[Peace-discuss] Libertarian/Anarchist

[C. G. Estabrook]

One of the effects of the apparent advent of Great Depression II is re-emergence 
  of the term socialism.  Unfortunately the wells of discussion have been so 
poisoned that it will take much effort to achieve as intelligent a discussion of 
socialism as our grandparents would have taken for granted.

First of all, any account on which the two great power-systems of the 20th 
century (the US and the USSR) agreed was probably a lie, and the greatest of 
these was the assertion that the USSR was socialist.  In fact, the Bolsheviks 
destroyed the beginnings of socialism that existed in Russia when they took 
over.  What they produced was not socialism but state capitalism.  Germany and 
the US had to wait a bit later in the century to do the same thing.

Socialism means at least democratic control of the economy.  The great crime of 
capitalism is to take what makes us human -- our purposeful work of head and 
hands -- and force us to sell it to someone else in order to eat regularly. 
Socialism must reverse that and give back to people control over their 
work/their humanity.

American libertarianism thinks that that can be done piecemeal.  Everyone is an 
economic Robinson Crusoe -- an isolated individual (or household).  But in an
industrialized society control over work must be done in community -- 
democratically.  A democratic socialist (= anarchist) society will necessarily 
be a highly organized one, but not an authoritarian one.

I think Chomsky was being a bit sarcastic about people who declare themselves 
libertarians in regard to taxes and yet still support even the worst exercises 
of state power.  It's true that American libertarians and paleoconservatives 
have a much better record than conventional liberals in principled opposition to 
the interventionist/imperialist wars of the last several US administrations.

Having been a bit involved with home schooling, I'd see it as an attempt to 
restore democratic control of schooling.  What's at stake was set out a 
generation ago by Ivan Illich in "De-schooling Society."

Chomsky has mentioned that there were times when the only journal that would 
publish his (Chomsky's) stuff was one edited by Murray Rothbard...

Capitalism: a system of production based on the division of the population into 
two groups, a small one thought to have a peculiar relation ("ownership") to the 
material necessary for production (factories, farms, etc.) and a large one who 
have to sell what makes them human to the "owners" in order to live.  FWIW.

--CGE


E. Wayne Johnson wrote:
> 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