[SolarCross]

For ages political philosophies were described along the left-right axis - left meant economic equality and common property and right meant economic variability and private property. At some point people began to realise this was an inadequate way to describe political philosophy and so another dimension was added, the top bottom axis of centralism, hierarchy and authoritarianism represented by the top and decentralism, free association and personal liberty at the bottom. So now we can describe Stalin as a left topist, Kropotkin as a left bottomist, the Queen of England as a right topist and say Rothbard as a right bottomist.

Now that we have the top-bottom axis I wonder if the left-right axis hasn't become basically redundant. A clue to what I mean by this can be had from considering how rightists criticise leftists and vice versa. When a rightist criticises leftists he talks about Stalinism, state socialists forcefully collectivising and this kind of thing. When a leftist criticises rightists he talks about corporate welfare, taxation of the working classes to subside big business.. ha! What each is really criticising is topism.

If you are a practicing bottomist then whether you do left or right economics is substantially a matter of personal preference. If you are trapped under the topists then whether you do left or right economics is a matter for your master to decide. Either way it doesn't matter. What really matters is whether can choose your way of life or not. So only the top-bottom political axis has any meaning in describing a political position.

[Soixante-Retard]

Some people regard "the capitalist mode of production" more malignant than anything else and so those people love to cling to the "left-right" paradigm ("left-anarchists" fighting "right anarchists"). Whereas those of us who value liberty and voluntaryism, über alles, cling to the "top-bottom" paradigm.

So I disagree with you when you say only the top-bottom has any meaning. I would like to say it should be the only one which ought to have any meaning. However, the fact that people do cling to the "left-right" paradigm is evidence itself of its meaningfulness to those people.

[SolarCross]

Alas SR you are right about that. I suppose I was aiming my OP at my fellow leftists more than rightists. I have been on revleft and the anarchist sub-reddit lately and found to my disappointment that I tend to get derided as an an-cap! In defence of the lefties I can only say that the experience of capitalism to them is so inextricably linked to the state such that they can't concieve of it without the state. The topists provoke hate in those under them and hate prevents clarity of thought.

[Soixante-Retard]

In defence of the lefties I can only say that the experience of capitalism to them is so inextricably linked to the state such that they can't conceive of it without the state.

They can't even entertain the idea. For to acknowledge or imagine capitalism without the state would undermine their position that the only route to freedom is the total abolition of capitalism and well as the state (which they see as the same). For without the state, the postulate there can be no capitalism. They're correct insofar as there would be no corporatism. But if the state suddenly ceased to exist, how many would seriously think communal property would instantly emerge?

I don't think we should get bogged down in "-isms" and just analyze the actions under various conditions. Is violence under the banner of anarchism more nobler somehow than violence under a system of government? No. Violence is violence and no "-ism" should be excused of it.

[Rothbardian]

For ages political philosophies were described along the left-right axis - left meant economic equality and common property and right meant economic variability and private property. At some point people began to realise this was an inadequate way to describe political philosophy and so another dimension was added, the top bottom axis of centralism, hierarchy and authoritarianism represented by the top and decentralism, free association and personal liberty at the bottom. So now we can describe Stalin as a left topist, Kropotkin as a left bottomist, the Queen of England as a right topist and say Rothbard as a right bottomist.

Now that we have the top-bottom axis I wonder if the left-right axis hasn't become basically redundant. A clue to what I mean by this can be had from considering how rightists criticise leftists and vice versa. When a rightist criticises leftists he talks about Stalinism, state socialists forcefully collectivising and this kind of thing. When a leftist criticises rightists he talks about corporate welfare, taxation of the working classes to subside big business.. ha! What each is really criticising is topism.

If you are a practicing bottomist then whether you do left or right economics is substantially a matter of personal preference. If you are trapped under the topists then whether you do left or right economics is a matter for your master to decide. Either way it doesn't matter. What really matters is whether can choose your way of life or not. So only the top-bottom political axis has any meaning in describing a political position.

Left wing anarchists, at least the an-comms, believe owning property is a violation of the non aggression principle. That is a fairly significant distinction in my opinion. Of course they say it's only a violation if you're owning 'the means of production', but there's no rational basis for applying the NAP to one kind of property differently from another.

[Red Barn]

In defence of the lefties I can only say that the experience of capitalism to them is so inextricably linked to the state such that they can't concieve of it without the state.

What on earth are you talking about?

