mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I havent read Spooner's arguments (although I'm about to) but I just wanted to point out much of the analysis by minarchists and anarchists generally holds that the north should have allowed the south to leave, and then slaves and workers in both should have overthown the governments and dissolved the state (or devolved it as far as possible).

This is the general position, among anarchist circles.  Some disagree, naturally, but it seems to be consensus, and I just wanted to point out some of the thinking behind that analysis.

I would have to agree with your statement there... that does seem to be the view of most anarchists... except the ones that seem to confuse anarchy with communism (which always tends to startle me).

Mostly I wanted to shift gears, because I realized every fucking post I dropped in the past day or so, was in some knid of debate... Damned Iron Bar....

[Cain]

ANARCHO-COMMUNISM ROOLZ! 

THE ONLY WAY WE CAN DISSOLVE THE STATE IS TO LET THE STATE CONTROL EVERYTHING!  ITS LOGIC, SEE??

Actually, Anarcho-Communism may be the single most Discordian position in politics. Overburden the state with control of everything, and let it collapse under its own paperwork, inefficiency, politicking and stupidity.

But I may be giving away too much of the content of my next rant here.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

ANARCHO-COMMUNISM ROOLZ! 

THE ONLY WAY WE CAN DISSOLVE THE STATE IS TO LET THE STATE CONTROL EVERYTHING!  ITS LOGIC, SEE??

Actually, Anarcho-Communism may be the single most Discordian position in politics. Overburden the state with control of everything, and let it collapse under its own paperwork, inefficiency, politicking and stupidity.

But I may be giving away too much of the content of my next rant here.

LOL troof.

I see anarcho-communism as an interesting position... particularly in the small commune sense (basically every town would be its own independent commune). But it suffers from the same flaw as every other form of government, it assumes the best in humans.

The only reasonable anarchist position I've seen yet, was Prof. La Paz's Rational Anarchism, ala Heinlein in "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress"...

[LMNO]

Oddly enough, I used a variation on that logic in the first few chapters of LMNO-PI, where Gvt, Inc had quantum storage, but not quantum processing.

So, they knew everything, but had no idea what anyone was doing.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I havent read Spooner's arguments (although I'm about to) but I just wanted to point out much of the analysis by minarchists and anarchists generally holds that the north should have allowed the south to leave, and then slaves and workers in both should have overthown the governments and dissolved the state (or devolved it as far as possible).

This is the general position, among anarchist circles.  Some disagree, naturally, but it seems to be consensus, and I just wanted to point out some of the thinking behind that analysis.

And it is, of course, rubbish.

What the South was trying to create was a permanent aristocracy.  The poor Southern Whites fought like hell for the right to be a permanent underclass.  What would lead anyone to believe that they would then fight the very aristocrats they fought to install?

And the North?  All you need to know about the North and its capability for dealing with uppity drones occurred at Kent State, back in the Nixon days.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

ANARCHO-COMMUNISM ROOLZ! 

THE ONLY WAY WE CAN DISSOLVE THE STATE IS TO LET THE STATE CONTROL EVERYTHING!  ITS LOGIC, SEE??

Actually, Anarcho-Communism may be the single most Discordian position in politics. Overburden the state with control of everything, and let it collapse under its own paperwork, inefficiency, politicking and stupidity.

But I may be giving away too much of the content of my next rant here.

LOL troof.

I see anarcho-communism as an interesting position... particularly in the small commune sense (basically every town would be its own independent commune). But it suffers from the same flaw as every other form of government, it assumes the best in humans.

The only reasonable anarchist position I've seen yet, was Prof. La Paz's Rational Anarchism, ala Heinlein in "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress"...

Blarg.  Heinlien was an even worse political philosopher than Ayn Rand.

[Cain]

I havent read Spooner's arguments (although I'm about to) but I just wanted to point out much of the analysis by minarchists and anarchists generally holds that the north should have allowed the south to leave, and then slaves and workers in both should have overthown the governments and dissolved the state (or devolved it as far as possible).

This is the general position, among anarchist circles.  Some disagree, naturally, but it seems to be consensus, and I just wanted to point out some of the thinking behind that analysis.

And it is, of course, rubbish.

What the South was trying to create was a permanent aristocracy.  The poor Southern Whites fought like hell for the right to be a permanent underclass.  What would lead anyone to believe that they would then fight the very aristocrats they fought to install?

And the North?  All you need to know about the North and its capability for dealing with uppity drones occurred at Kent State, back in the Nixon days.

Well thats Anarchists for you.  Many seem to believe the overall universal trend of humanity is towards decentralization, whereas pretty much everyone else can see it tends to centralization.  Hunter-gatherers > Tribes > City states > Feudal aristocracy > modern states > super states/empires > economic cooperation groups.

I have no problem with people fighting against the currents of social organization, but a good first step is to recognizing the way the world is, and not how one would like it to be.  Its very similar to the Marxist conceit about The Inevitability of the Revolution.  Because of that, they believe leaving the situation long enough would have resulted in a better solution, even though in the meantime hundreds of thousands would have suffered.  Its sortof the same reason why they are against welfare, because it continues the existence of the state and keeps the poor people in debt to it and reliant on it, thus unwilling to overthrow it.  The idea is to remove all these safety mechanisms, and then let people be treated badly enough that they are willing to go destroy the state itself.

Unfortunately, I dont recall that happening in many slaver societies, let alone far worse ones such as the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.  Which is why I have problems with the Anarchist analysis.

Spooner, however, seems to be arguing that the Constitution is a contract, in the very real sense, that requires consent from all parties to be considered valid.  Which is an entirely different, and far less interesting argument, because it passes from socio-political theory into the area of Constitutional debate, which is not as obviously important to me.

[Messier Undertree]

Its very similar to the Marxist conceit about The Inevitability of the Revolution.  Because of that, they believe leaving the situation long enough would have resulted in a better solution, even though in the meantime hundreds of thousands would have suffered.  Its sortof the same reason why they are against welfare, because it continues the existence of the state and keeps the poor people in debt to it and reliant on it, thus unwilling to overthrow it.  The idea is to remove all these safety mechanisms, and then let people be treated badly enough that they are willing to go destroy the state itself.

[citation needed]

Sorry, but I've never met a Marxist who's against welfare and public provision in my life.

Some might see it as unsustainable or as some sort of concession from the bourgeoisie that leads people to accept the system as it is, but they do not campaign for the abolition of welfare.

[Cain]

http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SI/en/display/31

The contemporary welfare state belatedly provides the guarantees of survival which were demanded by the disinherited members of the production society of former days (1). Richness of survival entails the pauperisation of life (2). Purchasing power is licence to purchase power, to become an object in the order of things. The tendency is for both oppressor and oppressed to fall, albeit at different speeds, under one and the same dictatorship: the dictatorship of consumer goods (3).

And actually, I was referring to Anarchists, but since you asked...

[Messier Undertree]

That article hardly calls for the abolition of welfare under a capitalist system, now does it?

It seems to me to be pointing out how welfare leads people to accept things as they are so long as they have a TV and a car.

It doesn't really argue that welfare should be abolished while capitalism is upheld.

As far as I can see anyway.

But yeah. Some anarchist currents are insane like that, so I can't really speak for all of those.

[Cain]

I dont believe I can recall any situation or context where the pauperization of life would be considered a good thing.  Unless you own a Fortune 500 company, perhaps.

But yes, it is an Anarchist thing.  Not all Anarchists but many, and fits into their logic, if not the actual reality of the situation.  Its kind of the logic behind the Aneristic delusion, only retarded because it rarely ever happens that way.