@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 From: "Nikolai S. Rozov" <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: Fw: A wake-up call to libertarians To: Multiple recipients of list PHILOFHI <•••@••.•••> ~--<snip>--~ ~--<fwd>--~ From: "Andrew W. Austin" <•••@••.•••> To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK <•••@••.•••> Excellent argument by Richard Moore. I agree with the general thrust of this post, however one clarification needs to be made. We need to be careful about constructing a monolithic definition of libertarianism vis-a-vis the definition presented by Moore. If you are talking about the anti-tax/anti-government protestors who call themselves "libertarians" then I agree; they need to wake up. The devolution of power (and this was recently pointed out in an excellent article by Noam Chomsky in a recent edition of the Progressive) means an increase in the tyranny of private capital. The goal is to dissolve the democratic structures of the state (what little has been achieved over the past 100 years or so) so that monopoly capital can have a freer reign over the people of the world. Indeed, the surveillance-carceral functions of the state are increasing (both to meet the increasing need for coercion in lieu of the pacifying effects of social democratic measures, and because of the general trend towards crisis in the capitalist world-system). However, you should not characterize what has historically been called libertarianism, that is communist-anarchist, in such a fashion. The efforts by libertarians since the first Internationale has been to democratize the economy, thereby avoiding the state socialist phase (the "dictatorship of the proletariat") in the transition to economic democracy (i.e. communism). To move towards a truer democracy will involve mass organization, I agree, but this is not at odds with the goals of libertarianism. Chomsky, for example, has argued cogently that his libertarianism is not at odds with an increasing public sphere. Libertarians seek to remove the state -- not government. In any event, I agree that utopia is only an ideal, a goal that we strive for. But since human beings are self-creating, we must work towards this goal. And I also agree with the Moore's argument concerning the breaking up of old ground before planting a fresh garden. If this is a metaphor for the world worker revolution then I can only say: What are we waiting for? In solidarity, Andrew Austin P.S. Check out my website Theory and Praxis (http://www.mtsu.edu/~aaustin). Under the section concerning capitalism and fascism (the Political Right) I have a working essay (very short and very raw right now -- it is a thought piece for the time being) entitled "Dissimulating the Panopticon: What is Global Corporatism?" It discuss the historical development of the new global corporatism and its political culture of imperial stealth fascism. Nikolai S. Rozov Professor of Philosophy Moderator of the mailing list PHILOFHI (PHILosophy OF HIstory and theoretical history) http://darwin.clas.virginia.edu/~dew7e/anthronet/subscribe /philofhi.html Dept. of Philosophy Novosibirsk State University Fax.: (3832) 355237 630090, Novosibirsk E-mail: •••@••.••• Pirogova 2 RUSSIA @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 Sender: •••@••.••• (El Tiburon) Subject: Re: cj#486> re2: A wake-up call to libertarians >•••@••.••• said: > It seems to me that the essence of libertarianism is -- I want what I want >when I want it -- and fuck everything else. Sort of reminds me of some >kind of ecconomic system... This is enlightening for an obstructed veiwpoint. Libertarianism is plain and simple the application of the US Constitution and the freedoms therein. Call it what you want but your far to used to the 'freedom' of this country as it is rationed to you. Imagine if you can a world where we truly are free and had to be brought up to be responsible for our actions - yet another thing noone in this country ever is - responsible for their own actions. It is hard to imagine due to the fact that we are so far from actual freedom, but it is sincerely possible to live in a world where the social structure supports freedom and not censoring everything because to directly deal with issues is completely unreal so long as the social structure elevates those in control of such legislation to the lofty aristocratic level of not being able to comprehend it. Republicans and Democrats remind me of token battles fought to maintain mindless masses into thinking something besides internal power struggles is actually occurring. Lets try something else. M @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Editor: Again, we see the libertarian utopia being alluded to, and again, it seems appealing as such. But notice the characteristic fundamentalist attitudes that are revealed in El Tiburon's presentation... First there is the implicit assumption that only (this brand of) libertarians realize our current