Did Somebody Say Socialism? (No, strangely, nobody said that)
Steven Taylor
"It seems likely that our rulers will have to make considerable use of falsehood and deception for the benefit of their subjects. We said, I believe, that the use of that sort of thing was in the category of a medicine." --Plato: Republic V:459e
Long ago and far away, a young man went to college to study law, because that was his father's wish for him. But he had his own ideas; he was a lover of literature and philosophy, and so skipped the jurisprudence lectures to read through philosophy from the pre-Socratics to Hegel. He also did a fair amount of arguing and drinking, spiced up with a touch of dueling, and after cleverly arranging a last-minute transfer to another university in order to diffuse the effects of the aforementioned activities, Charles, as he later called himself, finally came away with a PhD.
He intended to marry his childhood sweetheart, and settle into a teaching gig in one of those quaint German college towns where time has stopped, life is orderly and predictable, and there is a good brewery. But, alas, he had a talent for shooting himself in the foot, and upon graduating, rather than getting his c.v. in order and kissing up to various fusty authorities, he immediately destroyed any prospect he would ever have of a professorly career by publishing an article critical of the government.
His only immediate option was a career in journalism. He had an acquaintance who worked for a new rag in an old mercantile town that had become a center of industry. The emerging entrepreneurial class of manufacturers needed a new kind of news outlet, one that reflected their interests, so they started one. Charles got hired on as a reporter. The editor-in-chief of the paper drank and slept at his desk; Charlie drank and worked like a demon, and within a few months, he found himself in charge.
Running a news outlet on behalf of the new class of industrialists under a politically backward, conservative Christian regime, was tricky. He had to please his businessman readers, who were liberal by the standards of the day, and still manage to get by the censors. Some of the reporters and critics on the paper were interested in a new kind of political economic theory that had emerged in France after the Revolution, called "socialism." Charlie figured he'd better read up. He spent the next four decades reading economic and political theory and writing about it. A hundred years later, half the world's population lived under regimes that claimed to subscribe to his findings.
Charlie described the history of political/economic systems on the model of a conversation, a debate. But it's not primarily a contest between ideas, it's a struggle between economic forces. Social change is driven by this oppositional dynamic. One set of ideas tends to dominate, and these are the ideas of the dominant class, but they are not stable because, as I just said, ideas are not driving the game, the economy is. Conditions on the ground tend to change faster than the players' capacity to understand them. Ideas are always playing catch up with conditions, particularly among the rulers, who become more clueless as the changes in the system speed up. (Has McCain figured out how to turn on his Mac yet?)
Charles said that every system contains the seeds of its own destruction; every economy contains contradictions which, over time, wear on the machinery, until they eventually jam it up. Feudalism didn't give way to capitalism because somebody thought it would be a good idea. It gave way to capitalism because feudalism didn't work anymore. And when the contradictions in capitalism finally approach critical mass, that system too will appear increasingly absurd, and finally be paralyzed, and then we will have a new system. The system that will follow capitalism, said Charles, is socialism.
The contradictions in capitalism, and the requisite cluelessness of the rulers in its decadent phase, have finally reached the height of absurdity with the current administration, so that now, the free marketeers in the White House are demanding that the congress enact socialism, right now, this week! Only they're not calling it that. That's because they can't see that far ahead. To them, the solution is not socialism, it's fascism, which is socialism for the few, the proud, the financiers.
Actually, somebody did mention socialism this week, and it came from an unlikely source. The former chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, appeared on television the other night, and to my surprise, he said what must be avoided is socialism for the few, leaving the rest of us holding the free market bag. But this week's prize for bizarre assertions goes to the Bushists' mouthpiece at the New York Times, David Brooks who, in his Tuesday (September 23) column, at the end of a longish editorial fairy tale in praise of the good old days when a few gray haired gentlemen in banks and "white shoe law firms" pulled the strings and took such good care of us all, cheerily invoked a euphemism for the proposed resurgence of fascism. He called it oligarchy. Ah, that has a nice classical ring to it. The word is Greek for "rule by the few."
"Oligarchy is predicated on the conviction that the rich, even though they are no more than a segment of the body politic, preserve its financial assets best, and that their superior intelligence makes them the best councilors; the main objection to oligarchy . . . is that it gives the majority of citizens no share in the profits but only the risks" (Martin Oswald: Oligarchia: The development of a constitutional form in ancient Greece. Stuttgart: Steiner Verlag: 2000).
The original oligarchs were the "Thirty Tyrants" who briefly ruled Athens prior to the restoration of democracy in 403 BCE. Plato was related to two of these venerable gentlemen, and when Democracy dawned, he opposed it. Democracy pretends that everyone is equally worthy of a voice in civic affairs. Democrats are flighty and unreliable. They flip-flop on the issues. And to top it off, they sentenced Plato's teacher to death. That's why in his great work on politics, the Republic, Plato described the ideal government not as a democracy but as rule by "the wise few," an educated elite.
Among the present Republican leadership, those who can read at any rate, Plato is very popular. Plato says that it's OK for the elite to make up "noble lies" to get people to follow them, it's even acceptable to rig the lotteries by which marriages are to be arranged, because it is in the best interests of the state. People like the idea that they have a voice, and that their choices matter, so you let them think that they do, but when the people are wrong, or you get the wrong sort of people, the wise few have to put in a fix.
The looming Great Depression and the last one have a lot in common. The collapse of capital markets in the 1930s fostered two approaches to recovery: social democracy, and "national socialism" (Nazism for short). In Germany, the social democrat factions variously fled, were shot in their beds, or were rounded up and shipped off to die in the camps.
I was never one for camping, myself. So I'm hoping to keep my apartment in Brooklyn. And I'm hoping that Charlie Marx was right about the revolution coming first to Western Europe and America. He's been right so far, because capitalism never really collapsed anywhere yet. The Russians blew their shot at socialism more than fifty years before Reagan took credit for "the collapse of communism," and the European social democracies never went all the way, and are now slowly taking the welfare state apart. (Remember when welfare meant the public good, and wasn't a dirty word?)
Anyhow, I'm laying in canned goods and bottled water, and waiting for the final collapse of it all. Once that happens, say, next week, let's hope "our leaders" (what happened to our representatives?) don't get it "right" and we'll be "left" to organize a system that works.
Photo by h.koppelaney, courtesy of Ctreative Commons license.
