Response from Carson
anonymous
August 28 2007, 05:21:28 UTC
Thanks for taking the time to address my comments.
Let's distinguish several forms of socialism. Socialism #1, the political project, is a crime -- forcing people into some collectivist dystopia.
Well, if the political project is to achieve state socialism through forced collectivization, then I also consider that a crime.
But "socialism" as the individualist anarchists may also be a "political project," to the extent that it calls for dismantling state-enforced privilege--i.e., current state intervention on behalf of the owners of land and capital.
Socialism #2, the economic theory, is a lie -- explaining society in terms of conflict and negative-sum games. Not at all. Since no actual free market has ever existed free of state interference, it makes perfect sense to describe economic relations in all existing societies in terms of conflict and zero-sum games. Oppenheimer's distinction between the economic means and the political means, also adopted by Rothbard, is a good one
( ... )
Response from Carson, Pt. II
anonymous
August 28 2007, 05:22:28 UTC
(Cont.)
Do libertarian socialists in general, and you, Kevin Carson, in particular, support saving poor oppressed employees by killing, imprisoning, fining, despoiling or otherwise coercing the employers and forcing employees to either join collectives or effectively starve, under the pretense that employers are making wage-slaves out of employees, and that the relationship between them is one of feudalism? I can't speak for you, but that's exactly what your writings suggest, and this norm is indeed adhered to by all socialists I know, libertarians or not. The feudalism is not a "pretense." If you believe this is a genuine free market, and that the present distribution of wealth and income results from voluntary exchange, then we are at an impasse. On the other hand if the state functions as an executive committee on behalf of organized capital, then it makes perfect sense to see the employment relation as a zero-sum game. The state intervenes to keep capital artificially scarce and expensive in relation to labor, so that the
( ... )
Quick (late) reply to Kevin CarsonfareSeptember 5 2007, 05:16:22 UTC
1a. Dismantling state privilege is anarchism, not socialism. You failed to establish any relationship between the two. Whether there is any possible political meaning to a socialist anarchism, you haven't established (please respond to my next post -- and while we're at it, to Bastiat's criticism of Proudhon
( ... )
Re: Quick (late) reply to Kevin Carsonlark1979October 12 2007, 22:26:23 UTC
The reality of any state and society is that of a polyarchy, there are many centres of power, interest and status groups, both "public" and private, competiting with one another, the state itself does indeed subordinate agribusiness or capital, it taxes them like everyone else, hard working individuals, their families and dependents included
( ... )
Absurdity of Socialist BlatherfareOctober 14 2007, 23:57:00 UTC
Social class is a bunk concept created by socialists too stupid to understand the complexity of society. It is only out-dumbed by the absurd non-concept of "Classless society". Inasmuch as classes are a subjective creation out of the arbitrary criteria of an arbitrary observer, the only possible "classless society" is one where every thinking being has been exterminated -- indeed what all socialist politics tend toward. Caste societies have existed -- and capitalism is what dismantled them, wherever they have been dismantled
( ... )
Re: Absurdity of Socialist BlatherfareOctober 15 2007, 00:14:39 UTC
The condescention and pretense to knowledge in your post is astounding, this truly is an example of how the blogosphere is a place were people in love with the drone of their own voice go for self-congratulatory affirmation
( ... )
Nevertheless, thank youfareSeptember 5 2007, 05:23:23 UTC
Thank you, Kevin Carson, for being someone with whom dialogue is possible. And someone who may turn a few socialists into more peaceful ways. May we never face each other in a violent revolution -- because we may well be in opposite sides.
Dissipating ThievesfareSeptember 5 2007, 05:57:11 UTC
Carson, like all socialists, fails to acknowledge intertemporal relationship between today's capital and yesterday's work. Statithinkers are incapable of any intertemporal notion other than a mystical one. Ignorant of past and future, socialists know only the present, and know possession but not property. Reisman said well that Carson's "mutualism" is a philosophy of thieves: everyone can steal anything, as long as he uses, abuses and consumes it immediately -- whoever would dare preserve for the future what he has created is an evil exploiting capitalist. Bastiat's chapter on Capital dispels the myths (see also his essay Capital and Interests) -- but his argument is wholly out of reach of static minds.
Re: Dissipating Thieveslark1979October 12 2007, 22:53:27 UTC
I cant speak for Carson, he/she can no doubt answer for themselves, but I will response to "like all socialists", this is a conceited and gross generalisation, like capitalists or political liberals, conservatives or others, there is a diversity and disparity of opinions within socialist ranks and it is not befitting to any honest debate to pretend otherwise to a homogenous and singular opposition
( ... )
Re: Dissipating ThievesfareOctober 15 2007, 00:23:07 UTC
Like all socialists, you obviously don't understand the intertemporal relationship between past and previous work. One day's capital is the fruit of previous days' labor. Denying the property of capital owners is the same as denying the property of workers over the fruits of their labor.
Socialists have no understanding of causation and the dynamics of creation. At best they look at the kinematics and draw absurd conclusions, like Marx did.
Free marketeers of course object to illegitimate property - sticking it to political power is the one theme of free marketeers. Socialists object to legitimate property as well as to all property, and want to replace it with totalitarian political power.
Your whole rant does not make any logical sense. It is an accumulation of emotionally connected words in typical association/dissociation patterns.
Re: Dissipating ThievesfareOctober 15 2007, 00:38:06 UTC
I just dont see how you could make up that response from what I posted, I suggest that you go back and read what I wrote, perhaps do without the very emotional charge which you accuse me of exhibiting
( ... )
Comments 20
Let's distinguish several forms of socialism. Socialism #1, the political project, is a crime -- forcing people into some collectivist dystopia.
Well, if the political project is to achieve state socialism through forced collectivization, then I also consider that a crime.
But "socialism" as the individualist anarchists may also be a "political project," to the extent that it calls for dismantling state-enforced privilege--i.e., current state intervention on behalf of the owners of land and capital.
Socialism #2, the economic theory, is a lie -- explaining society in terms of conflict and negative-sum games. Not at all. Since no actual free market has ever existed free of state interference, it makes perfect sense to describe economic relations in all existing societies in terms of conflict and zero-sum games. Oppenheimer's distinction between the economic means and the political means, also adopted by Rothbard, is a good one ( ... )
Reply
Do libertarian socialists in general, and you, Kevin Carson, in particular, support saving poor oppressed employees by killing, imprisoning, fining, despoiling or otherwise coercing the employers and forcing employees to either join collectives or effectively starve, under the pretense that employers are making wage-slaves out of employees, and that the relationship between them is one of feudalism? I can't speak for you, but that's exactly what your writings suggest, and this norm is indeed adhered to by all socialists I know, libertarians or not. The feudalism is not a "pretense." If you believe this is a genuine free market, and that the present distribution of wealth and income results from voluntary exchange, then we are at an impasse. On the other hand if the state functions as an executive committee on behalf of organized capital, then it makes perfect sense to see the employment relation as a zero-sum game. The state intervenes to keep capital artificially scarce and expensive in relation to labor, so that the ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Socialists have no understanding of causation and the dynamics of creation. At best they look at the kinematics and draw absurd conclusions, like Marx did.
Free marketeers of course object to illegitimate property - sticking it to political power is the one theme of free marketeers. Socialists object to legitimate property as well as to all property, and want to replace it with totalitarian political power.
Your whole rant does not make any logical sense. It is an accumulation of emotionally connected words in typical association/dissociation patterns.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment