CDR: Re: anarchism = socialism

[Sean Roach]

Beautiful sentiment, and much of it I'm not prepared to argue with.

First of all, I'm going to place my comments among your message.  This is 
not to present the appearance of a winning arguement, but only for ease of 
keeping track of the points.

At 10:41 AM 10/4/2000, Secret Squirrel wrote, or rather forwarded:

>...read on and learn also that capitalism == mass slavery [LART],
>and that, very definitely, property == theft [LART].
>
>For an anarchist, he also seems a little too eager to invoke the authority
>of the dictionary to support his claims [CLUESTICK - get 2 free LARTs].
>
>
>FableOfNamesMonger  <http://www.politechbot.com/p-01275.html>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Forwarded from <http://www.radio4all.org/anarchy/guerin.html>
>Purported Author/Host: <nrkey at nospam.juno.com> (Reach out and touch him ;-)
>
>
>TRUE OR FALSE?
>
>   "Anarchism is really a synonym for socialism. The anarchist is primarily a
>    socialist whose aim is to abolish the exploitation of man by man."
>
>
>This statement was made by Daniel GuÚrin in his excellent book, 
>_Anarchism_. I
>included it at the top of my web page as a way of making it clear that 
>anarchism
>isn't merely a lifestyle or is somehow compatible with capitalism, but is a
>radical, revolutionary social theory that, should it ever be successfully
>implemented (barring the genocidal force that capitalist powers have and
>continue to put to bear against any popular socialist revolutions that 
>arise),
>would transform society in ways we can scarcely imagine today.
>
>The ideas of the key thinkers as well as the history and practice of 
>anarchism
>backs this view up.
>
>
>*_"Anarchism is really a synonym for socialism"_*
>
>What does this mean? To the individual raised on decades of unrelenting
>anti-communist propaganda, the mere mention of the word "socialism" prompts a
>knee-jerk reaction, typically involving references to evil, repression, mass
>murder, totalitarianism.
>
>This is largely a result of the multi-million dollar campaigns waged for the
>past 80 years against socialism by the capitalist nations of the world.
>Apologists cite the brutality of Stalin as "proof" that socialism is 
>synonymous
>with mass murder. However, it should be noted that the capitalist West 
>actually
>INVADED the nascent USSR in the immediate wake of the October Revolution.
>President Woodrow Wilson ordered Marines sent to Russia, who ransacked 
>villages,
>murdered peasants, and threw their lot in with the Tsarist White Russians
>(beginning an long-repeated tradition of support for fascist/monarchist 
>regimes
>at the expense of popular uprisings).
>
>So, even before Stalin came onto the scene, the capitalist West was 
>determined
>that socialism be stamped out!


News to me, I won't argue.  We've done it before, we're doing it now, we'll 
do it again.


>But one thing that is very important to note is that what came about in 
>the USSR
>wasn't really socialism in practice--rather, the Bolsheviks seized political
>power and control of the state (and set about destroying the anarchists 
>within
>Russia, who actually took the revolution seriously--from 1917-1921, the
>indigenous anarchist movement in the USSR was systematically wiped out, 
>making
>the anarchists the first victims of Bolshevik repression!)
>
>So what we had in the USSR was a party vanguard (the Bolsheviks) seizing 
>power
>FOR the people. Lenin, Trotsky, and the other Bolsheviks had no intention of
>allowing the state to "wither away". They, instead, killed the Revolution and
>spent time consolidating their power.
>
>And this, first off, is a very important distinction: the Communist Party 
>ruled
>in the USSR; NOT the people themselves. Thus was totalitarianism born.
>Socialism, according to the _American Heritage Dictionary_, is defined as:
>
>
>1. A social system in which the producers possess both political power and
>     the means of producing and distributing goods.
>
>Think about that for a moment.
>
>*- Were the Bolsheviks the producers? NO! They were a vanguard party 
>acting (so
>     they said) IN THE INTERESTS OF THE WORKERS. This is an important
>     distinction. They used brutal police and military force to enforce their
>     power over the genuine producers.
>
>*- Did the workers of the USSR possess the means of producing and 
>distributing
>     goods? NO! In fact, it was the actions of the anarchists in the 
> Ukraine, in
>     the worker soviets, and in the City of Kronstadt to do precisely that
>     (worker control of production and distribution of goods) that the 
> Bolsheviks
>     put a violent end to!
>
>
>In other words, the Bolsheviks wanted to put an end to SOCIALISM! Why? 
>Because
>they wanted to secure power for themselves. And that they did, as history has
>shown.
>
>Let's look at the definition of communism, for the sake of completeness...
>
>1. A social system characterized by the absence of classes and by common
>     ownership of the means of production and subsistence. 2.a. A political,
>     economic, and social doctrine aiming at the establishment of such a
>     classless society
>
>So we see that the defining principle of communism proper is by definition
>common ownership of productive means and an absence of classes.
>
>-  *_Were productive means commonly owned in any "state socialist" 
>regimes?_* NO!
>     They were owned by the state, by the government. The workers had no 
> say in
>     what was produced, hence the "command economy" or state-planned 
> economy that
>     characterized this system.
>
>-  *_Was Soviet society classless?_* NO! For, after all, the concept of 
>the "state"
>     is largely an abstraction. What is the state, or government? It is an 
> idea.
>     Without people, there could be no free-standing state. Thus, the 
> government
>     is actually whomever controls the means of authority in a given 
> region. And
>     in the USSR (and the other "state socialist" regimes) that was the 
> Communist
>     Party. Thus, within these societies, there WAS a class: it was 
> membership
>     within the ruling political elite, or failure to belong...two classes:
>     worker and vanguard party member.
>
>So we find that the "cardinal example" of "socialism" and "communism" to 
>not be
>much of an example at all, to not even match up to a couple of basic 
>definitions
>of the terms.
>
>Thus, what resulted in the wake of the Bolshevik coup of 1917, in the Maoist
>uprising of 1948, and in the Cuban revolution of 1959 (and elsewhere) 
>followed
>the party vanguard (or Marxist-Leninist) model of POLITICAL, and not SOCIAL,
>revolution. The Marxist-Leninist model of political revolution was an
>aberration, producing vanguardist, command-economy states, and NOT true
>socialist communities.
>
>Rather than liberating the oppressed workers by dissolving the power 
>structure
>of government, the vanguardists merely put themselves in charge of the same
>power structure, confident that THEY would not succumb to the temptations of
>power.
>
>So, when you compare the definitions of socialism and communism with 
>anarchism,
>you see that far from being antithetical, they are complementary...
>
>*- For a society to be anarchistic (e.g., no rulers) would it have to
>    classless? YES.
>
>*- For a society to be anarchistic, would producers have to have common 
>control
>    of the means of production? YES.

If means of production means property, then consider the following 
concept.  I, joe farmer, have with my own two hands built a tractor.  This 
tractor is now the product of my production, but by it's very nature, it's 
also the means of production.  Who owns it?  Do I benefit by my own 
labor?  Or does society, for the greater good, "liberate" it from me as a 
means of production?  If it's to be "liberated", what's the point of me 
even bothering to go to the trouble of producing a tractor when the next 
ten people, who used thier time wisely to manufacture guns, decides they 
need it more than I do?

I, as joe farmer, have "reclaimed", (inaccurate, as the land was not 
previously claimed for this use, but the terminology seems current), a 
farm, on which I intend to grow grain.  I get the grain up to about knee 
height and just producing a harvestible crop, when Brett Rancher, decides 
to use this common land for graising.  Do I as the person who toiled on the 
land to make it produce get to keep the grain?  Or is it mutual property 
that is fair game to all?  If I'm not going to reap what I sow, what's the 
point of wasting a growing season carrying water, and weeding rows?

Now I'm Joe Farmer Jr.  My father built a tractor, scratched a farm out of 
the wilderness, and defended both against all comers because they were the 
product of his own two hands.  He, wanting to pass on the heritage, 
bequethes, (yes,  I know, the spelling isn't right), this produce to me.  I 
didn't produce it myself, rather I was expected to work it until I reached 
majority, and have over the last 20 years assumed more and more 
responsibility as my father has lost the capacity to continue to work the 
land.  I still went to him for guidance, but it was my own two hands that 
overhauled that old tractor, and without my labor, the farm would have 
reverted to wilderness.  Are these products of my labor, or means to 
production?  If means to production, what reason do I have to do more than 
absolutely necessary to keep the two running until my father passes 
away?  Since I'm going to lose control of both at that time.

Now I'm Joe Gentleman Farmer 3rd.  I have built on the work of my father 
and his father, and now find that to adequately work with what I have 
requires more than my two hands, or those of my children and wife, to 
work.  Using some of my surplus produce, I've taken on an additional pair 
of hands to facilitate the work.  He's not worked this land since 
birth.  He hasn't, nor have his ancestors, toiled to make the tractor or 
farm feed the family.  Does he deserve an equal share to the output?  I've 
invested 40 years of my life.  My father invested 60+ of his, and his 
father 60+ of his, all with the assumption that this produce would stay in 
the family.  This worker has yet to invest one hour.  Does this make me a 
capitolist?


>*- For a society to be anarchistic, would all people have to have political
>    power? YES.

If people have unfettered political power, what is to prevent the mob from 
turning on the most productive to cough up their hard-earned gains for the 
"less fortunate"?  Perhaps the less fortunate, who since all wages are 
equal anyway for all producers, since there is often no real way of guaging 
who did more, particulary when more than one stage of production exists, 
decided to underrepresent their talents so that they could get off lighter?
When the many lead the few, you have the makings for a tyranny.  When the 
few lead the many, you have the makings for a tyranny.  If there is any 
chance of one man being more diligent than another, then one man will 
become more prosperous than another in the first generation.  In the second 
generation, I'll grant you, the less prosperous man's son may be more 
diligent, but starting from a weaker position.


>It is in this sense that the first part of GuÚrin's statement is, in fact,
>accurate. It is also for this reason that some anarchists term themselves
>"libertarian socialists" as a way of showing the obvious link between the
>theories: libertarian polity, socialist economy.
>
>For, when you contrast what happened in the vanguardist regimes with the core
>principles of socialism, you can see how socialism is, in fact, incompatible
>with the desire to secure power for oneself or one's party.
>
>
>   *_"The anarchist is primarily a socialist whose aim is to abolish the
>      exploitation of man by man."_*
>
>This is the key statement to explore, for if someone doesn't have a 
>problem with
>the exploitation of man by man, they are in no way an anarchist. It simply 
>isn't
>ideologically consistent, and, as radicals, we put much importance on this.
>
>The anarchist rejection of rulers stems from our opposition to 
>exploitation. Why
>do we oppose the government? Because the government's purpose is to 
>control the
>populace: the only reason people "need" to be controlled is to allow their
>exploitation to continue (and expand) unfettered.
>
>Government exists to protect property. That is the sole reason for its
>existence. Without a government (of some sort, meaning a relative and 
>systematic
>monopoly of influence in a given region) to enforce property rights, there is
>simply NO WAY for capitalists to make their profits from others' labor.

Except by taking that produced by anothers labor, but inadequately 
defended.  Granted, that happens anyway.  Only the methods of defense shift 
from most deadly and determined, to most litigous, (my apologies to the 
lawyers of this list, my spelling was never my strong suit,) and 
determined, both modified by resources at ones disposal to make good on 
threats.  (Ammunition, friendly laws.)


>The fiction of "natural law" establishes that property rights are a "natural
>state" for mankind; however, this is simply not true: property rights can 
>only
>be maintained through force. Once a given group "claims" X plot of land, they
>have to defend that claim. If property rights were natural, they wouldn't 
>need
>force to maintain them.

If natural law does not exist, why does my dog urinate on my tire?  Are you 
saying we are much evolved from beasts?  I'd like to think so, but I find 
my own natural impulses too closely mirror those of "animals".  Including 
the desires to breed, attract a good mate, (through demonstration of my 
ability to support her), keep others of my kind at arms reach, etc.