- Steven Taylor's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Tags:
- Democracy
- Economics
- Printer-friendly version
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Propeller
Reddit
Magnoliacom
Newsvine
Furl
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
Icerocket
Contradictions in capitalism?
give them enough rope...
You're right...
sorry, capitalism sucks!
i actually posted something here yesterday about libertarian socialism, which is a vision of a stateless society that nevertheless has all the amenities of socialism. the flaw with both capitalist-libertarianism and state-socialism is that both believe too much in their abstractions (various fictions like 'free markets', 'the proletariat' 'the invisible hand of the market' 'vanguards' etc...), and not enough in the actual people who make up their societies.
perhaps an even bigger flaw in your model of libertarianism is that capitalism could never exist without the state. why would people stand to be exploited by the ruling class if the ruling class didn't have the police & prison apparatus to compel them to? here is a quote from Noam Chomsky: "a consistent libertarian must oppose private ownership of the means of production and the wage slavery which is a component of this system, as incompatible with the principle that labor must be freely undertaken and under the control of the producer." How does wage-slavery and private ownership of the means of production factor into your vision of a stateless utopia? Aren't these things part and parcel of capitalism?
But the biggest problem is your assertion that people are generally 'self-interested' and prone to dominating others. While this is often the case, the opposite is at least equally true. If humanity were not prone toward co-operation, compassion, generosity & love, we would have wiped each other out long ago. The dismal view of human nature that you put forth is the philosophical foundation of both the modern state and capitalism (the two are actually inseparable - the state cannot escape capitalism - eg. the USSR & China, and capitalism cannot escape the state, eg. the socialism for the rich in the USA). A stateless society, which I am all for, will have to dispense with capitalism, usury, and wage-slavery, if only because, without the state, there would be nobody to enforce the ground rules of a capitalist economy, nobody to set the interest rates, nobody to club the workers into submission when they try to take over the factory. But the real reason we would get rid of those things is that those things are a fucking drag, and no free person in their right mind would freely choose them.
p.s. where has pure free-market capitalism ever existed and what made it so pure? was life good there? were there poor people in those societies? were there fantastically wealthy people?
libertarianism is libertarianism
I read your post about libertarian-socialism. Voluntary socialism is totally possible in a libertarian society, so if people wanted to participate in it that would be fine. However, as most libertarian-socialism is discussed... it is actually exemplary of a functioning state, because it attempts to enforce particular working conditions/rules on the population.
"perhaps an even bigger flaw in your model of libertarianism is that capitalism could never exist without the state. why would people stand to be exploited by the ruling class if the ruling class didn't have the police & prison apparatus to compel them to?"
First of all, exploitation is the nature of exchange. If I sell you a loaf of bread, we are both exploiting each other. I am exploiting your desire for bread in exchange for money, and you are exploiting my desire for money in exchange for bread. This is why capitalism works so well, because it is based on mutual exchanges in which both parties perceive a benefit.
Second of all, "the proletariat" have not always been advocates of socialism. It was primarily the upper classes that came up with this notion of unfair exploitation of the poor, and they spread the notion about. Perfect example: Marx - an aristocrat and non-worker (whose economics, by the way, are outstandingly flawed and philosophically naiive). But let me ask you this... do you think "the proletariat" would be in favor of defending their own accumulated wealth and property? This leads me to my next point...
A stateless society does mean a society without rules. Police would still exist, courts would still exist, property protection would still exist. People generally want their person and property to be insured and protected, and this defense could arise in the form of dispute resolution organizations. It would be a booming business, I imagine, because everyone wants it. So, to answer your question, the rich would still have a method of protecting their riches, yes, just as the poor would theirs.
Now, as for Noam Chomsky's comments... Noam Chomsky, I must say, is spot on with his analyses of foreign policy and war, but when it comes to domestic issues, he tends to be lacking. "Wage-slavery" is a thoroughly unfair term. Workers have a choice of where they work and who they work for and under what conditions and for how much pay. Yes, their choices grow narrower and more limited based on factors such as their level of skill, their willingness or ability to move to where more labor-opportunities are, and so on. ALL OF US are subject to limitations in our working conditions, rich or poor, based on the same factors. Furthermore... no one HAS to work for anyone else, either. He or she could attempt to start his or her own business. One of the reasons many people don't (among numerous other things) is that there is a considerable amount of risk involved. The "wage-slave" so to speak, has chosen a more stable, but smaller, income over a potentially less stable, but larger, income. As for "private ownership of the means of production"... yes, that is fundamentally the basis for capitalism... private property. "Public ownership of the means of production" - if by "public" we mean "the population as a whole" - necessitates a state. In a capitalist society, ownership of the means of production tends to be pretty liquid. In some cases, one or just a few people own a company... in other cases, the workers share (in some form or another) the ownership... and in other cases, ownership is sold off to anyone who wants to hold a stake in the company (i.e. the stock market). It is up to workers (owners and non-owners alike) to negotiate and decide upon methods of ownership across society. That is voluntarism. Granted, there will always be poor and disabled people who need assistance from others, but people's concern (you included) that those in need are taken care of is so prevalent, there is no doubt in my mind that they will be taken care of. Indeed, it has been shown that when taxes decrease, charity increases. Besides, mutual aid programs have been shown to function more efficiently and produce better results than government welfare programs.
I am not offering a "stateless utopia" as you put it. I have no delusions about the consequences of free(er?) markets, but I also have none about the consequences of the state. Please note that I am HIGHLY SKEPTICAL of the nature of the stateless society. Ideally, a state with very limited responsibilities (depending which ones of course) might prove optimal. For instance, I see it as a productive aspect of society to impose minor property taxes on land-holders and to tax those who put pollutants into the air and other areas of virtually un-enforceable property rights, like the ocean. The problem that I have with that, as I've said before, is that the state is prone to expansion (particularly in democracies). Therefore, I have seriously entertained the idea of getting rid of the state entirely (note: by state I mean any institution that taxes).
"But the biggest problem is your assertion that people are generally 'self-interested' and prone to dominating others. While this is often the case, the opposite is at least equally true. If humanity were not prone toward co-operation, compassion, generosity & love, we would have wiped each other out long ago." I do not think that people are ONLY self-interested. That would be absurd, as it is obviously not the case for the very reason that we are even having this discussion. I ALSO think that people are incredibly cooperative, compassionate, and loving. I am a big advocate of the idea that people are generally good-natured toward each other. If anything, I think that is an argument in FAVOR of libertarian perspectives, don't you? Here is what I DO think, however. I think that people respond to incentives, and I think that self-interest is the strongest motivator for a person. I also think that people tend to know how to spend their own money on themselves better than other people's money on themselves or their own money on other people. I also am a strong believer in the non-aggression principle, and thus I believe it is wrong to take from someone or dictate to them how to behave at gunpoint (which explains everything the state does).
"The dismal view of human nature that you put forth is the philosophical foundation of both the modern state and capitalism." This is YOUR VIEW of the libertarianism that I have put forth. As I have stated, I think people are innately good-natured toward others. After all, what is the common exclamation we hear from children? "It's not fair!"
You said, "there would be nobody to enforce the ground rules of a capitalist economy." I already addressed this above. A stateless society does not mean a society without property or rights protections. This topic is immense, however, and requires focus that should not be embarked upon in this conversation. If you'd care to speak more with me about it through email or something, I'd be more than happy to.
"nobody to set the interest rates..." Would there not be banks? If you are referring to the interest rates set by the Federal Reserve, then I must agree with you. The Federal Reserve system would not exist, and we'd be all the better for it. After all, it's what caused this whole financial crisis.
"nobody to club the workers into submission when they try to take over the factory..." Well, I imagine that would depend upon how the workers were trying to overtake it. If they were trying to overtake it violently, then you can bet they'd probably by "clubbed," because the factory's security or contracted police would likely come to the defense of the factory owners. By the same token, however, if factory owners ever attempted to "club" their workers, you can bet the consequences would be extremely high. (1) The factory would receive a very poor reputation among workers and consumers, damaging its business. (2) Aside from the police protection the workers would likely receive, the factory-workers would likely sue the owners for their misconduct and contract violations. The only reason this "clubbing" of workers ever worked in capitalism was due to the corruption of the state. Later on, the corruption was "balanced out" when unions won permission from the state to commit acts of violence against factory owners.
"p.s. where has pure free-market capitalism ever existed and what made it so pure? was life good there? were there poor people in those societies? were there fantastically wealthy people?"
Where it has existed (Iceland, Somalia, American Frontier), it has existed briefly and on a small scale, so it is difficult to draw solid conclusions about what more advanced and widespread stateless societies would look like. Yes, there were poor and there were rich living side by side. There was contracted property, police, and infrastructure. There was also relatively little violence. Any analysis far beyond those basics is difficult because, although developing rapidly, wealth production was still in its early stages.
Although we do not have any examples of large-scale stateless societies to observe, we can look at states that vary in their amounts of economic and social liberty, and hands down... the societies that have the least intrusive governments, have more wealth and a better standard of living. Hong Kong, for example, is one of the most (if not THE most) economically free societies in the world. Ever seen a middle-class home in Hong Kong?
I would like to note that I think it would be preferable to discuss the consequences and benefits of liassez-faire markets versus heavily-regulated and socialized markets, as opposed to discussing statism vs. anarchism, because the territory is more tangible and observable. I am of the opinion that laissez-faire markets are more sound than socialized markets in both philosophy and effect, and I have yet to hear any argument or see significant evidence to suggest otherwise.
p.s. I began my humanitarianism as an advocate for socialism. Through my dialectical methodology, research and experience I have come to advocate libertarian views.
"Libertarianism" is not libertarian if its capitalist.
"no one HAS to work for anyone else, either. He or she could attempt to start his or her own business. "
its midnight, i just got home from work, and i really don't have the energy to respond to all the points in your post. i would simply like to state, for the record, that I, and everybody else in my workplace, HAS to work for somebody else, and CAN NOT start their own businesses. Unless that business was panhandling, crime or prostitution... I don't think you need a bank loan for any of those, do you? Jesus Christ, tomorrow maybe I should tell my co-workers, Carlos, Bernadino, and Heraclio that they don't HAVE to work for somebody else, they can start a business! Are you fucking kidding me?
And you say Marx & Chomsky are intellectually naive? You seriously can't see how the economic inequalities inherent to capitalism prevent the meaningful forms of liberty and self-determination that would be prerequisite to a truly libertarian society? Let me ask you a fundamental philosophical question. What justifies any land-owners claim to ownership of the land? The Indians in America, like the peasants in Europe at the time of the appropriation of the Commons by the Princes, never got an adequate answer to that. Some assholes with guns and swords claimed the land for their paymasters, and, just like that, 'private ownership of the means of production'. Capitalism was born with state violence INHERENT in its very conception. I agree with you that the state is immoral by nature. Capital is even more so. And the two are forever intertwined...
You say we have never seen a large scale stateless society. As a matter of fact, the whole world was at one point a stateless society. Tribal societies were almost all more libertarian than modern societies, and many were pretty anarchistic. All of them were communal, & to my knowledge, none of them permitted usury, exploitation of labor, or even basic capitalist exchanges like barter to occur within the tribal group. Even the Christian church forbade usury (loaning at interest) for almost 1500 years. In fact, it was only after the Reformation, and Luther's siding with the Prince's and against the peasants (he called them 'dogs') in the dispute over the fate of the Commons (they were destined to become 'private property), that Christianity and usury became reconciled.
The fundamental problem with your point of view, is that you view wealth as something that can be owned at all. Tribal people understood that nobody owns the air the water the woods or the fields. And nobody owns another's labor. The artist understands that nobody owns art. A song comes to the singer like a gift, and the singer gives it to the listener like a gift. This is the true law of property. Tribal 'economies' were based on this principle of the gift, and they functioned for thousands of years with relative prosperity (relative to the squalor that 2/3's of the world lives in under capitalism. It is true that these societies never matched the opulent obscenity of the oligarchies of state-capitalism.)
Everything else is pretty much bullshit... Charity, for example. Here is a definition of charity from an etiquette book of the gilded age, an age of low taxes and grand philanthropists like Carnegie, who in addition to handing out cash to the plebians and building libraries, hired the Pinkertons and then the National Guard to smash up the strikers at his steel mills...
"I use the term charity to signify the promoting of happiness in our inferiors... to produce a proper conduct toward those who are beneath us, and who are dependent on us."
