Bridge-Building: 21 Talking Points for Discussion

[Freedom Works]

http://anti-state.com/article.php?article_id=360

[Freedom Works]

I like this:


The other weapon in your arsenal is the "fish story" posted in the Wikipedia wars thread. It goes like this:

*******

For many years, the utility of fish in the oceans was rarely questioned until a seminal work, What is Sealife?, was published. In it the author, whom we'll call PP, strongly attacked sealife and advocated the extermination of it. He called himself an anicthist, from the Greek "an", meaning "absence of" and "icthus", meaning "fish".

His followers railed against fish, anemones, whales, sponges, barnacles, and many other ocean-dwellers.

Later on scientists found out that, contrary to how people used the term, a "whale" could not rightly be classified as a fish. They have hair. They breathe air into lungs. They breastfeed their young. They are warm-blooded. Their ancestors were even land-dwellers! That they happened to live in the ocean was not meaningful for scientists - they base their classifications on the structure of an organism, not where it resides.

Soon after, a new movement formed, whose proponents called themselves anictho-whalists. They considered themselves to be anicthists because of their thorough attacks on all fish. But they were very supportive of whales because, although one could easily be tempted to call them fish, they were clearly distinct.

Traditional anicthists were livid. "How can you support whales????" they asked. "You're spitting on the whole anicthist movement! Anicthists have always been strongly against all forms of sealife!"

"But," replied the anictho-whalists, "we're not claiming to be part of the traditional anicthist movement. And if you read any dictionary, which captures the normal usage of the term, you'll see we meet it because we're against fish."

"Oh, sure, if you want to narrowly rely on dictionaries to reflect meanings of words! "

"Um, yeah. And in fact, the original anicthists, like PP, defined anicthism in itself to be anti-fish, not anti-whale."

"That's because any moron who read What is Sealife? is going to walk away opposing whales, and only an idiot would think PP favored whales!"

"Of course he didn't favor whales - we're just saying he didn't define anicthism as anti-whale."

"What the hell is the difference anyway? How can you count something that LIVES IN THE OCEAN, HAS FINS, and even BREATHES UNDERWATER, as 'not a fish'?"

"There's nothing wrong with living in the ocean or having fins. It's the scales, the gills, the lack of hair that's a problem. And whales don't breathe underwater - that's a flawed inference based on a flawed understanding of an ocean tainted with fish. Just because an organism is underwater for a long time doesn't mean its breathing down there."

"Oh, and the sperm whale stays underwater for two hours without breathing, right?"

"YES!"

" "

*******

For those that don't see the parallels, here is one possible translation:

*******

For many years, the utility of government was rarely questioned until a seminal work, What is Property?, was published. In it the author, whom we'll call PP, strongly attacked property and advocated the abolition of it. He called himself an anarchist, from the Greek "an", meaning "absence of" and "archon", meaning "ruler".

His followers railed against government, property, hierarchy, coercion, usury, and wage labor.

Later on economists found out that, contrary to how things appeared, laborers actually did earn their marginal value except in cases of artificial intervention. This is because if it were possible to exploit a surplus value, the labor would be bid away at a higher price. That some entrepreneurs do make profits was not meaningful for economists - they base their findings on average profit, not highest profit, which is never guaranteed.

Soon after, a new movement formed, whose proponents called themselves anarcho-capitalists. They considered themselves to be anarchists because of their thorough attacks on all rulers. But they were very supportive of private capital ownership because, although one could easily be tempted to call such owners rulers, they were clearly distinct.

Traditional anarchists were livid. "How can you support capitalism????" they asked. "You're spitting on the whole anarchist movement! Anarchists have always been strongly against all forms of hierarchy!"

"But," replied the anarcho-capitalists, "we're not claiming to be part of the traditional anarchist movement. And if you read any dictionary, which captures the normal usage of the term, you'll see we meet it because we're against government."

"Oh, sure, if you want to narrowly rely on dictionaries to reflect meanings of words! "

"Um, yeah. And in fact, the original anarchists, like PP, defined anarchism in itself to be anti-state, not anti-capitalism."

"That's because any moron who read What is Property? is going to walk away opposing capitalism, and only an idiot would think PP favored capitalism!"

"Of course he didn't favor capitalism - we're just saying he didn't define anarchism as anti-capitalist."

"What the hell is the difference anyway? How can you count something that PROMOTES INEQUALITY, HAS HIERARCHY, and even REQUIRES PEOPLE TO LIVE IN POVERTY, as 'not a ruler'?"

"There's nothing wrong with inequality or hierarchy in themselves. It's the forceful imposition of them that's a problem. And capitalism doesn't require people to live in poverty - that's a flawed inference based on a flawed understanding of a market tainted by states. Just because people live under poverty now doesn't mean the capitalist is causing it."

"Oh, so the plight of the working poor today has nothing to do with, say, capitalists treating them like dirt, right?"

"RIGHT!"

" "

*******

[JazzRemington]

But what I like most is this:


Don't assume each and every ansoc is an authoritarian would-be tyrant. Many of them are, while many are not. Mostly, they're just not aware of the difference. Some of these anarchists are just (non-classical) liberal reformists who like living-wage laws and punk rock and hate cops. Some are militant versions of Green Party members. Some are very close to being Leninists, except that maybe they see some virtue in decentralized organizing and they like the sound of the word, "freedom." The latter consider themselves anarchists because they do not want to seize the State, but rather intend to build a new one from scratch (which they deny would be a state). And some genuinely oppose the State in any form.

First, it says don't assume. Then it goes on to say that most are just liberals, green party members, listen to punk rock, or are psuedo-Leninists.

Nice try, but "anarcho-"capitalists are not anarchists.

[quincunx5]

Nice try, but "anarcho-"capitalists are not anarchists.


Yet people who believe in "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" are?
Hmm...

[Hegemonicretribution]

You may argue, why should you bend over backwards to change the way you say things? Why shouldn't they meet you halfway? They should, but they probably won't. If you want any genuine communication to take place, you'll need to heed my advice, or else don't bother trying. You see, ansocs view their lives and politics as a large-scale struggle of the poor masses fighting to end their enslavement by the rich few. Due to this context, and since they believe this struggle can only be won by organizing into large groups, political theory is to them another kind of street barricade, and discourse another kind of molotov. To stray from the flock isn't just an individual doing their own thing, but weakens the group, which compromises the group's ability to struggle, which in turn threatens the entire future of the human race!

I see some of what that article is saying, but couldn't let this go. Although I see the point that is being attempted it is equally true of both sides and I know that you are intelligent enough to realise this, so I am not trying to be patronising.

For discussion to take place terms people need to be fluent in termonology of more than one theory. Respect would get discussion further than simply implying that you have to talk down to inferior anarcho-socialists. If this article is trying to build bridges then the reasons it is going to fail are because of the attitude of those building those bridges, not those being talked at (at least not entirely).

[JazzRemington]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 10:18 PM


Nice try, but "anarcho-"capitalists are not anarchists.


Yet people who believe in "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" are?
Hmm...
What does that have to do with anything? You keep trying to attach some Marxist dogma to everything anyone who is anti-capitalist says and you keep proving yourself to be just another fool.

[KC]

Yet people who believe in "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" are?
Hmm...

That's communism, genius.

[quincunx5]

What does that have to do with anything? You keep trying to attach some Marxist dogma to everything anyone who is anti-capitalist says and you keep proving yourself to be just another fool.


OK, oh great one, explain to me how anarcho-communism will work without first killing 90% of the population?

There is no communism without Marx's false ideology, hence there is no anarchy of the collectivist type.

[JazzRemington]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 02:52 PM


What does that have to do with anything? You keep trying to attach some Marxist dogma to everything anyone who is anti-capitalist says and you keep proving yourself to be just another fool.


OK, oh great one, explain to me how anarcho-communism will work without first killing 90% of the population?