system is bogus -- as if the rest of us need to be reminded that we don't live in "actual freedom", and that the Demopublicans do not consititute a genuine political spectrum! Thus the fundamentalist trivializes the consciousness of the "uninitiated", blurring alternate viewpoints into one satanic enemy camp, just as do many religious fundamentalists. Second, there is the implicit declaration that only one solution is on offer -- the choice is always between that solution -- reductionist libertarianism in this case -- and a wholesale embracing of the status quo. Similarly: "_Only_ the blood of the lamb can cleanse your sins", so all non-members are sinners. I think it is fair to charactrize this kind of would-be-libertarianism as "fundamentalist utopianism", or a "cult" with a single-minded messianic vision of human transformation. As with other cults, there's seems to be an initiation experience which leaves the convert in a frame of mind where the world is perceived in a polarized way: the answer to every question becomes "libertarianism", just as to a hammer, every problem is seen as a nail. As with other cults, the initiates see themselves as being possessed of the one-and-true light, and with blinders on to all other light sources, they venture forth to shine the way for everyone else -- the presumably blind masses. And as with other cults, _dialog_ with outsiders is not really on offer -- there can only be the endlessly rephrased plea "But don't you see, salvation is all so simple, just learn this formula, have faith, and join the ranks of the knowing." -rkm @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 Sender: David Allwardt <•••@••.•••> Subject: A Progressive Strategy: RADICAL CONSERVTISM -Reply Richard, I have been saying for years, to seemingly deaf ears unfortunately, that when the Right Wing rails against "Big Government" and wants to "Get Government off our backs" that these are smoke screen phrases. The right doesn't want government off our backs. They want government off Exxon's back. And the cry against "Big Government" is a lie too. They don't want big government looking over the transnational corporate shoulder, but they do want big government hiding in your TV to make sure you don't watch anything inappropriate. They want government looking over your shoulder as you surf the net to make sure you don't find any dirty pictures of say anything naughty. And they want government under your bed to make sure that you don't have any of the wrong kind of fun. The basic agenda of the Right seems to be to allow Big Business free reign to maximize profits while at the same time exercising ever tighter control over individual thought and actions. That's why Religion plays such a big part in the Right Wing agenda. The push for the return of religious indoctrination in public schools is no accident. Most western religions basically teach the faithful to accept their lot in this life and not to rock the boat. To work hard and have faith that those that God has put in power over them are doing His will. All this in hope of a better world in the afterlife. There's a reason Karl Marx called religion "the opiate of the masses." Over the centuries more social injustice has been committed in the Name Of God than for any other reason. The power structures love to be able to use "God's Will" as an excuse for just about anything. This is why I am extremely pessimistic in the long run about the possibility for success in any kind of populist revolution, even of the kind you wrote about. The people cling to their faiths and religions, they can be driven underground as they were in the Soviet Union for over 50 years but they cannot be eliminated. Those who would create a Liberal, Libertarian, or Socialist Utopia will need to address this issue and find a way to reconcile their agendas with the religious beliefs of the masses or they are doomed from the start. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Editor: Pessimism, even if logically defensible, can be seen as an impediment to right-action, a mental activity which distracts from seeing your options in proper perspective. Do you avoid an athletic challenge, out of "pessimism" regarding winning? Do you hold back from life, out of "pessimism" about living forever? Is not "participation" sometimes the more appropriate response to life's challenges than "evaluation"? Are there not moments when the most relevant analysis is "Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their freedom!"? Just a thought, -rkm @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ Posted by Richard K. Moore - •••@••.••• - Wexford, Ireland Cyber-Rights: http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/ ftp://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/library/ CyberJournal: (WWW or FTP) --> ftp://ftp.iol.ie/users/rkmoore Materials may be reposted in their _entirety_ for non-commercial use. ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
Share: