[Peace-discuss] Libertarian/Anarchist

[unionyes]

" But isn't  extreme socialism likewise associated with coercion and
unbridled exercise of authority?  After all, the Nazis were "National
Socialists"."

No it is NOT !

Socialism is political and ECONOMIC democracy of, by and for the people.
As opposed to a sham " democracy " only for those with enough money to buy ; 
elections, politicians, and the police, and control the economy.

Like the term " Christianity " , Socialism  has been mis-interpreted and 
distorted from it's TRUE teachings and practices, by oppurtunists and 
tyrants.
MANY similarities in fact between the two ( Christianity and Socialism ).

The term " National Socialism " in particular.

This was a political public relations ploy by Hitler and the Nazis to get 
working class support, because at the time in Europe and other areas of the 
world as well, Socialism was an extremely popular social / political 
movement.

The key word is " national ", as opposed to real Socialism that advocated 
ALL workers of the world to be united, instead of the " national " ideology 
of one nation and it's people being superior to everyone else that the Nazis 
preached.
Besides, National Socialism aka. Fascism is the merger of the government and 
the corporate sector, coupled with extreme militarism.

In terms of totalitarian " socialism " , again you have another group of 
oppurtunists ( The Bolshevik Communists ) in Russia who instituted a 
one-party state that controlled all aspects of the political system and the 
economy and called themselves " Socialists ".
When in fact they were not.

How many tyrants through the centuries have called themselves Christians and 
in fact were mass murderers ?

David J.




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "E. Wayne Johnson" <ewj at pigs.ag>
To: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu>
Cc: "peace-discuss" <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 11:47 AM
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Libertarian/Anarchist


> One of the most interesting things to me about this passage from Chomsky 
> is that he associates unbridled capitalism with extreme authoritarianism. 
> But isn't  extreme socialism likewise associated with coercion and 
> unbridled exercise of authority?  After all, the Nazis were "National 
> Socialists".
>
> I don/t agree with Chomsky's opinion that American libertarians favour 
> public schools and killing people in far off foreign lands.  All of the 
> libertarians I know are against war, and particularly 
> interventionist/imperialist war.   There is a tendency for libertarians to 
> shun the public school system in favour of homeschooling or private 
> schools and they are quick to point out the advantages to their children. 
> (My boys attend ML King School in Urbana, and Alice, who is 4, and reads 
> with understanding at the 4th grade level, will start kindergarten there 
> this fall.)
> But it is true that some that I would characterize as "neocons" will say 
> that they are libertarian.   Maybe we need an absurd new category for 
> "Chicken-hawk Libertarians".
>
> Of course I dont agree with Murray Rothbard on issues like abortion as he 
> fails to recognize the rights of the innocent individual.  Rothbard does 
> provide some quite useful perspective,
> but I really think I prefer Locke's theologic libertarianism to the 
> secular libertarianism of Rothbard.   Perhaps Rothbard's secularism is his 
> fundamental error.
>
> Extremism might not be a vice, but can tend toward being dysfunctional. 
> And moderation, although viewed as virtuous by many, often lacks 
> sufficient energy to cause anything to move.
>
> There is the option of entrepreneurship and self-employment.  We are not 
> constrained to work for others, but little else seems to occur to many 
> folks.
> Why not a beneficent capitalism in which every one has his own property 
> but uses it freely to the good of others, as he sees fit? Is a socialist 
> libertarian capitalism sort of a Dr. Seuss item like a noodle eating 
> poodle fighting battles in a bottle? Perhaps I don't have a good 
> definition of capitalism.
>
>
> C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>> Man: What's the difference between "libertarian" and "anarchist," 
>> exactly?
>>
>> Chomsky: There's no difference, really. I think they're the same thing. 
>> But you see, "libertarian" has a special meaning in the United States. 
>> The United States is off the spectrum of the main tradition in this 
>> respect: what's called "libertarianism" here is unbridled capitalism. 
>> Now, that's always been opposed in the European libertarian tradition, 
>> where every anarchist has been a socialist—because the point is, if you 
>> have unbridled capitalism, you have all kinds of authority: you have 
>> extreme authority.
>>
>> If capital is privately controlled, then people are going to have to rent 
>> themselves in order to survive. Now, you can say, "they rent themselves 
>> freely, it's a free contract" -- but that's a joke. If your choice is, 
>> "do what I tell you or starve," that's not a choice -- it's in fact what 
>> was commonly referred to as wage slavery in more civilized times, like 
>> the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, for example.
>>
>> The American version of "libertarianism" is an aberration, though nobody 
>> really takes it seriously. I mean, everybody knows that a society that 
>> worked by American libertarian principles would self-destruct in three 
>> seconds. The only reason people pretend to take it seriously is because 
>> you can use it as a weapon. Like, when somebody comes out in favor of a 
>> tax, you can say: "No, I'm a libertarian, I'm against that tax" -- but of 
>> course, I'm still in favor of the government building roads, and having 
>> schools, and killing Libyans, and all that sort of stuff.
>>
>> Now, there are consistent libertarians, people like Murray Rothbard -- 
>> and if you just read the world that they describe, it's a world so full 
>> of hate that no human being would want to live in it. This is a world 
>> where you don't have roads because you don't see any reason why you 
>> should cooperate in building a road that you're not going to use: if you 
>> want a road, you get together with a bunch of other people who are going 
>> to use that road and you build it, then you charge people to ride on it. 
>> If you don't like the pollution from somebody's automobile, you take them 
>> to court and you litigate it. Who would want to live in a world like 
>> that? It's a world built on hatred.
>>
>> The whole thing's not even worth talking about, though. First of all, it 
>> couldn't function for a second -- and if it could, all you'd want to do 
>> is get out, or commit suicide or something. But this is a special 
>> American aberration, it's not really serious.
>>
>> (from Understanding Power)
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.11.10/1994 - 
> Release Date: 3/10/2009 7:51 PM
>
>