The natural structure of capitalist enterprises is itself tyrannical - that is, antithetical to genuine anarchist thought for obvious reasons. No Left anarchist with half a brain could possibly find corporate despotism acceptable, with or without a state, so I can't imagine why you think anybody (including the school children who make up RevLeft) would need "defense" on this point.

Of course they say it's only a violation if you're owning 'the means of production', but there's no rational basis for applying the NAP to one kind of property differently from another.

More crap.



What's with you people today?

[SolarCross]

Redbarn - You are right of course about corporate structure being despotic but isn't it the case that this despotic structure can only survive within the shadow of the equally despotic state? This however isn't quite capitalism at least as right-leaning libertarians understand the word. Capitalism for them is just clearly defined property rights which can be traded. I'm a taxi driver by trade and although I am communist at home and by aspiration in practice I am a capitalist in the conduct of my business. I claim my taxi, my skills and my time to be my property and not my customers but I will trade that service in return for some token I can use to exchange with other people. Is this not capitalism? Is it despotic?

[mikema63]

Despot.

If capitalism can't exist without government then any honest ancap would do away with capitalism.

[Red Barn]

I claim my taxi, my skills and my time to be my property and not my customers but I will trade that service in return for some token I can use to exchange with other people. Is this not capitalism? Is it despotic?

Nope.

You and your taxi aren't a "capitalist enterprise" in any sense that a left anarchist would object to. You're just an independent, self-employed person making an honest living within an economic structure that happens to be capitalist.

So if a person both owns and operates whatever tools and equipment s/he needs to generate income (in this case, a taxi) and keeps all the profits for herself, then, from the anarchist's point of view, it's all good.

But lets say s/he hires a bunch of people who own nothing, and pays them an hourly wage. S/he can now order them about all day and it's tough shit for them, since they're dependent on her for their livelihood. S/he can keep whatever profits they've earned for herself, and there's nothing they can do about it. She gets richer from their labor because they've been forced to rent themselves to her for eight hours out of every day, and that's the tyranny of capital the left anarchist objects to.

So. In the first case, you're responsible only to yourself, take orders from no one, and keep every penny you earn for yourself. In the second case, the capitalist controls other people's actions entirely, and determines the amount of money that they may earn.


See? Not complicated.

[mikema63]

You should post more red, we all miss you.

[Red Barn]

I'll post more when Soixante-Retard stops dressing up like Noam Chomsky.

That's just . . .

[Soixante-Retard]

Leave Noam alone! I like him.

[Red Barn]

That's as may be. The point is that he doesn't like you.

Noam Chomsky discusses the difference between libertarianism and anarchism and comments on the world envisioned by Murray Rothbard:
_____________________________

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.

http://www.understandingpower.com/

[mikema63]

Maybe he's going to libertarian socialism but you just scared him away, play nice.

[Rothbardian]

More crap.



What's with you people today?

Just to be clear, you disagree that anarcho communists believe the restriction of property from society (by owning it) is a violation of the non aggression principle?

[Decky]

Despot.


If capitalism can't exist without government then any honest ancap would do away with capitalism.

Have you been drinking at all?

[mikema63]

I don't drink.

Why should that be weird.

[Soixante-Retard]

Red Barn, you seem to be mistaking me for somebody I am not.

[Decky]

I don't drink.

Odd. We don't really have non drinkers in Britain, apart from the Muslims obviously.

Why should that be weird.

It made sense.

[Someone5]

They can't even entertain the idea. For to acknowledge or imagine capitalism without the state would undermine their position that the only route to freedom is the total abolition of capitalism and well as the state (which they see as the same).

Even if we set aside the obvious practical difficulties with having capitalism without a state, capitalism itself infringes on human freedom. Ending capitalism is just as much a goal as ending the state is, not because they are linked, but because both are systems of power over the individual.

In other words, even were capitalism something that could be separated from the state, it would be worthy of destruction in its own right.

For without the state, the postulate there can be no capitalism. They're correct insofar as there would be no corporatism. But if the state suddenly ceased to exist, how many would seriously think communal property would instantly emerge?

It would emerge very quickly as property "owners" would have no ability to protect their property except personal force of arms, which would be insufficient for protecting the important features of the economy. They could pretty reasonably protect their homes or small personal plots of land or whatnot, but they would be very hard pressed to protect that factory or forest they owned.

I don't think we should get bogged down in "-isms" and just analyze the actions under various conditions. Is violence under the banner of anarchism more nobler somehow than violence under a system of government?

Sure. Why? Because I agree with the ends.