover between his right-libertarian capitalism and anarchism proper though.

 

[Darios]

Yes.

An impasse it is then.

That's a shame.

 

[kabbes]

This thread has had an extraordinarily high percentage of it devoted to arguing about the meaning of words. This is understandable, given that the thread started off precisely by questioning the meaning of some words. So fair enough, no foul.

But still, I would normally expect a thread of this nature to develop into discussion about the real meat of an issue, not what that meat is called.

I only mention it because this is something I see depressingly often in politics discussions amongst people that actually really do have something interesting to contribute and really do have some perspective and understanding to pass on. Why does it happen? Who CARES what you call these things? Seriously? Surely the underlying ideas are the point of the debate, not the name of the idea?

Personally speaking, it puts me off the discussion. I end up just thinking everybody involved is the worst kind of pedant (not the best kind of pedant, like me) and turning something else on instead. This is a real shame.

Anyway, there it is.

 

[ViolentPanda]

His best-known rant is:

Still a good rant, even now.

And one that a certain M. Foucault mined for gold rather tirelessly, IMHO.

 

[nino_savatte]

Havent seen it on this thread.

Here's a picture: there would still be hierarchies. The present system of hierarchies would be replaced by others, where the corporation is king. That does not sound like anarchism to me.

 

[Darios]

Here's a picture: there would still be hierarchies. The present system of hierarchies would be replaced by others, where the corporation is king. That does not sound like anarchism to me.

I don't see how the de facto (by use) concept of property advocated leads to anything like you imagine. What are you proposing? Absolutely no property? And how do you propose to remove *all* hierarchies?