Libertarian Party Uk

[Knotted]

All concepts are open to interpretation. Unless you want to appeal to some kind of Platonic realm.

I agree with qualification, but I know you will interpret this as backsliding and it is only a minor qualification. So I'll agree for the sake of argument. Doesn't your point, combined with my point simply show that all high principles - such as the anarchist love of liberty - are just means of controling people? The only thing wrong with my post was that I suggested that some high principles are not a means of controling people. If you are right then I have understated my argument. You have just pointed out that my argument is stronger than I make it out to be.

 

[Knotted]

This might help
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secGcon.html

One of your mistakes is to confuse characterisation with self-definition. The FAQ does indeed suggest that individual anarchists are close to right wing libertarians in my view.

Thus the Individualist Anarchists, like the social anarchists, opposed the exploitation of labour and desired to see the end of capitalism by ensuring that labour would own what it produced.

Labour would own what it produced. ie. right wing Proudhonism. That is proprietors are all thieves, including capitalists, land lords, the welfare state, the NHS, people on disability benefit.

From http://www.lp.org/platform

The owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others.

Reading isn't a substitution for thinking, blagsta.

 

[nino_savatte]

The count has "staying power" precisely because he didn't get into the whole "belief system" schtick, IMHO.

My great-gran didn't like Proudhon either. If she mentioned "the French shit", you knew instantly who she was ranting about.

Your great-gran obviously knew a thing or two about Proudhon.

 

[Blagsta]

It helps only in the sense that it shows that anarchists tend to not know what they mean by liberty. I'd rather read something more clued up.

For example:


This is just a category error. If it isn't then it is circular ie. liberty just means anarchy which in most cases is communism.

It might help if you actually read the thing!

 

[Blagsta]

I agree with qualification, but I know you will interpret this as backsliding and it is only a minor qualification. So I'll agree for the sake of argument. Doesn't your point, combined with my point simply show that all high principles - such as the anarchist love of liberty - are just means of controling people? The only thing wrong with my post was that I suggested that some high principles are not a means of controling people. If you are right then I have understated my argument. You have just pointed out that my argument is stronger than I make it out to be.

Errr....what?

I really don't have a clue what your argument is!

 

[Blagsta]

One of your mistakes is to confuse characterisation with self-definition. The FAQ does indeed suggest that individual anarchists are close to right wing libertarians in my view.



Labour would own what it produced. ie. right wing Proudhonism. That is proprietors are all thieves, including capitalists, land lords, the welfare state, the NHS, people on disability benefit.

From http://www.lp.org/platform


Reading isn't a substitution for thinking, blagsta.

*baffled*

You're obviously far brighter than me knotted.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Indeed. However, the term "anarchism" comes with too much baggage I think. Which is why I prefer the term "libertarian socialist".

Ah.
You see I think that, given the ridiculous activities of US "libertarians", the term "libertarian" now comes with even more baggage than the term "anarchism".

 

[ViolentPanda]

Do employees really say that strikes are "mere persuasion"? I wouldn't. This all just semantics of course. But I would say that a strike is 100% a form of coercion.

Coercion implies use of extra-legal methods. Strikes are (at the moment) legal. To label strike as coercion sounds much like the usual boss-class whine about staff not being supine enough to know what's good for them.

The following analogy will probably not sound convincing to you, but it conveys exactly how I personally view the semantics of "coercion".

Suppose a pacifist said they were opposed to all violence. You ask them whether they believe that even in the case of self-defence. They say in reply that if you punch, kick or stab a person in self-defence then this is not really violence. Is this person really opposed to violence? No. They are just fooling with words. What's more they are quite possibly willing to excuse violence that you wouldn't because they have the freedom to interpret the concept of 'self-defence'. Perhaps self-defence would mean the defence of property, perhaps it could mean the defence of business interests. People who fool with words should not be trusted.

Any high principle which is based on concepts open to interpretation is not really a high principle. Principles like this are about power. About control. People who mangle words this way are controling dialogue itself. They control the terms of the debate. For all this talk about authoritarianism it seems that when you say that the exploited cannot coerce then you are engaging in linguistic authoritarianism. That is unless you have a very clear definition of "coerce", because otherwise nobody will know what you mean.

Even the normative, commonly-accepted meaning of coercion implies a negative force being brought to bear. Exploited people resisting their exploitation can never, in my personal opinion, be viewed as coercion because if those exploited people had been treated in a way that matched even a basic standard of decency then they wouldn't feel the need to resist en masse, surely (unless you happen to believe that dissent equates to "troublemaking"/rabble-rousing, anyway)?

Those who interpret the rules are those who rule. Look at any religion.

Wrong.
Those who interpret the rules and use legalised violence to enforce their interpretation are those who rule. Look at any "democracy".

 

[nino_savatte]

The issue here is power. Workers have little power, while the bosses can call upon whatever means they have at their disposal to coerce people into doing whatever they wish.

 

[tangentlama]

Ah.
You see I think that, given the ridiculous activities of US "libertarians", the term "libertarian" now comes with even more baggage than the term "anarchism".

Sorry Blagsta. You're a great bloke, but I have to agree with VP.

 

[Blagsta]

The issue here is power. Workers have little power, while the bosses can call upon whatever means they have at their disposal to coerce people into doing whatever they wish.

Indeed. Which is why any arguing that a system based on private ownership of land/resources etc and wage labour, can be libertarian, is total nonsense.

 

[ViolentPanda]

It isn't a specific ideological formation. Not in the slightest. Its a very broad range of tendencies and ideolgies including the Diggers, Robert Owen, various 19th century utopian sects and indeed, I think, most anarchists.

Except that many historians of political movements (the late, great Chris Hill notwithstanding) class the diggers, the levellers and most of the Utopians as proto-anarchists, and Robert Owen as a socialist rather than a communist. This would be because Communism is (despite your denial) a specific ideological formation based around the theories espoused in "The Communist Manifesto".
Mention Communism to anyone who isn't an idiot and they link it directly to Marx and to the Manifesto, nowhere else.

 

[Blagsta]

Sorry Blagsta. You're a great bloke, but I have to agree with VP.

People know that libertarian means freedom (leaving aside that right libertarians don't actually want freedom for everyone), so libertarian socialism means non-state based socialism. Most people still think anarchists all wear black and smash stuff.

 

[tangentlama]

Indeed. Which is why any arguing that a system based on private ownership of land/resources etc and wage labour, can be libertarian, is total nonsense.

But that's what the right wing libertarians (US-style) go on about. Now we have this so-called 'Libertarian Party UK' - which is a UK version of the US right-wing nutjobs.

 

[Blagsta]

But that's what the right wing libertarians (US-style) go on about. Now we have this so-called 'Libertarian Party UK' - which is a UK version of the US right-wing nutjobs.

Which is why I always try and argue the point about the meaning of the word!

 

[nino_savatte]

But that's what the right wing libertarians (US-style) go on about. Now we have this so-called 'Libertarian Party UK' - which is a UK version of the US right-wing nutjobs.

It's the freedom to own property, make money and the freedom to vote for a political party from a narrow field of parties that underpins this 'libertarian' notion of 'freedom'. Aside from those two things, the majority will exist with the boot of mega-corporations on its neck.

 

[ViolentPanda]

It helps only in the sense that it shows that anarchists tend to not know what they mean by liberty. I'd rather read something more clued up.

For example:


This is just a category error. If it isn't then it is circular ie. liberty just means anarchy which in most cases is communism.

Which kind of misses the point it's not saying "liberty just means anarchy", but rather that liberty can be found in the practice of self-management by groups and individuals.
"Anarchy" and "anarchism" are not synonymous, and however many times you claim it, anarchism isn't communism.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Your great-gran obviously knew a thing or two about Proudhon.

She was only semi-literate, but she was bright and made sure others read the Russian and Yiddish language papers to her. Her idea of anarchism was ultra-egalitarian and totally-inclusive, so she had no time for people like Proudhon, who were sexist and anti-Semitic.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Which is why I always try and argue the point about the meaning of the word!

TBH, I just got fed up with people asking "wot, like that bloke Farage?" if I used the L-word.

 

[ViolentPanda]

It's the freedom to own property, make money and the freedom to vote for a political party from a narrow field of parties that underpins this 'libertarian' notion of 'freedom'.

In fact the "freedom" to perpetuate the existing order or some variant thereof.

 

[nino_savatte]

She was only semi-literate, but she was bright and made sure others read the Russian and Yiddish language papers to her. Her idea of anarchism was ultra-egalitarian and totally-inclusive, so she had no time for people like Proudhon, who were sexist and anti-Semitic.

Those are exactly my main issues with Proudhon.

 

[Knotted]

Coercion implies use of extra-legal methods. Strikes are (at the moment) legal. To label strike as coercion sounds much like the usual boss-class whine about staff not being supine enough to know what's good for them.

That's a coherent point, but it wouldn't have even occured to me to associate coercion with extra legal methods. That seems very odd to me - maybe that's just me though.

More problematically it means that you should not call perfectly ordinary capitalist exploitation 'coercion' even though if you don't work you don't get paid.

Even the normative, commonly-accepted meaning of coercion implies a negative force being brought to bear. Exploited people resisting their exploitation can never, in my personal opinion, be viewed as coercion because if those exploited people had been treated in a way that matched even a basic standard of decency then they wouldn't feel the need to resist en masse, surely (unless you happen to believe that dissent equates to "troublemaking"/rabble-rousing, anyway)?

If somebody is beaten and they retaliate violently then this is still a violent act. You might mitigate their violence, but it would still be violence.

You can still make sound ethical judgements relative to a context without altering the definitions of words so that the meanings of words are relative to the context.

You can coerce someone on the pain of torture but you can also coerce them on pain of public embarrassment. The word doesn't do the ethical judgement for you.

The problem is that you associate coercion with a sin, for want of a better word. You don't need to. What's wrong with coercion. I've been coercing blagsta and he's been coercing me throughout this debate. Really. We are using public norms of behaviour and politeness to cajole each other. Neither of us is the worse for it. (I hope )

Wrong.
Those who interpret the rules and use legalised violence to enforce their interpretation are those who rule. Look at any "democracy".

I think you can control people to a great extent just using ideology. Religions don't usually use legalised violence. Sure legalised violence helps.

 

[Knotted]

*baffled*

You're obviously far brighter than me knotted.

I believe you when you say you are baffled, but that's not the reason you are baffled.

 

[Knotted]

Except that many historians of political movements (the late, great Chris Hill notwithstanding) class the diggers, the levellers and most of the Utopians as proto-anarchists, and Robert Owen as a socialist rather than a communist. This would be because Communism is (despite your denial) a specific ideological formation based around the theories espoused in "The Communist Manifesto".
Mention Communism to anyone who isn't an idiot and they link it directly to Marx and to the Manifesto, nowhere else.

Well I still prefer communist over socialist because communism is clearly about a revolutionary anti-capitalist approach to property ie. communal ownership. Whereas socialism is associated with social-democracy. But I would normally use the two interchangably. Mind you I wouldn't dream of calling the levellers and the diggers socialist. Plus I don't think that Marxists see Communism as a synonym for Marxism - or at least the decent ones don't. Marxists don't organise around ideology but rather around program. All four communist internationals have had non-marxist members.

 

[Knotted]

Which kind of misses the point it's not saying "liberty just means anarchy", but rather that liberty can be found in the practice of self-management by groups and individuals.
"Anarchy" and "anarchism" are not synonymous, and however many times you claim it, anarchism isn't communism.

Well I am aware of the difference between anarchy and anarchism. Unfortunately there is not a corresponding distinction with communism. Communism refers both to the society and to the movement. I meant anarchy as in the society and communism as in the society. I think most versions of anarchy are forms of communism (the society not the movement). I think both anarchists and communists have said this. Same end goal, different means to the end.

So communists are also libertarians if liberty is taken in this sense. That is communists favour a society of self-management. Lenin - every cook shall rule.

The problem is that there is very little substance to this sort of talk. Its almost as vague as saying liberty = good and hurrah for good.

I realise I am missing the point btw. I don't know what it is that I'm missing.

 

[Knotted]

Wikipedia on anarchism:

Anarchism is a political philosophy encompassing theories and attitudes which consider the state, as compulsory government, to be unnecessary, harmful, and/or undesirable.

Not that I'm taking that as anything authoritive, but it does perhaps indicate what I'm missing. I'm ignoring attitudes and just looking at theories. That's probably why I like Kropotkin and have little time for most other anarchist writers.

I suspect Chomsky has said something interesting about anarchism - just because he's a man of substance rather than platitude. I have read a bit by him on anarchism, but don't remember him saying anything particularly interesting. Any recommendations?

 

[Blagsta]

I believe you when you say you are baffled, but that's not the reason you are baffled.

Oh yeah. The real reason is that your posts are cryptic and hard to understand.

Maybe you could tell us what you think libertarian means? Tell us how right wing libertarians seek to maximise liberty in the immediate and why anarchists don't.

 

[Blagsta]

I've been coercing blagsta and he's been coercing me throughout this debate. Really. We are using public norms of behaviour and politeness to cajole each other. Neither of us is the worse for it. (I hope )

No, you haven't . Really you haven't. I haven't either. Unless you have some brand new defintion of coercion that no one else has.



coercing
One entry found.




Main Entry: co·erce
Pronunciation: \kō-ˈərs\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): co·erced; co·erc·ing
Etymology: Middle English cohercen, from Anglo-French *cohercer Latin coercēre, from co- + arcēre to shut up, enclose — more at ark
Date: 15th century
1 : to restrain or dominate by force <religion in the past has tried to coerce the irreligious — W. R. Inge>
2 : to compel to an act or choice <was coerced into agreeing>
3 : to achieve by force or threat <coerce compliance>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coercing

 

[Knotted]

Oh yeah. The real reason is that your posts are cryptic and hard to understand.

That maybe true but the real reason is that you don't put the effort in. You've misread me at least three times - basic problem of comprehension, nothing to do with the difficulty of what I say. Your replies are one liners. Your arguments are pot shots.

Maybe you could tell us what you think libertarian means? Tell us how right wing libertarians seek to maximise liberty in the immediate and why anarchists don't.

The point is that I don't know. I think the very idea of maximising liberty is incoherent. However right wing libertarianism is pretty clear most of the time. Its very straight forward to the point of being simplistic - the state should but out of personal and economic affairs.

I have offered Kropotkin as a representative of anarchist libertarians. We can talk about someone else. We could talk about what you think. Really you should tell me, you're the libertarian socialist, you know more about this than I do.

 

[Knotted]

2 : to compel to an act or choice <was coerced into agreeing>

Don't you find me compelling? I find you compelling.