As to your suggestion that we discuss "laissez-faire markets versus heavily-regulated and socialized markets, as opposed to discussing statism vs. anarchism," I object to your setting the terms of the debate. I am in favor of neither the free market nor socialized markets. I am in favor of anarchism, gift economy, and a reinstatement of the Commons. As far as I am concerned, your position is totally delusional. There is no conflict between the state & capitalism. The two are siamese twins. Nor is there any such thing as libertarian capitalism. There's either freedom, or there isn't.
I apologize for not responding sooner...
...but I did not have the time until now.
I completely sympathize with your anger and frustration, but I think you're taking a lot for granted in your ideals and criticisms.
I thought you might have a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to my comment about "starting a business." I would ask you to keep in mind the context in which I said that. I was trying to make the point that working for wages is hardly comparable to slavery, one of those reasons being that no one forces you to be employed under the direction of someone else. You are perfectly free to fend for yourself... grow your own food, build your own shelter, etcetera. Of course, doing that would be incredibly difficult, and chances are it would not be in your benefit. Human beings rely upon each other, day in and day out, for their mutual survival. Most people find that they can live a healthier and wealthier life in a cooperatively reliant society, even if it means working for minimum wages.
Also, please keep in mind that starting a business does not necessarily entail a loan from the bank or a large amount of capital. Are the sidewalk merchants on the streets of cities worldwide, who sometimes craft the very goods they are selling, not businesses? Are the artists selling their paintings to magazines, galleries, and the rich not businesses?
Now, to answer your fundamental philosophical question: "What justifies any land-owners claim to ownership of the land?"
I would say that no one can claim exclusive ownership over "naked" land/natural resources, however someone may claim ownership to the products of the land/natural resources that he/she has cultivated/homesteaded/transformed. For instance, philosophically, I cannot own a river, but if I tap water from the river, filter it, and bottle it, I own that bottle of water.
"The Indians in America, like the peasants in Europe at the time of the appropriation of the Commons by the Princes, never got an adequate answer to that."
First of all, the Commons is a classic example of... well... "the tragedy of the commons." It was not until the Commons was done away with and private property was established that people began to use the land more efficiently and starvation was reduced drastically. From approximately 500 to 1500, economic growth was nearly non-existent. Once the widespread introduction and enforcement of private property rights had been established in the late 18th - early 19th centuries that living conditions improved terrifically (for both rich and poor) and class mobility actually became possible.
Second of all, the Native Americans all had some form of private property rights (varying depending on which tribe you are talking about), but you are correct in the sense that they were very communal and most wealth "belonged to the tribe" and not to specific individuals. They also had pretty stagnant economic development. It should also be noted that tribal societies waged territorial wars against one another on a pretty consistent basis. The tombs of history are filled with blood being spilled over natural resource competition. It is not a consequence of capitalism, but of many creatures living on a planet with finite resources. Although your assertion that "some assholes with guns and swords claimed the land" is more or less correct, the same activity has occurred over and over again, and not strictly for the purposes of the "private ownership of the means of production."
A side note...er, question... What is so horrendous about paying someone to perform requested labor at a price that they agree upon? Also, what is so terrible about lending money at interest?
Another thing... Capital is not immoral. Nor is it moral. It is amoral. Capital is simply any form of wealth that can be employed for the production of more wealth. In other words, Capital is stored up labor.
"The fundamental problem with your point of view, is that you view wealth as something that can be owned at all."
If I take that wallet that you carry around with you in your pocket, will you request that I give it back? If you tend, grow, and harvest a batch of tomatoes, may I eat them all? Just one? May you, me, my friends, and your friends share them? May 50 people join in the eating? 1,000 people? Who gets to eat the tomatoes? Who should decide who gets to eat the tomatoes? Should the tomatoes be eaten? And who gets to decide that?
"Tribal 'economies' were based on this principle of the gift, and they functioned for thousands of years with relative prosperity (relative to the squalor that 2/3's of the world lives in under capitalism."
Tribal economies function in a very small, collective environment of people who all knew one another and interacted with each other on a day-to-day basis. They also have the side-effect of low-productivity, slow improvement, and a reinforcement of xenophobia due to their functional necessity for containment and the limitations of the Dunbar number. As for the prosperity relative to the "squalor" under capitalism, I just don't see it. Perhaps you could point it out to me?
Okay... so... to your mention of Carnegie... Can you explain to me how the Pinkertons and the National Guard could have "smashed up the strikers" without the direct backing of the state? Let us not forget that strikers were prone to their fair share of violence too.
"There is no conflict between the state & capitalism."
I think that depends on what kind of state we're talking about. As I have already explained what Capital is, I do not see how your statement holds under most circumstances.
I understand that you are an anarchist, as am I, so we share at least one of the same goals. How, though, do you expect your ideals to be put into practice? I, for instance, am totally down with the gift economy, but I also cannot realistically assume that it would be the only medium for exchange/wealth-creation. The free market is not explicitly hostile to a gift economy. If people want to participate in a gift economy, or join a commune (people do it now) they are welcome to. My question to you is... how do you hope to ensure that a gift economy is the only one people participate in? Or perhaps I am misunderstanding and that is not what you seek.
property is theft
i've been meaning to write back to you, but haven't had the time. also, your point of view baffles me so much that i don't even know where to begin. i had heard of anarcho-capitalists before, but never thought i'd run into one. the anarchism i know and love has always been anti-capitalist. the reason for that seems so obvious to me - anarchy is a condition in which no one rules over anyone else, a condition without hierarchy. capitalism creates class divisions by its very nature, and the rich always occupy a more powerful position in the hierarchy than the poor do. the hier-archy which capitalism brings into existence precludes it from being an-archy.
also, it seems to me that you are not even an anarchist from an anti-state point of view, because you are amenable to the idea of keeping a state around in a police function: "A stateless society does not mean a society without rules. Police would still exist, courts would still exist, property protection would still exist..." that is not anarchism, my friend. an-archy, from the greek, means literally 'no-rule'. it is in many ways an extremely radical, almost metaphysical, proposition, one which believes most of all in the ability of individuals to self-govern. the only rule that seems to apply under anarchism is the 'golden rule'. property protection, police, courts, these are distinctly 'archic' institutions (you forgot prisons!!!! what good are police without prisons? what good is an anarchism that doesn't despise prisons?). you should really refrain from calling yourself an anarchist (but, really, who am i to try and stop you?)...
i can't respond to all of your points - our difference is fundamental, a difference in ontology. i do want to respond to your overall insistence that all of the progress that has occurred in the past 500 or so years was basically the result of the transition to private ownership of the means of production, the institution of property rights, and the advent of capitalism - as if nothing else of any significance had occurred during those 500 years! Are advances in art, science, philosophy, theology, medicine, ethics, all functions of the invisible hand of the market? Or would those advances be even more beneficial to humanity if they were distributed freely, not hoarded by the rich with their patents, their elitist institutions of higher learning, their necrophiliac art collections? (btw: re your statement: "Are the artists selling their paintings to magazines, galleries, and the rich not businesses?" The world would be a much better place if artists were not forced to play the part of business people. i don't know how to explain to you why that is, but, as an artist who also works for a wage, and is in the position of constantly worrying about wether my art will ever 'pay off', it seems pretty intuitive to me.)
but the past is past, and i do not deny that advances have been made during the reign of capitalism, although one could point to the incredible rapidity with which the soviet union and communist china went from feudal to modern industrialized societies as a counterpoint to your argument. the question in both cases is, does that legitimize the ideologies and the oppressive realities of those societies, capitalist or communist? but the reign of capitalism is coming to an end. i suggest you read naomi klein's speech to the Chicago School alumni in which she likens the current wall street crash to the fall of the berlin wall. http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/6/naomi_klein (btw, did you attend the University of Chicago by any chance? Are you down with Milton Friedman, or is your laissez-faire even more 'amoral' than the Chicago Boys'? Are contract killers & death-squads 'immoral' enterprises in your vision of the free market, or are they merely subject to the 'amoral' laws of supply and demand?)
"As for the prosperity (of tribal gift economies) relative to the "squalor" under capitalism, I just don't see it. Perhaps you could point it out to me?"
The FAO indicates that nearly a billion people currently live in a state of constant malnutrition. There have been tribal peoples who literally could not conceive of a person going hungry because 'it is so easy to go to your neighbor and share his meal'. Again, this is a difference of ontology, or even a spiritual difference. If you can't see it, I don't know how to make you.
'philosophically, I cannot own a river, but if I tap water from the river, filter it, and bottle it, I own that bottle of water.'
in theory, perhaps, but in practice, in order to maintain demand, you must also prevent other people from tapping the water gratis. or, in the case of certain south american territories where corporations have gained water rights, preventing the locals from so much as collecting rainwater, and brutalizing them if they disobey.
'Capital is not immoral. Nor is it moral. It is amoral.'
I meant big C capital, as in 'Capital is to Capitalism, as State is to Statism'. Supposedly, we both agree that the State is fundamentally immoral. Capital, if it is, as you argue, merely accumulated wealth used to generate more wealth, is only immoral if we believe that there is something inherently immoral in accumulating wealth in order to generate more wealth. If we believe, with Proudhon (founder of modern anarchism), that 'Property is Theft'.
This brings me to your question: "What is so horrendous about paying someone to perform requested labor at a price that they agree upon? Also, what is so terrible about lending money at interest?" Most pre-modern cultures have found these practices abhorrent, including all or virtually all indigenous tribal peoples, the medieval christians, the ancient jews, and moslems: 'Unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury' - Deuteronomy. 'What ye put out at usury to increase it with the substance of others, shall have no increase from God.' - Koran. The idea in the old testament was that such notions of private property were anathema to the sense of brotherhood integral to the tribe. One would not lend out at interest to one's brother, or son or wife, even today. With the new testament and the Koran, the brotherhood is expanded beyond the tribe to include the whole world. Jesus said, 'lend expecting nothing in return,' and 'forgive us our debts as we have forgiven our debtors.'
You should read Lewis Hyde's excellent book, The Gift, for an overview of the Gift Economy. He argues at one point that 'the gift is anarchist property' and describes how the Italian anarchists, having marched into a village and declaring the king deposed, used to burn the archives which contained the record of property holdings, debt and taxes. "Anarchists have always sought to declare null and void those unions which do not carry with them a felt cohesiveness and therefore tend toward coercion."
I would like to be able to respond to your question about the practical application of a gift economy, but this is all I have time for right now. I am planning an article that would address that, at least in part. Thank you for the dialogue, it has been helpful for me to articulate these ideas.
peace, D
www.myspace.com/thedeclineofthewest
You are preaching utopia
Property cannot BE theft, because property is a prerequisite for theft. Theft is the acquisition of another's property without permission. Thus, theft implies property, but it is not property. You can deny property all you want, but it is a reality. See my point about growing tomatoes in my previous post for clarification.
Personally, I do not think you are approaching anarchy from a realistic or practical standpoint. If your definition of anarchy is a society without hierarchy, then I am afraid you are chasing the unachievable. A world without hierarchy cannot exist with or without the state, and it never will. It does not even occur within the small tribes that you seem to have so much adoration for. People are born with different bodies, into different environments, under different conditions, develop different qualities and skills over time, and value things differently. We are all unequal at birth and continue to be unequal for the rest of our lives.
"It seems to me that you are not even an anarchist from an anti-state point of view, because you are amenable to the idea of keeping a state around in a police function."
Having police around does not mean keeping statist police around. By police, I mean contracted security of some form, just as I do with courts, etc. There would likely be various forms of dispute resolution. It is not in conflict with your mention of the "ability of individuals to self-govern."
"i do want to respond to your overall insistence that all of the progress that has occurred in the past 500 or so years was basically the result of the transition to private ownership of the means of production, the institution of property rights, and the advent of capitalism - as if nothing else of any significance had occurred during those 500 years!"
I did not insist that all progress over the past 500 years was a result of private property and the free market. That would be an absurd assertion. However, it is not a coincidence that the societies that have reduced the size and scope of their governments and adopted predominantly free markets have prospered (both rich and poor) the most. Your point about the Soviet Union and Communist China is invalid. Millions of people suffered immensely under those systems, and central planning has never produced anything close to the equality and prosperity that the free market has brought over time.
"Are advances in art, science, philosophy, theology, medicine, ethics, all functions of the invisible hand of the market? "
This question is misleading. The "invisible hand" is nothing more than the everyday behavior and interactions of people pursuing their individual interests through mutual exchange. Are advances in art, science, philosophy, theology, medicine, ethics, all functions of that process? Absolutely, as they are the products of free individuals engaging with one another. The difference between the free market and something like central planning lies in its individual freedom and incentives.