There is no communism without Marx's false ideology, hence there is no anarchy of the collectivist type.
Who the hell says I'm a communist? Communism would be impossible to impliment immediately after a revolution because the enormous cost of fighting it would greatly drain the amount of goods available to society.

And there IS communism without Marx's ideology because Marx didn't create communism. It existed long before he did.

[quincunx5]

Who the hell says I'm a communist? Communism would be impossible to impliment immediately after a revolution because the enormous cost of fighting it would greatly drain the amount of goods available to society.


So what do you suggest? A command economy? You know how well those work.



And there IS communism without Marx's ideology because Marx didn't create communism. It existed long before he did.


Yes but only in groups of no more than a thousand. Name me a communistic society that had any progress - compared to a capitalistic one. You will find that without progress the best these societies can support is a few hundred, maybe a thousand people.

[JC1]

Yes but only in groups of no more than a thousand. Name me a communistic society that had any progress - compared to a capitalistic one. You will find that without progress the best these societies can support is a few hundred, maybe a thousand people.

Compare Socialist progress to Capitalist "progress". Look at the 5-year plans, in 5 years Stalin did what it took capitalism to do in 150 years. Indeed all the "third" world countries that have gone anywhere in the last hundred years had the ground work done by Socialism. Look at southern Korea, the only reason it got anywhere was becuase of a Communist-implemented land reform. Or Taiwan, whose Industrialization was caused by Communist land reform and the creation of a refugee situation by Chiang Kai Chek. And these countries, touted as "Capitalist Succes stories" dont have much too show for it. They dont even own most of the Capital in there own country's, and cant even provide basic welfare to there citizens.

And if it wasnt for "Red Tyrants", these countries would look like Africa, becuase Capital has a track record of Under-Development and re-entrenching Fuedal relations.

[JazzRemington]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 04:19 PM


Who the hell says I'm a communist? Communism would be impossible to impliment immediately after a revolution because the enormous cost of fighting it would greatly drain the amount of goods available to society.


So what do you suggest? A command economy? You know how well those work.
No. I do not want a command economy because those require a State. You're still acting like a fool, only this time you are jumping to conclusions.

[synthesis]

Name me a communistic society that had any progress - compared to a capitalistic one.

I apologize in advance for any grammar mistakes or incoherent statements. I just had surgery and I'm on a great deal of pain medication, which makes the brain somewhat less precise.

Anyways, you need to bone up on your Marx. What you call "previously existing communistic societies" and what Marx called "primitive communism" could never support more than a small group of people. This has been acknowledged from the beginning.

Primitive communist societies cannot support a large number of people because the level of their technology wasn't up to par; that's why they either advanced or worked in relative harmony with nature until outside forces forced them to change. This "change" generally came in either the form of invention of new technology or of conquest of new lands. Some owned this new technology or ruled these lands, some didn't, and that's where we get "Class" from.

The communist perspective says that the current means of production could easily support the world's populace with a minimal amount of labor if organized on primitive communist principals adapted to new times, and the only thing preventing this state of affairs from existing was the class of people who had a vested interest (capital) in maintaining the status quo.

I could have spared you a lot of time by simply putting it this way: primitive communist societies, by definition, never needed to constantly adapt their means of production, as hunting and gathering was sufficient. Those who did require adaptation created the technology, and those who controlled the technology formed the ruling class. To say that existing technology could not even function without the ruling class which ordered its construction is patently ridiculous.

[synthesis]

Onto the article itself. This steaming pile of hack propaganda is as impotent as it is cynical. I think it functions exactly the opposite of how you intended it to be used as it exposes all the anarcho-capitalist debating points for the junk they are, without the pretty verbal bells and whistles often attached by charismatic free-marketeers.


Goad them to imagine a free-market land in which most of the population would choose communism.

That's a great scenario; too bad people "choosing communism" is pointless if a powerful group of individuals still controls all the land and owns all the buildings.


