fanaticism, left anarchists, and CACLing

[Luthor Blisset]

At 10:02 PM 10/21/01 -0700, someone with the password to declan at well.com wrote:

>I'm actually surprised to see Steve launch into a critique of 
>laissez-faire capitalism here on cypherpunks, of all places. One can admit 
>that globalization has ill effects (mostly, bricks through windows of 
>Starbucks thrown by bored, upper-middle-class, college-age protesters), 
>certainly.

         Without people using black bloc tactics, activists would have 
received no press coverage... Not to mention the benefit to be gained by 
having a radical faction around to make your moderates look more, well, 
moderate - a technique as old as the American Revolution, and quite 
effective for Ghadi and King.
         But no - for many CACL types, those using black bloc tactics were 
just bored, upper-middle-class, college-age, uninformed dumbshits 
pointlessly throwing rocks through starbucks windows - an image similar in 
accuracy to that of the bored, upper-middle-class, insularly utopian 
randroid masturbating to "Guns & Ammo".
         I'm constantly amazed by the misplaced animosity many CACL types 
display towards the left-anarchist crowd. I think Bruce Sterling said (in 
Holy Fire) "Fanatics always hate and fear their own dissidents far more 
then they loathe the bourgeoisie. By this ye shall know them."
         I wince at fanaticism, whatever its source, but I wince most at 
the shortsightedness of CACL types who, in their self-righteousness, scorn 
those who could easily be their closest allies. From everything I've seen 
(and I've seen a lot), they agree on decentralization [1], agree on 
encryption, agree on "victimless crimes", agree on weapons possession [2], 
agree on intellectual property, and agree on individual private property [3].

>But when responding to claims that factory workers in poorer countries are 
>only being paid $2/hour or whatnot, it makes sense to ask: Is this worse 
>than their other alternatives, like mud huts in villages?

         Who said it was? Have you seen anybody protesting against the 
opportunity that world markets can bring to poor people the world over? Or 
have you seen lots of people protesting secrecy-cloaked treaties designed 
to entrench government-supported monopolies?
         Make no mistake - that's what the WTO, the FTAA, and their ilk are 
all about. They are not about free markets; not about competition at all - 
they are about increasing the scope in which current multinational 
monopolies and duopolies (which, for the most part, would not exist without 
constant government support) can sell things. That is not the free-market way.
         For once and for all: Laissez-faire capitalism does not imply the 
existence of corporate entities! The left anarchists I know want to keep 
the means of production and distribution privately (or cooperatively) 
owned, and keep the free market of goods, services, and ideas... But they 
want to drop the notion of state-sanctioned corporate entities with their 
own rights, privileges, and liabilities distinct from those of their members.
         What's so bad about that?

-- Luthor //Remembering is copying and copying is THEFT

[1] They don't like either corporate or state centralization of power, but 
neither do you, right? Right...? AFIAK, Left-anarchists and CACL types 
oppose corporate and governmental centralization of power - it's just that 
the left-anarchists focus on corporate power, and CACL types focus on 
government power... And corporations can't exist without the state.

[2] Who was it who said "Weapons embody power, and I prefer to see power in 
the hands of the people" - was it John Galt? John Locke? John Lott? Oh 
wait, it was Naomi Klein! Doh! (Chomsky disagrees with her, though, and I'd 
love to talk to him about that - I don't think he's thought it through)

[3] All the left anarchists I know think they own their shoes, as you own 
yours. However, they question the utility of the corporate legal 
construction, and many (most? all?) deem corporate property (like 
intellectual property) a dangerous, shortsighted fiction whose time has 
come and gone.