>Anarchists have always opposed property for this reason; property is 
>claimed to
>make the owner rich. That is why property exists. It's not unlike a
>profit-generating battery, although it's important to note that the profit 
>comes
>from the labor of the workers, rather than simply magically appearing...money
>does not as yet grow on trees.
>
>Workers are routinely and systematically exploited by capitalism. After 
>all, if
>workers were actually paid the value of their labor (represented by the goods
>they produced), the owners wouldn't make a profit! Profit is, in its nature,
>SURPLUS. This surplus comes from selling the manufactured goods at a 
>higher cost
>than it did to make them (anywhere from a 30% to a 300% markup, even more, if
>demand is high). Which means that no worker is ever paid the full value of 
>what
>they produce. It is this con-game that allows the owner to grow rich atop the
>backs of the workers.
>
>Because this is not an equal transaction between owner and worker, the 
>worker is
>being exploited. Would the workers *voluntarily* accept this ripoff in the
>absence of a government power to enforce this? Of course not. The government
>(whatever that particular government is, e.g., whoever rules) protects the
>owners from the consequences of their exploitation and allows them to profit
>accordingly.
>
>It is for this reason that *_anarchists were among the most militant 
>opponents of
>capitalism, and remain so today_*. Government and capitalism walk 
>hand-in-hand,
>partners in crime, robbing the vast majority of the people for the private 
>gain
>of an elite.
>
>Capitalists continue to underpay and overwork their workers (one California
>sweatshop paid its workers $.60 an hour and forced them to work 70-80 hour
>weeks), make use of child labor (this is on a comeback, sadly; anarchists 
>around
>the turn of the century fought child labor vigorously, forcing reformists to
>draft child labor laws--this has been largely circumvented by NAFTA, where
>less-stringent restrictions on child labor can allow capitalists to make 
>use of
>this cheap pool of labor now more than ever by relocating their factories in
>Third and Fourth World nations).
>
>The exploitation will continue and will expand unabated, because 
>capitalism is,
>in fact, synomyous with exploitation. The exploitation produces the profit by
>which owners grow very, very rich.
>
>So, far from being hyperbole, GuÚrin's statement is an accurate one, as 
>has been
>shown in history by the direct action and commitment to social revolution 
>that
>characterizes true anarchism. Anarchists have uniformly risen against
>exploitation wherever it has arisen, at the cost of many of their lives. 
>It is
>why we oppose vanguardist state socialists as much as capitalists and their
>fascist cronies.
>
>It is our dream to ultimately bring about a successful social revolution that
>will put an end to the institutionalization of exploitation that is
>characterized, practiced, and manifested by government and capitalism.
>
>
>*- DO CAPITALISTS OPPOSE EXPLOITATION?
>
>   *_Economists are agreed that there are four methods by which wealth is 
> acquired by
>     those who do not produce it. These are: interest, profit, rent and 
> taxes, each
>     of which is based uupon special privilege, and all are gross 
> violations of the
>     principle of equal liberty. --Charles T. Sprading, _Liberty and the 
> Great
>     Libertarians_*
>
>First, I'll define my terms:
>
>     exploit: 1. To employ to the greatest possible advantage; utilize; 2. To
>     make use of selfishly or unethically.
>
>     exploitation: 1. The act of exploiting; 2. The utilization of another 
> person
>     for selfish purposes.
>
>
>The capitalist is one who profits from the labor of others by virtue of their
>ownership of productive means, like a business, or factory, or even the tools
>used by workers. The capitalist makes money by not paying the workers the 
>full
>value of what they produce. If workers were paid the full value of a given
>product they manufactured, there would simply be nothing "left over" for the
>capitalist to steal.


So, if I were a master craftsman of looms, but had about the textile 
manufacture talent of a rock, I would not be allowed to maintain my looms 
and live by their produce?  Are you suggesting price protection for 
labor?  Or that I be forced to sell my looms.  Doesn't sound like I'm very 
free if I'm forced to liquidate that that I produced.


