[Peace-discuss] [Discuss] Fw: What hath got rot?

[C. G. ESTABROOK]

PS - To make my position clear, I think what used to be called "libertarian 
socialism" (before "libertarian" took on a different and indeed opposed meaning) 
- is the best description of political goals we have at the moment. The short 
name for it is anarchism, if we understand anarchism as the best summary of the 
socialist tradition; e.g., it opposes Marxism-Leninism (if there were any 
around) from the left.

"The consistent anarchist, then, should be a socialist, but a socialist of a 
particular sort. He will not only oppose alienated and specialized labor and 
look forward to the appropriation of capital by the whole body of workers, but 
he will also insist that this appropriation be direct, not exercised by some 
elite force acting in the name of the proletariat."


C. G. ESTABROOK wrote:
> You're right - the precarity article is interesting, with some good links.
> 
> It's generally observed that "all anarchists are socialists, but not all
> socialists are anarchists." (That probably needs to be stressed today, 
> with the appearance of self-proclaimed anarcho-capitalists, who are at 
> best confused and confusing, otherwise guides into a dangerous blind 
> alley.)
> 
> And the situation you describe is the great unmentionable in US 
> politics: real wages haven't risen in 30 years. That simply becomes more 
> apparent as inequality grows and accelerates, and the unemployment rate 
> tops 20%, as it now does if it's measured as it was in the Reagan 
> administration.
> 
> Of course we've got the good Democrats to keep the lid on, as Obama 
> advertised he would do in The Mendacity of Hope.  What's maddening is to 
> see self-styled progressives/socialists defend him frantically against 
> quite appropriate if unfocused criticism - especially since our 
> ideological institutions strain to unfocus the protest.
> 
> "The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great 
> political importance: the growth of democracy, the growth of corporate 
> power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting 
> corporate power against democracy."
> 
> And it's certainly up to us who are privileged to call things by their 
> right names and not defend Obama's wretched corporate-friendly policies, 
> at home or abroad.  --CGE
> 
> 
> pengdust at aol.com wrote:
>> As an anarchist and a "precarious-shit-worker" who does do the 
>> 'grub-work,' I
>> take offense to this "individualistic libertarian anarchists" claim. We,
>> anarcho-PSWs, do not have cushy university jobs with health-care, sick 
>> days,
>> vacations, living wages... or the time, privelege, and luxury for 
>> academic
>> debates. It is true, those of us who make around $1000/month will 
>> NEVER, EVER
>> be able to afford the $200-300/month minimum premiums to fucking 
>> corporations
>> after paying some $400 in rent alone! [Add $200-300/loans in student 
>> loans, $150 in other bills, etc... and there's nothing left for food. 
>> Keeps me in my
>> boyish figure I guess /;-)/ ] Simply, everyday life is always a losing
>> battle... we're working-poor and we're FUCKED, this is real. And, the 
>> $700
>> penalty on top of taxes will only make things worse! Now, for those 
>> who make
>> some $40,000/yr this all may be doable, and an improvement, but for 
>> many of
>> us who don't it's completely impossible unless the feds pay %100 of our
>> premiums.... i.e., SINGLE-PAYER. So, single-payer is the ONLY 
>> improvement for
>> us, and the ONLY solution that was never on the table! [thanks to Both 
>> Dems
>> and Reps]
>>
>> So, please don't throw around sectarian epithets by calling 
>> "self-proclaimed
>> socialists" anarchists in a squabble over who's a socialist and who 
>> isn't...
>> I know many anarchists and almost every one of them are working-poor or
>> working class whose fate is intricately tied to the fate of others.
>>
>> I suggest 'bourgeois' not 'anarchist,' and you can bicker about the 
>> rest amongst yourselves... here's an over simplified refresher for 
>> those who are a
>> little rusty,  or a primer for the uninitiated:
>>
>> [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeois ] [ 
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petite_bourgeoisie ] [ 
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_class ] [ 
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_poor ] [ 
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undeserving_poor ] [ 
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precarious_work ] [ 
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precarity_(Social_Christianity) cge may like
>> this one]
> 
> 

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.