"would those advances be even more beneficial to humanity if they were distributed freely, not hoarded by the rich with their patents, their elitist institutions of higher learning, their necrophiliac art collections?"
We live in a world of finite resources, and human wants are infinite. Everything has its cost. If you grow 10 tomatoes, can you explain to me how you would distribute them freely? Generally, people are not likely to put in the time and energy to produce something if there is no benefit in it for them. You are not likely to put in the labor to grow tomatoes if you do not receive something you deem of at least equal or greater value than your effort put forth in growing them. The greater the payoff, the more effort a person is generally willing to put in.
"The world would be a much better place if artists were not forced to play the part of business people."
Who is forcing them?
"as an artist who also works for a wage, and is in the position of constantly worrying about wether my art will ever 'pay off', it seems pretty intuitive to me.)"
I am in a similar boat, myself. Yes, it is a shame that I cannot focus specifically on my art and not have to worry about my art ever 'paying off', but what would that entail? My art will either 'pay off', and I will receive value for it in return, or my art will not 'pay off' - it may not be valued enough by others at the time - and if I wish to exchange value with others, I must provide them with something that they deem of equal or greater value. Thus, I may have greater incentive to embark upon activities that are higher in demand so as to be able to benefit from my desired exchange of value with others. In other words, my reception of value in exchange with other people often necessitates my willful contribution to the value they desire.
"i suggest you read naomi klein's speech to the Chicago School alumni in which she likens the current wall street crash to the fall of the berlin wall."
This is why I try to refrain from using the word "capitalism." Naomi Klein's focus concerns crony capitalism, which I would argue is not capitalism at all but, at best, mercantilism, and, at worst, fascism. Unfortunately, because a lot of politicians/bureaucrats claim to be advocates of "Capitalism" and the "Free Market," even though they hardly ever behave as though they do, these memes have been severely tainted as a result of their association with the actions of said politicians/bureaucrats. The financial crisis/major economic downturn is a perfect example. It is the product of an economy drastically distorted by state regulation and institutions like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Reseve, yet we seem to hear about how it's the free market that has failed.
"did you attend the University of Chicago by any chance?"
I did not attend that university. I do not subscribe to Chicago economics or politics. If I were to associate myself with any particular school of economic theory at all, it would probably be the Austrian school. Although I agree with a lot of what Milton Friedman has to say, there is a good amount that he and I would disagree on.
"Are contract killers & death-squads 'immoral' enterprises in your vision of the free market, or are they merely subject to the 'amoral' laws of supply and demand?"
Of course contract killers and death-squads are immoral enterprises. Whether or not they exist does not have any bearing on their morality. How might YOU attempt to either prevent or defend against contract killers or death-squads in a stateless society?
"The FAO indicates that nearly a billion people currently live in a state of constant malnutrition. There have been tribal peoples who literally could not conceive of a person going hungry because 'it is so easy to go to your neighbor and share his meal'."
A billion people living in a constant state of malnutrition does not indicate that capitalism causes malnutrition. Tribal peoples do not have hundreds of thousands or millions of mouths to feed. Tribal peoples may live in areas better-suited for finding or producing food. Tribal peoples are not and have not been immune to malnutrition and starvation. Furthermore, there is nothing stopping anyone from being charitable and offering up food to his/her neighbors in a stateless society.
"in order to maintain demand, you must also prevent other people from tapping the water gratis."
Why must I do this? Demand for my bottled water does not necessarily stop just because my water source is open to other people. Not everyone in society may have immediate and easy access to clean water. I COULD try and violently occupy the water source to prevent others from using it, but there are two primary problems with this: (1) there are other water sources, and people will resort to getting water from those either directly or through another water distributor, and (2) I cannot imagine that any dispute resolution organizations would ever do business with me or lend any support in defense of my claim over the water source. With the apparatus of the state at hand, however, all I would have to do is gain approval and support of this monopoly of violence, and, bingo, I have externalized my cost of maintaining a monopoly over the water source (as is demonstrated with the following comment of yours...)
"or, in the case of certain south american territories where corporations have gained water rights, preventing the locals from so much as collecting rainwater, and brutalizing them if they disobey."
That would be another example of a confusion of capitalism for what is actually fascism. The states have taken public/state-owned land and handed it over to corporations, granting them immediate monopolies on water resources. I do not support this. It is deliberate extortion, and a society should not tolerate it.
"Most pre-modern cultures have found these practices abhorrent, including all or virtually all indigenous tribal peoples..."
Appealing to others who share your own opinion, does not justify the opinon. You must demonstrate that such practices are unethical or immoral.
Again, I do not see how you can assume that a stateless society would only form a gift economy. Believe me, I would love it if your vision of anarchy was fulfilled. That would be pleasant, indeed.
Look, the bottom line is this... A stateless society is a stateless society. I am not trying to force any kind of social or economic system on you, and you are not trying to force any kind of social or economic system on me. Neither of us can know what kind of human relationships would develop in a stateless society. I simply try to speculate as I accumulate more evidence and information, and try to decide if it would be better or worse than particular forms of a statist society.
theft implies property, property implies theft.
theft implies property, property implies theft. with a little poetic license, property is theft. its a slogan, not an airtight theorem. i am going to capitulate out of tiredness and agree that a stateless society is a stateless society, and i am certainly not in the business of forcing economic systems on people. i would have a much bigger apartment if i was in that business. i might even have a house!
i will say that i don't think your concept of capitalism would hold up very long without the state to prop it up. maybe something more along the lines of charles eisentein's ideas about demurrage are better suited to a stateless society.
also, as to my insufficient description of the immorality of capitalism and usury (i'll admit it was intellectually lazy of me to fall back on the bible to shore up my argument - who am i, sarah palin?), here we have a sticky question, but perhaps the most fundamental to our debate. usury was considered immoral to the old testament jews because it undermined their sense of brotherhood, of unity. later, in christian society, we have the refinement or distillation of the old laws into 'love thy neighbor as thyself' (let's forget about god for a second). usury and other forms of interest-based capitalist enterprise, draw distinct lines between mine and thine. if we take brotherhood, unity, love, as the foundations of morality, then it is precisely these lines, these willful separations of i and other, that constitute immorality. indeed, an anarchist society based on gifts could not exist without a collective re-discovery of our fundamental unity with one another. and perhaps that pure ideal is not fully realizable. perhaps some small measure of market exchange is inevitable in any real world society. it should not, however, be the governing ethic.