>The justification for this theft is that, without the capitalist, the workers
>would be unemployed, and therefore the capitalist is doing the workers a 
>favor
>by even hiring them in the first place. However, this is a circular,
>self-serving argument, viewing workers as simple drudges -- capital assets
>waiting to be used.
>
>However, it _does_ illustrate the utility of unemployment to the 
>capitalist -- it
>creates a labor pool of individuals suitably desperate enough to take 
>_any_ job
>offered, no matter how demeaning. If the "choice" is homelessness and 
>starvation
>to employment in a bad job, the rational worker "chooses" continued survival.
>
>So, this arrangement, erroneously termed "free agreement" (in which the 
>worker
>is "free" to starve if they don't want to work for someone) is innately
>exploitative, because it:
>
>     1. Allows a privileged owner, the capitalist, to profit from others' 
> labor
>
>     2. Eliminates the free choice of the worker -- in propertarian 
> society, you
>        cannot choose not to work and expect to thrive

Are you saying that in a non-propertarian society, that I could simply 
choose not to work and still benefit the same as everyone else?  Sounds 
good to me, sign me up.  Of course, if there are too many of us, how are 
you going to feed us all and yourself too?  If we're going to be forced to 
work, you're now talking about limiting freedom.  How are you to guage that 
I'm doing my fair share?  Perhaps I'm an economist, who's labors don't 
translate well on paper but still are key to the functioning of society as 
a whole.  OR, perhaps I'm a valued leader of men, who can organize to 
better effeciency the labor of others.  But, if I'm a manager, who can coax 
10% extra result from the same effort of those who follow me, does that 
mean that I should have that 10%, or a fixed share of it, as my 
contribution?  Sounds like a manager, or a boss, to me.


>What is considered a "fair" wage is one that the worker will accept -- in 
>other
>words, a wage that is better than the alternative of homelessness and
>starvation, which is invariably the bludgeon used to control the worker in
>capitalist society.
>
>Only capitalist apologists can deny the exploitative nature of their economic
>system with a straight face. However, they do so only by ignoring the 
>realities
>of the transaction involved. The worker will never, ever get rich; the
>capitalist will, by virtue of the unequal, unjust distribution of profits
>inherent in this system.


I won't argue that there are abuses.  Any system will have 
abuses.  Capitalism has the abuse that those who have inherited the produce 
of thier forefathers, but none of their drive, will still flourish.  While 
those who have not the gains of their ancestors, but the determination that 
the former lack, will not see all, or even most, of their value.

The problem is, in a socialist system, the man without any skills or the 
desire to gain, or use, them, can be just as abusive.  There are, in my 
opinion, far more lazy persons then there ever could be wealthy 
persons.  And far more lazy persons in general, than there could ever be 
lazy wealthy persons.

I seem to remember that "Utopia" literally meant "doesn't exist".




>Thus, the definition _cannot_ read:
>
>*-The capitalist is one who opposes the exploitation of man by man.
>
>because exploitation is build directly into the system. A better 
>definition is:
>
>*_The capitalist is one who exploits the labor of others for personal 
>profit by
>   virtue of private ownership of productive means!_*
I'd say a capitalist is one who strives to gain more than he had, by 
trading in a market, and in the process produce more, and better methods of 
production, since with better methods of production, more can be produced 
with the same effort.

I'd hate to have to hoe a row by hand.  Tractors are much more efficient.

Can you honestly see any type of industrial revolution occuring from common 
labor?  If I gain status by developing steam power, then I've just been 
elevated to a new class.  If I gain profit from the licenses, same deal.


>This is an accurate definition of what it means to be a _capitalist_.
>
>The libertarian socialist model of production revolves around the 
>collective or
>the commune, where all workers within the given collective profit 
>_equally_ from
>what they produce. *_The ones who actually do the work get the profit_*. 
>This is, in
>essence, the core of our economic ideology.
>
>
>Return to the Anarchy for Anybody Homepage.
><http://www.xs4all.org/anarchy/>


This really is unfair, since the original author isn't on the list to 
refute.  But I'm sure he, (or she), will find a worthy champion.

Good luck,

Sean Roach