- 30 Mar 2013 10:37
#14204610
What if they own it but are not working it because of reduced demand, or lack of a farming-bailout in a monsoon, or because they are working in the city and just holding the land to one day do something else with it? If you don't think that land can be an asset that just sits there, you will end up dispossessing peasants at some point in time.
Indeed, hence why it's a little ironic, isn't it?
Which class of people? You are thinking that you are going to get the working class to march out against the rest of society under a black and yellow flag? The black and yellow flag of no guaranteed health care, no protections for unions, and no social services?
That's impossible, even if they joined you, they don't have any way to give you money to fund your movement because your stance - as a libertarian - is to prevent them from organising into a coercive political force that raises funds.
Do you see the problem here? It's a class interest problem, there is no class of people that can support you. The only class that will support you is what you call 'big money', and the only use big money has for you is to bring you out to explain to people how all their social services have to be cut, while not taking action against 'big money' who are in government drinking out of the trough of tax money. That is the meaning of the Tea Party, that is what they are.
Regarding convincing people that 'libertarianism is just' (or any 'ism' really), that doesn't mean anything as far as I can tell. It's control of funds and resources - be they human resources or raw materials - which precedes everything, which is why the issue of class is so important:
I like to shorten that passage to the meme, "Economic Power Precedes Political Power".
Nunt wrote:Since peasants work their land, it is not unimproved and so they can own their land.
What if they own it but are not working it because of reduced demand, or lack of a farming-bailout in a monsoon, or because they are working in the city and just holding the land to one day do something else with it? If you don't think that land can be an asset that just sits there, you will end up dispossessing peasants at some point in time.
Nunt wrote:It wrong to assume that libertarianism would rely on the support of big money. Big money is not pro free market, they usually have a symbiotic relationship with government.
Indeed, hence why it's a little ironic, isn't it?
Nunt wrote:Who would support libertarianism? Well, libertarians of course. Libertarianism can only succeed if we manage to convince people that libertarianism is just.
Which class of people? You are thinking that you are going to get the working class to march out against the rest of society under a black and yellow flag? The black and yellow flag of no guaranteed health care, no protections for unions, and no social services?
That's impossible, even if they joined you, they don't have any way to give you money to fund your movement because your stance - as a libertarian - is to prevent them from organising into a coercive political force that raises funds.
Do you see the problem here? It's a class interest problem, there is no class of people that can support you. The only class that will support you is what you call 'big money', and the only use big money has for you is to bring you out to explain to people how all their social services have to be cut, while not taking action against 'big money' who are in government drinking out of the trough of tax money. That is the meaning of the Tea Party, that is what they are.
Regarding convincing people that 'libertarianism is just' (or any 'ism' really), that doesn't mean anything as far as I can tell. It's control of funds and resources - be they human resources or raw materials - which precedes everything, which is why the issue of class is so important:
'National Guilds and the State', S. G. Hobson, 1920, pg 109 - 111 (emphasis added) wrote:Whatever unhappy vicissitudes politics has passed through since the glory of Greece set it on its way, it is as true now as ever that successful statesmanship is founded on enduring principles and not upon the appraisement or nice balancing of material considerations. There is a practical sagacity, notably in the obiter dicta of Bacon and later in Cromwell's policy, that does not disregard the economic factors; but that sagacity turns to cunning or opportunism if it lose faith in the fundamental principles disclosed by time and circumstance. This is not to deny the main fact of modern industrialism that economic power precedes and dominates political action. There is a sense in which that aphorism is permanently true; another sense in which it is a polemic peculiar to existing conditions.
It is permanently true in that statesmanship must possess the material means to encompass its ends, precisely as one must have the fare and sustenance before proceeding on a journey. But whilst the fare must be available as a condition precedent to the journey, it remains a means to the end. Our aphorism is a polemic peculiar to private capitalism in that the fare to continue the metaphor is controlled by an interested section of the community, which can consequently decide the time and direction of the journey. But when the fare and sustenance pass from private to communal control, in the process increasing in abundance and availability, we find ourselves as a people free to embark on whatever spiritual or political enterprise we desire.
Economic power is not finally found in wealth but in the control of its abundance or scarcity. If I possessed the control of the water supply, my economic power would be stupendous; but with equal access to water by the whole body of citizens, that economic power is dispersed and the community may erect swimming-baths or fountains or artificial lakes without my permission. Not only so; but the abundance of water, which economically considered is of boundless value, grows less serious as a practical issue the more abundant it becomes.
Upon the substantial truth of this hangs our conception of citizenship and State policy. I have consistently disclaimed for the future Guilds the control of wealth, conceding to them no more and no less than the control, through monopoly, of their labour-power.
[...]
The dominance of economic power depends, therefore, upon two main considerations artificially, by the private control of wealth; fundamentally, by a natural scarcity. If the former be abolished and the latter overcome, the [socialist] State possesses the means to achieve its purposes, so far as they depend upon economic resources. In this connection, it is not without significance that common parlance often describes a propertied man as "a man of means," and never so far as I know as "a man of ends." But it is usual to refer to a statesman as one having ends to be served by political methods. These philological distinctions are at bottom instinctive citizenship, a recognition that wealth is a means to an end.
I like to shorten that passage to the meme, "Economic Power Precedes Political Power".