peace, D.
www.myspace.com/thedeclineofthewest
ps- naomi klein talks about people like you in her speech - those who are quick to make the distinction between pure capitalism and the distortions evident in real world capitalism. she says they are like marxists who say that the soviet union wasn't pure marxism. perhaps the reason both marxism and capitalism degenerated into weird totalitarian parodies of each other is that they are both riddled with flaws. with contradictions that only become evident when they are taken out of the abstract and applied to the real world. that's how this whole argument started isn't it? you didn't think there were any contradictions in capitalism that would necessarily precipitate its downfall. a comment from another reader below illustrates one of the main contradictions: "One of Marx's major insights was the conflict inherent in the capitalist mode: those that control production and seek profit are fundamentally opposed to those who perform the actual labor, if for no other reason than the laborers want wages to be as high as possible, and the capitalists (those who control the productive systems) continually wish to keep costs as low as possible, to maximize their own profit. The object that the laborer creates is worth more than what he is paid to make it...otherwise, the capitalist would not profit. We are, therefore, robbed of the larger portion of the worth of our work." The continuation, I think, is that eventually the laborer is reduced by the capitalist to the point that he is too broke to pay into the system anymore, and the capitalist has no-one left to sell his goods (the same goods created by the broke-ass laborer). Or, to take a recent real world example, the laborer defaults on his mortgages and sends the whole system into a tailspin.
Alas, another response.
"Theft implies property, property implies theft."
I do not think that you genuinely believe property would not exist in a stateless society based on your very support of a gift economy. Even tribal societies based around gift economies have a concept of property. In fact, the very notion of a "gift" implies property and ownership.
"i don't think your concept of capitalism would hold up very long without the state to prop it up."
You may be right, but I think the same goes for your concept of anarchy. One of the main differences between my concept of anarchy and your concept of anarchy, is that the human activities within it that you espouse are free to take place, whereas the only tolerated voluntary exchanges in your concept of anarchy are "gifting" etc. It seems to me that your concept of anarchy necessitates one of two conditions: (1) other forms of voluntary exchange are prohibited by force (in which case you have created a state), (2) a universal change in human psyches.
"maybe something more along the lines of charles eisentein's ideas about demurrage are better suited to a stateless society."
Yes, there is no telling what kind of currencies would be invented to enhance the functioning and exchange within the market. Demurrage is certainly one form of money that would likely arise.
"usury and other forms of interest-based capitalist enterprise, draw distinct lines between mine and thine."
Yes, they do. That is the nature of property and human interaction. In a world of infinite wants and finite resources, distinctions between who is entitled to what are inevitably made, regardless of whether or not people believe in property.
"if we take brotherhood, unity, love, as the foundations of morality, then it is precisely these lines, these willful separations of i and other, that constitute immorality."
Why? Can you clarify your statement? "Brotherhood," "unity," and "love" are all terms based upon the conceptual existence of there being an "I" and "other," so if they are the foundations of morality, then it is a contradiction to suggets that the articulation of the "I" and "other" are necessarily immoral. These terms, instead, qualify a relationship between the "I" and "other." Therefore, if we are to determine that "brotherhood" etcetera, are the foundations of morality, we are actually saying that the relationship between the "I" and "other" as defined by terms like "brotherhood" is a moral one. Operating under the assumption that such relationships are the foundation of morality, we must judge morality based on the nature of the relationship between "I" and "other," and not on whether the concept of the "I" and "other" is in operation. If that were the case, then even a gift economy would be immoral, as it operates under the concept of "I" and "other." Furthermore, there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that trading and exchanging goods and services is actually a catalyst for (or at least goes hand in hand with) peace and good will among people.
I would ask again, what is immoral about voluntarily exchanging value? Is love not something that is valued? Is brotherhood not something that is valued? Are these things not a product of voluntary value exchange? Is a gift economy not based on reciprocal value exchange? Just because value may be represented by currency and prices, does that somehow make it immoral?
"indeed, an anarchist society based on gifts could not exist without a collective re-discovery of our fundamental unity with one another. and perhaps that pure ideal is not fully realizable."
Exactly. You are essentially asking for every person in society to become a hyper-altruistic being, behaving with consistent concern for the "other" and little concern for the "I".
"naomi klein talks about people like you in her speech - those who are quick to make the distinction between pure capitalism and the distortions evident in real world capitalism. she says they are like marxists who say that the soviet union wasn't pure marxism."
There is a fundamental difference between pure capitalism and pure marxism. Marxism seeks a specific set of criteria (based on the false concept of objective value) for how people must organize their labor, and it therefore requires central planning (the state). Pure capitalism is one thing and one thing only, and that is the voluntary exchange of goods and services among individuals. To argue against pure capitalism is to argue in favor of the state, and since the existence of the state is what brings about "real world capitalism" and "real world marxism," it is also an argument in favor of the very conditions being criticized in the first place. So really, it is a cyclical and false argument.
"you didn't think there were any contradictions in capitalism that would necessarily precipitate its downfall."
Incorrect. I have thought that the existence of the state is inherently hostile to capitalism. It is in the nature of the state to grow over time, and state growth inevitably means more coercion over the market (i.e. voluntary exchange between individuals), which, of course, is an inherent restriction on capitalism. As the state grows, capitalism dies.
"The object that the laborer creates is worth more than what he is paid to make it...otherwise, the capitalist would not profit. We are, therefore, robbed of the larger portion of the worth of our work."
Ah, yes, the labor theory of value. Although there are many reasons why this theory does not hold up, allow me to point out the primary absurdity of this theory. First of all, if an entrepreneur is a "parasite" on the value produced by the "laborer" and should therefore be denied the opportunity to profit from his/her efforts, who would ever invest the time and resources necessary to plan and organize the production of goods and services for others? If profit is "exploitation," then where lies the incentive for anyone to risk time and resources on untried methods of production, products, or services? Where lies the value that the entrepeneur should receive in exchange for his/her efforts? On the contrary, should the "capitalist" be denied his/her profits, it is the "laborer" who is "exploiting" the "capitalist," benefitting at the expense of the capitalist's uncompensated efforts. If workers choose to contract their labor with an employer, they do so because they prefer those conditions to whatever conditions and efforts would necessitate their working and operating their own business. Starting and running a business is HARD, and, at least right now in my life, I for one prefer to contract out my labor. An entrepreneur contributes a tremendous value via management abilities, negotiations, assessment of future potentials, and many other various skills. Profit is the value that the entrepreneur receives in exchange for risking capital in a world of uncertainty and constant change.
