anarchist POV concepts

Discussion in 'Politics' started by faso, Sep 28, 2010.

  1. Quoted from Robert Anton Wilson's Illuminati Trilogy:

    FREE MARKET: that condition of society in which all economic transactions result from voluntary choice without coercion.

    THE STATE: that institution which interferes with the Free Market through direct exercise of coercion or the granting of priviliges (backed by coercion).

    TAX: that form of coercion or interference with the Free Market in which th State collects tribute (the tax), allowing it to hire armed forces to practice coercion in defense of privilege, and also to engage in such wars, adventures, experiments, "reforms", etc., as it pleases, not at its own cost, but at the cost of "its" subjects.

    PRIVILEGE: from the latin "privi", private, and "lege", law. An advantage granted by the state and protected by its powers of coercion. A law for private benefit.

    USURY: that form of privilege or interference with the Free Market in which one State-supported group monopolizes the coinage and thereby takes tribute (interest), direct or indirect, on all or most economic transactions.

    LANDLORDISM: that form of privilege or interference with the Free Market in which one State-supported group "owns" the land and thereby takes tribute (rent) from those who live, work, or produce on the land.

    TARIFF: that form of privilege or interference with the Free Market in which commodities produced ouside the State are not allowed to compete equally with those produced inside the State..

    CAPITALISM: that organization of society, incorporating elements of tax, usury, landlordism, and tariff, which thus denies the Free Market while pretending to exemplify it.

    CONSERVATIVISM: that school of capitalist philosophy which claims allegiance to the Free Market while actually supporting usury, landlordism, tariff, and sometimes tax.

    LIBERALISM: that school of capitalist philosophy which attempts to correct the injustices of capitalism by adding new laws to the existing laws. Each time conservatives pass a law creating prvilege, liberals pass a law to modify privilege, leading conservatives to pass a more subtle law recreating privilege, etc., until "everythin not forbidden is compulsory" and "everything not compulsory is forbidden."

    SOCIALISM: The attempted abolition of all privilegeby restoring power entirely to the coercive agent behind privilege, the State, thereby converting capitalist oligarchy into Statist monopoly. Whitewashing a wall by painting it black (or red for that matter - Red.)

    ANARCHISM: That organization of society in which free market operates freely, without tax, usury, landlordism, tariffs or other forms of coercion or privilege.

    RIGHT ANARCHISTS predict that in the Free Market people will voluntarily choose to compete more often than cooperate.

    LEFT ANARCHISTS predict that in the Free Market people will voluntarily choose to cooperate more often than compete.
  2. Understandable.
  3. Silly Robert Anton Wilson... doesn't he know that most of us socialists want the abolition of a state? Socialism, at its purest form, revolves around one doctrine - equal access/ownership of the means of production. The state shouldn't and most of the time doesn't come into the equation. Even COMMUNISTS want the eradication of a state, read the goddam Manifesto - the end goal of Communism is a stateless society, or so Marx would have us believe. I don't believe in Communism, but it's what Communists are supposed to believe in if they follow the Manifesto. Sigh...
  4. In Socialism, there's still centralized power. A State is a State, in Socialism or Communism, there will still be top-down authority, but it wouldn't be called a Government or a State, it would be in the form of councils, unions, etc.
  5. There wouldn't be unions under anarcho-capitalism? :eek:

    Regardless, unions present in anarcho-socialism are only centralised so far as the trade itself goes and are CERTAINLY, 100% absolutely not top-down authority. The whole purpose of socialism is equal opportunity (a logical follow on from equal power-relations), and the only way to achieve equal power-relations is non-heirarchal organisation. Consensus decision-making, based upon participatory democracy and the need for all interests to be represented by outcomes... something that, to my mind, is most effective when people are cooperating and not competing. Anyhow, it's absolutely not top-down authority because there are no leaders at the top to impose anything to those at the bottom - everyone is equal, everyone (who wants to be) is part of the decision-making process, and due to the decentralisation of decisions from state to local community level, only those effected BY the decision itself would be the ones doing the decision making... rather than people hundreds of kilometers away, sitting up in some state-government building that has no relevance to those living in the country, for example.

    As for the 'centralised power' notion... as I have said (and shall explain), unions/syndaclist councils/whatever are only centralised so far as the trade demands centralisation. Example! Davo, Steve and Kevin all work at the port mooring ships - however, Davos' job is to operate the lighthouse to steer ships clear of the reef, Steves' job is to actually rope the ship up and Kevins' job, let's say, is to have a nice cup of tea waiting for the sail. They all work for the same goal, but do they share the same union? The answer is no, for the very reason I support the notion of decentralisation in the first place - because Davos' job is simply not relevant to Steve, to leave poor ol'e Kev out of the equation here. That's to say that power in regards to decision-making, in the form of union representation and whatever else, must only be held by those who are effected by it. Steve is effected by the rope-makers changing the thickness or material with which the ropes are made from (hemp, we shall say :D), and so Steve and his 'ship-tying' union get together and discuss it with the 'rope-makers' union. Davo and Kev don't get a say, because it has nothing to do with them. The opposite is a centralised union system, which is what you're probably thinking of - where there would simply be a union for port workers, a union for farmers etc. This form of unionism breeds centralisation (and thus power-structures), is ineffective at voicing the concerns of the INDIVIDUAL, and is a step on the way to forming a state comprised of unions, rather than a stateless society comprised of workers.
  6. Marx is one thing, and marxists are another.

    And socialism doesn't want the abolition of the state. That's like saying capitalism wants the abolition of the state. That is just if you consider them in their pure form, but for practical purposes mixed economies with socialist or capitalist tendencies are called socialist or capitalists respectively. In their pure form they're now called anarcho socialism or anarcho capitalism.
  7. Very, VERY true, one of the main reasons I am not a Marxist...

    Also true, I was more thinking about 'pure' socialism, as you pointed out. I guess I justify it by the fact that if you attack current corporate capitalism or fairly well ANY brand of capitalism besides anarcho-capitalism on this board you'll quickly be told how it's 'not capitalism' or that 'if a market is not 100% free, it's not a free market, and it's not capitalism'. I suppose I was applying the same logic, but just as I don't think the anarcho-capitalists who say that theirs is the only form of capitalism are right, I don't think it would be right for me to say anarcho-socialism is 'socialism' and everything else is not. Rather, as you say, 'pure socialism' or 'pure capitalism' :smoke:
  8. There wouldn't be monopolistic, market-destroying, poverty-creating Unions like there are in the US today.
  9. Anarcho-capitalism is more of a political position, and it's implied that it is part and parcel with the Austrian School of Economics. Modern day Capitalism is mostly dead, save for the Austrian School. So-called Conservatives were never really capitalists, they are a veritable buffet of Economic ideas, and are more accurately described as protectionists/mercantilists with market leanings, but they're hardly capitalists in true form and function.

    That's why austro-libertarians are kind of the third rail in modern politics/philosophy, we take issue with pretty much all schools of thought.

Share This Page