Tell them that any corporation that had its own army and initiated aggression upon others would be a de facto state, and should be opposed.

Yeah... the verbal "opposition" of capitalists to aggressive, armed corporations will be about as powerful as a gnat biting a whale's ass. And there won't be a damn thing your hyper-emasculated "government" would be able to do about it.

Besides, this business of "initiation of aggression" is utterly meaningless and subjective. There's always a way to spin something or another as "initiation of aggression"; one free-marketeer we had here proved this by attempting to justify the current Iraq War with Saddam Hussein's "initiation of aggression" on America.


Say, "personal possession" even when you're discussing ownership of a factory or a huge tract of land.

Keep an eye out for this one, comrades. How the holdings of a multinational corporation with thousands of stockholders could ever be considered a "personal possession" is beyond me.


just insist on your right to opt out of being subject to their group's decisions

Libertarian leftist groups generally already allow for this: if you choose to cut yourself off from society, you can, but don't expect society to help you out anytime afterwards. This is nothing new.


Say, "would you forcibly stop someone from working for someone else for a wage?" If they say no, then tell them that they are a market anarchist.

It is certainly true that ability of a person to subjugate another to his labor would likely be greatly reduced after a massive anarchist revolution which reduced the class system to rubble, so you might catch an anarchist slipping on this one. However, I've yet to meet a real free-marketeer who agrees with a revolution of that scale, so there's far less overlap than this article suggests.


They accuse ancaps (their definition) of selective reading of old individualist anarchists in order to justify their appropriation of the term.

It's true: Proudhon, Smith, Mill, and all the others would have never supported the forcible closure of public libraries, even though, yes, it's true, all those CEOs are being enslaved by paying for them :rolleyes:


Don't ***** about taxes.

This is actually a good point, and many capitalists here could stand to gain from abiding by it.

It's true: in the larger scale of things, us radicals just don't give a fuck about taxes, social security, campaign finance, usury laws, the gold standard, protectionism, or any of that; they are tiny little toggles and switches adorning a machine we want nothing to do with.

In the end, this shit is just boring.


Do speak against gun control. Even anarcho-pacifists understand that gun control is just a means to centralize power into the hands of the State.

To paraphrase Chomsky, if the people have guns, the government has tanks, and if the people have tanks, the government has bombs. This is not early-century Russia or late-50's Cuba, and leftists recognize this - at least, the ones worth their salt.

These days, whining about assault rifles and gun checks is pretty much code for "blacks and Mexicans are going to mug me and break into my house, so I need military-grade firepower to defend myself." Anarchists don't fall for that and won't fall for this, either.


Do speak against government ownership of land, airwaves, and other resources. Speak of timber sales, mining, and grazing on federal land. They hate that. Denounce so-called "privatization" as the government making money off the sale of stolen goods.

And here's where you anarcho-capitalists consistently just don't get it: It doesn't matter if a corporation or a government is using the airwaves for reactionary propaganda, and it doesn't matter who's raping the land; the point is, someone's doing it, and it fucks a lot of people over.


Expect to fail. Ansocs are often extremely dogmatic and hostile to market ideas. This is because they so often fail to think, and because they're unwilling to think outside their box. It is the rare ansoc who will think independently, genuinely listen, and try to learn. They are out there, and maybe a larger trend toward free-market anarcho-communism may eventually arise. Just don't expect to win any converts. Let your mission be to learn about them, and only secondarily to promote your own view. Then you won't be wasting your time.

Expect to fail. Ancaps are often extremely dogmatic and hostile to communist ideas. This is because they so often fail to think, and because they're unwilling to think outside their box. It is the rare ancap who will think independently, genuinely listen, and try to learn. They are out there, and maybe a larger trend toward classless anarcho-communism may eventually arise. Just don't expect to win any converts. Let your mission be to learn about them, and only secondarily to promote your own view. Then you won't be wasting your time.

Seriously, I could reverse this whole document and make it a equally worthless guide for left-anarchists. This article is the real waste of time.