Tim May;Anarcho-phony,cheap fraud and despicable coward.RIP.
In simplest terms, anarchism stands against not just government, but all forms of domination and exploitation. This includes government, but also capitalism, landlordism, interest, and profit. In addition, anarchism stands for decentralized direct democracy, free association, the replacement of capitalist private property "rights" with possession/use rights, direct worker ownership and control of the means of production, direct action instead of political action, delegation instead of representation, and total freedom (which is inherently limited by the "other person's nose"). Anarchism is a variant of socialism, because it is for workers' control of the means of production, but is a form of libertarian socialism rather than state socialism. Unlike the various sorts of state socialism, anarchism is for not only workers' control of the means of production, but direct democratic control of all aspects of life (instead of by some self-appointed "party" or legislature which supposedly knows and acts in the interests of the people). Those things which are difficult to control at a small level where immediate direct democracy can be practiced are controlled through delegation, which is different from representation because the delegates are not only chosen by the rank and file, but are also given mandates that they must and must only carry out by the rank and file, and can be recalled at any time for any reason (all of these are done in a directly democratic fashion). Anarchism stands against capitalism, because capitalism is inherently authoritarian. Those who say that capitalism is freedom, forget to say that it is just freedom for only those who are in the ruling class. As for the workers, who make up the vast majority of the population, the only freedom they have under it is to choose who exploits them. They have no real control over the means of production. They do not receive the fruits of their labor; all they get is their paycheck, which they need to survive (which is why most people really don't have the freedom to not be employed by anyone, unlike what supporters of capitalism say). There is no real democracy in capitalism; the workplace is run in a thoroughly authoritarian fashion by a hierarchy of bosses and managers, ending up at the top with the executives and big shareholders. Anarchism also stands against state socialism and "Communism," because those also aren't freedom in any respect. First thing, most forms of "state socialism" and "Communism" are really state capitalism, which is similar to private capitalism except that the government replaces the company as the unit of competition, the ruling class is composed of the Party apparatchiks and or the politicians and bureaucrats which make up the government, and that one doesn't have the choice of what/who they are exploited by. "Communism" is really like the "cradle-to-grave" capitalism, where one not only works in company factories, but also in company houses in company towns, etc. On the other hand, anarchists tend to prefer state socialism over private capitalism, because there at least is some social support structure rather than none at all (this does not mean that they advocate or are willing to settle with state socialism, though). At the same time, anarchists often treat Communists (especially Stalinists) in the same fashion as fascists and such (even to the point of armed conflict). Anarchism is a very often misunderstood political theory (not ideology, because ideology means a fixed set of prescribed ideas that are automatically correct as a block), which forms a real alternative to both capitalism and state socialism, both republican ("democratic") and autocratic/totalitarian. It is for both freedom and social justice, rather than just for social justice or "freedom" (capitalism claims to be for freedom, but really isn't for that at all). It is against impersonal "representation," where a body of elected politicians from an elite make decisions for the rank and file without their input, and replaces that with making decisions directly and democratically, and carrying out in the same exact fashion. It empowers the people directly, rather than empowering some elite to act in their name. Luckily, anarchism today has very significantly replaced state socialism on the far left, and is further expanding, but anarchism still has a very far way to go until there will be any real revolutionary change.
On Tue, Dec 25, at 04:30AM, mattd wrote: | In simplest terms, anarchism stands against not just government, but all | forms of domination and exploitation. This includes government, but also | capitalism, landlordism, interest, and profit. Interesting to note that the system you bash, for the sake of argument lets call it "timmayism" is really in favor of individual freedom (Tim, if you are not a libertarian, which is what I believe you to be, given your writtings, please correct me) so things like "domination", "exploitation", "profit", etc... are perfectly acceptable so long as two people consentualy enter into an agreement. The simple problem with what you are describing is that is translates into "mattd decides whats is good for everyone else" The very basic proof of this is that, given what you are writting, if I enter into an agreement with Mr. May to rent his property, an agreement I am perfectly acceptable to and that I am perfectly free to decline to enter into; he is being an evil landlor-profiteer. I am perfectly happy with the situation, but by your standards that wasn't a "free" (your definition of free baffles me) exchange. | In addition, anarchism | stands for decentralized direct democracy, free association, the | replacement of capitalist private property "rights" with possession/use | rights, direct worker ownership and control of the means of production, | direct action instead of political action, delegation instead of | representation, and total freedom (which is inherently limited by the | "other person's nose"). Hey! I think Lenin might like talking to you, knock on Stalin's door too, since you just described communism. | Anarchism is a variant of socialism an7ar7chism (nr-kzm) n. The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished. so7cial7ism (ssh-lzm) n. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. Pick one, stick to it. | Anarchism stands against capitalism, because capitalism is inherently | authoritarian. Those who say that capitalism is freedom, forget to say that cap7i7tal7ism (kp-tl-zm) n. An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market. free market n. An economic market in which supply and demand are not regulated or are regulated with only minor restrictions. Maybe your read on "free market" is different then mine, but I would say a worker has as much right to not work at a company as the employer has to not employ that worker if he chooses not to. | Anarchism also stands against state socialism and "Communism," because Isn't this a little different than what you said earlier? | Anarchism is a very often misunderstood political theory (not ideology, Hey, enlighten us, show us some background studies, show us some legitimate writtings and test cases to prove what you say. I would imagine I am not alone in thinking you are full of shit with nothing to substantiate what you have to say. | because ideology means a fixed set of prescribed ideas that are Interesting that you should bring this up. We have seen nothing from you that falls outside this category. In fact, we have seen nothing from you that is worthwhile period. But since others might not know this and because some of us feel bored, we respond. If you really care about the topics you blab about, then get yourself away from that computer you must spend hours upon hours in front of, get yourself into a library and in a few years, come on out and lets have intelligent discussions. Read up on different political ideas and systems, different ideologies and pick the one you like best. The impression one gets from reading what you write (other than, what the fuck, this list used to have decent shit on it) is that you have no idea what you are talking about, you musta picked up a little pamplet somewhere that said "anarchy is cool, we bust up stores in the name of freedom" and gone with it. If you are just wasting our time here, which is the more likely explanation, then well, I just hope you don't actually believe the shit you write, there are plenty other stupid people in the world, it would have been nice if this list didn't attract as many as it seems to. --Gabe
On Monday, December 24, 2001, at 08:53 AM, Gabriel Rocha wrote:
On Tue, Dec 25, at 04:30AM, mattd wrote: | In simplest terms, anarchism stands against not just government, but all | forms of domination and exploitation. This includes government, but also | capitalism, landlordism, interest, and profit.