"The continuation, I think, is that eventually the laborer is reduced by the capitalist to the point that he is too broke to pay into the system anymore, and the capitalist has no-one left to sell his goods (the same goods created by the broke-ass laborer)."
This notion contradicts the historical reality of the market. Substantial evidence indicates that real wages increase over time.
"Or, to take a recent real world example, the laborer defaults on his mortgages and sends the whole system into a tailspin."
I will mention, once again, the current financial crisis/economic depression is the result of a drastically distorted market consisting of opportunities, incentives, regulations, and institutions that were made possible by the government. If you would care to have a separate discussion about this issue, I would be more than happy to inform you of what I know on the subject.
Indeed, I think, this has been an overall productive discussion. I would like to leave you with the following link...
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/brainpolice/archive/2008/05/05/resolvin...
...as I think it pretty much sums up our debate.
Identity, Property, Community
"We are not sealed in calcium like a clam. Identity is neither 'yours' nor 'mine', but comes of a communion with the world. 'Every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you' (-Walt Whitman)"
-Lewis Hyde, 'The Gift'
Marx being rich
Yes, you find that most philosopher/social commentators come from middle-to-upper class families. This is because it is usually them that actually have free time to think about these things, and access to ears and publishers to broadcast and disseminate their theories.
The rest of us are too dog-ass tired from working 50+ hours a week -- just to have enough money to eat, not sleep in a tent, and buy gas to get back to fucking work again the next day -- to do much other than consume when we get home (whether that be consuming entertainment, food, or intoxicants (maybe that goes under entertainment?)).
This is all a part of their plan. Anyone who has enough energy left to actually produce something for themselves has the potential to become a competitor. And those of us who do have the inclination to ponder these things inspite of our exhaustion (or, really, because of it), we have no real access to widespread disemination of those ideas. Even here on the internet -- surely a great stride in such a thing -- we are but one voice in millions.
"You must *be* the change you wish to see in the world." Mahatma Gandhi
think of the future!
My confidence in the market is at an all time medium. The more I learn the less I grok. Perceptions shape monetary matters as much as life shapes art.
I've just finished a conversation with a lawyer I know who is thinking of moving into the financial realm and he seemed pretty sure that the sky was the limit. He said that a European government had recently started flooding the market with new currency to help the country stay afloat.
If the money we use comes at a price and the interest we accrue is destined for the money changer's coffers, then where is the use in any system?
Surely not in it's self perpetuating instability.
in-surely
brief response
//He said that a European government had recently started flooding the market with new currency to help the country stay afloat.//
Yes, this is true - but the old adage "inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon" holds true. When money supply increases faster than real economic growth you have inflation. Too much money chasing few too goods, what happens? Prices increase.
We CANNOT inflate ourselves out of this mess. As a matter of fact, it's inflationary policies that got ourselves into this to begin with and are a contributing factor to our weak currency situation.
without a name: hidden from heaven
The government isn't proposing socialism; that'd imply universal health care, public transportation, free college education, all sorts of good things (along with bad). The government is proposing that regular folks pony up a lot of money and gift it to the banks. (!!!) This is a government sponsored redistribution of wealth unlike any I've read about in any economic theory. It's almost unimaginable. You can't really call it socialism when, as Greenspan said, it's for the few. It's just a plain, massive, unprecedented, abrupt and historical theft. 700 billion dollars! They wish they could call it socialism! The government is stealing from the poor to give to the banks. It's a 700 billion dollar mugging, broadcast on national television, sold with the same shock and awe as WMD's. It's incredible! I don't know how people aren't gnashing their teeth and pulling out their hair in every public plaza. $700 billion out of our pockets and into a Wall Street rathole! There is no academic or theoretical name for this.
(How about $700 billion toward a national rail system? How much oil would it save? How much pollution would it eliminate? How many jobs would it create?)
Whole-heartedly disagree!
Socialism is definitely not what we need! Don't forget, Fannie and Freddie were created during the New Deal (nothing screams socialism like these New Deal policies). They were given special lending priviledges which allowed them to obtain credit at a cheaper rate than that which was available on the market. Eventually, risk gets priced back in at market levels and investments built on cheap credit are no longer attractive.
The "free-market" gets a bad rap because people falsely assume that is the paradigm which we have been operating under, which is hardly the truth. Between price floors, cielings, subsidies, tariffs, other protectionist policy, centrally managed interest rates, top down economic planning (give Road to Serfdom a read if you think economic planning is a good idea), government sponsored entities, collusion, lobbying, etc we have NEVER operated under what would truly constitute a free-market.
OK, so what is a free market? It is a system which operates exogenously from government intervention where people are able to contract through voluntary association and contract. A system like this breeds responsibility, autonomy, and self-reliance.
What do we need to do? First we need to address our monetary system - it is a fact that all fiat systems fail - historically, this is the case. Whether or not gold is feasible can be argued, but the fiat system has to be examined closely - Friedman, for example, suggested using a fixed amount of MS growth as to curb distortions. Interest rates should be set by the market and not centrally managed - the Federal Reserve may have to be given the boot. Foreign debts HAVE to be paid back, why not start now? These foreign countries essentially own us from an economic standpoint. Desmond Lachman, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute, states that foreign central banks "Now have considerable ability to disrupt U.S. financial markets by simplydeciding to refrain from buying further U.S. government paper." Our sovereignty and freedom are being systematically destroyed by making Americansslaves to interests outside of our borders.
stag-
flation, it is my idea that the ideas of Marx were theorized into the ground of being.Meanwhile the mental disease of manifest destiny is called Capitalism.Free market(black market of exploding blood diamonds?) sounds like a free naked lunch.If we could have and eat our RealitySandwich would we put gray poupon on it? Or more economic Baloney?
What would an enlightened world be?
pop goes the weasel, London britches falling down.
Frank Zappa said that Republicans were Nazis, and Democrats wanted to be republicans, he called them Varmints.Varrrrrrrrmints!!!
yes...enlightened social world...not top down, but bottom up and within without, but first we would have to heal the schizo rift in humankind that put us in this absurd revolting development.
libertarian socialism
Prerequisites...