Interesting to note that the system you bash, for the sake of argument lets call it "timmayism" is really in favor of individual freedom (Tim, if you are not a libertarian, which is what I believe you to be, given your writtings, please correct me)
Yeah, I favor freedom and free markets. Obviously. Something I _don't_ favor is wasting time responding to weird rants like the ones from "mattd." The expression "get back on your medications" is sometimes overused on the Net, but in this case it clearly applies. This "mattd" person oscillates from fawning about "crypto anarchy" to foaming that people like me should be hanged. All written in an illiterate, pseudo-dyslexic, run-on sentence, crude imitation of John Young. I have yet to see a single idea come out of "mattd." There are more interesting fish to fry. --Tim May, Corralitos, California Quote of the Month: "It is said that there are no atheists in foxholes; perhaps there are no true libertarians in times of terrorist attacks." --Cathy Young, "Reason Magazine," both enemies of liberty.
On Mon, 24 Dec 2001, Tim May wrote:
Yeah, I favor freedom and free markets. Obviously.
Just so long as it doens't involve any of that homo- stuff... like two people of the same sex kissing in public... Or, while you get to read and post as you see fit, they conform to your considerations of relevancy with regard to submissions... Which face is that again? -- ____________________________________________________________________ Day by day the Penguins are making me lose my mind. Bumper Sticker The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, IMHO mattd is in the end stage of neurosyphilis, which he got from Vulis. I tried to make heads or tails out of it, but he beats otoT on the weirdness level. At least otoT had style... ----------------------Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--------------------------- + ^ + :Surveillance cameras|Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\ \|/ :aren't security. A |share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\ <--*-->:camera won't stop a |monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/ /|\ :masked killer, but |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/ + v + :will violate privacy|site, and you must change them very often. --------_sunder_@_sunder_._net_------- http://www.sunder.net ------------ On Mon, 24 Dec 2001, Tim May wrote:
Something I _don't_ favor is wasting time responding to weird rants like the ones from "mattd."
On Fri, 28 Dec 2001, Sunder wrote:
Yeah, IMHO mattd is in the end stage of neurosyphilis, which he got from Vulis.
ROTFLOL!!! I haven't heard *that* name thrown around in a while ;-)!!!
I tried to make heads or tails out of it, but he beats otoT on the weirdness level.
It's not "weird", it's incoherent: there _is_ a difference.
At least otoT had style...
Amen. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mon, 24 Dec 2001, Gabriel Rocha wrote:
Interesting to note that the system you bash, for the sake of argument lets call it "timmayism" is really in favor of individual freedom (Tim, if you are not a libertarian, which is what I believe you to be, given your writtings, please correct me) so things like "domination", "exploitation", "profit", etc... are perfectly acceptable so long as two people consentualy enter into an agreement.
Actually there are several different sorts of 'individualism', Tim's only being one of them. What is worth noting is the consideration that folks like Hayek give the sort of 'rudded individualism' that Tim promotes. They're against it. Individualism and Economic Order "1. Individualism: True and False" F.A. Hayek ISBN 0-226-32093-6 -- ____________________________________________________________________ Day by day the Penguins are making me lose my mind. Bumper Sticker The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mon, 24 Dec 2001, Gabriel Rocha wrote:
| Anarchism is a variant of socialism
an7ar7chism (nr-kzm) n. The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.
Which is self-referential (it basically says that even anarchism will oppress).
so7cial7ism (ssh-lzm) n. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
Pick one, stick to it.
Which raises an interesting question. How do you get everyone to behave the same way with the same levels of consideration under anarchism without some sort of universal standard (a central organization)? Who gets to decide it? What happens if somebody decides they don't want to play nice? How do you pay for it? -- ____________________________________________________________________ Day by day the Penguins are making me lose my mind. Bumper Sticker The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
participants (7)
-
Gabriel Rocha -
Jim Choate -
Jim Choate -
mattd -
measl＠mfn.org -
Sunder -
Tim May