HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ee@lever.com (Edward Elhauge)
Subject: Re: Bakunin on Marxism (was Re: Engels on Bakunin)
Organization: Lever Industries
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 22:36:48 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.201223.25584@leland.Stanford.EDU> miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU (Michael Ballard) writes:
>though, both Engels and Marx thought power should flow from the bottom up.

After the state withered away in the distant future. Until then the vanguard
party would rule. This is from the "Communist Manifesto which both of them
has a hand in writing.

>What happened under Bolshevism and its various Stalinist offshoots was not
>what Engels or Marx admired.  See for instance what they wrote on and about
>the Paris Commune of 1871.  

>Note that what Bakunin is saying here is that he wants to abolish the state.
>Engels says above that he too wants to abolish the state.  The difference,
>as Engels points out, is that Bakunin mentions nothing about the necessity
>of ridding society of capital--the social relations based on wage labor
>which result in the basic class divisions in modern society--before one can
>abolish the state.  This, in Engels' opinion, is a mistake for both Marx
>and Engels thought that the modern state rested on the social relations
>built on wage labor.  So, they thought that as long as you had wage labor
>and capital and class divisions, it was nonsense to talk of abolishing the
>state.  Both Marx and Engels thought that if classes existed after the 

That is the crux of the difference. Is it "nonsense to talk of abolishing the
state" while capitalism reigns, or do you have to wait through a cleansing
period in which a vanguard would rule and cleanse society.

>ascent of the workers to a governing position in society, that form of 
>governance would be a state.  If the workers ascended to power and had the

No it wouldn't because just about everybody in society works. Obviously this
depends on how you define the word State. But the difference between the
common usage of State as that which exists now, a small elite running things
for the benefit of the capitalist class; and the Marxist conception that
the democratically run society of 99.9% of the people would also be a State
is not useful. I suspect that Marxists liked the ambiguity because they
would substitute the rule the of the vanguard for the rule of the working
class. That would be harder to do if the whole concept of a state was
discredited.

To sum it up. Marx cann't be held accountable for Leninism and Stalinism in
toto, or even what present day Marxists say in his name. But we can certainly
hold him responsible for what he said in the "Communist Manifesto." Marx
definitly believed in a Vanguard Party, in that sense Leninism was a logical
outcome of Marx's thought.
-- 
--
     Edward Elhauge       You will eat (you will eat), bye & bye (bye & bye)
    Lever Industries      In that glorious land above the sky (way up high)
      San Francisco       Work & pray (work & pray), live on hay, (live on hay)
From: rael@ll.mit.edu
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Rebuttal of Brief Comments on ``The Anarchy Paradox''
Keywords: Nazis, cows, yams.
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:09:28 GMT
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory

In article <1992Oct7.020041.2952@lclark.edu> matta@lclark.edu (Matt Alexander) speaketh thus:
>In article <1992Oct5.184029.8736@ll.mit.edu> rael@ll.mit.edu writes:
>>In article <cannon.25.718136828@scs.unt.edu> cannon@scs.unt.edu (Dustin Cannon (Lab 3460)) speaketh thus:
>>>
[...]
> I dunno, would you say Bush and Qualye, sons of rich folk, have been
>rewarded over-justly? What about lawyers and other parasites? Have you ever
>seen "Roger and me"?

Yes,  I  have seen ``Roger and Me'' and thought it quite a poignant, though
depressing  film. I'm not sure I would characterize persons such as Quayle,
Bush,  et al., as being ``rewarded over-justly.'' I think the system itself
is  unjust  and  it  rewards  those  who  possess  the right combination of
characteristics  to  succeed  within  it,  such as avarice, aggressiveness,
disregard  for others, etc. They have just been ``playing by the rules'' so
to  speak, and within the system as it is, one could argue that their greed
and  resultant  reward  has  been  ``just,''  but I think that it should be
mentioned that the system itself is at fault (with which I don't think Matt
would disagree).

>--- Matt "Boober" Alexander ----------------------------

Bill Lear (rael@ll.mit.edu)
From: ee@lever.com (Edward Elhauge)
Subject: Re: Bakunin on Marxism (was Re: Engels on Bakunin)
Organization: Lever Industries
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 22:18:26 GMT

In article <anand.717709061@cds705> anand@Cadence.COM (Anand Bemra) writes:
>miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU (Michael Ballard) writes:
>Well, we have seen the actions of communists in Soviet, the Spanish
>Revolution (read George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia) and China.
>I know, those communists are probably wincing, saying that that was
>not _true_ communism.
>
>The simple matter is that Power corrupts and that is what has 
>happened in Soviet and that is what is happening in China. Anarchists
>believe in bottom up theory. i.e. power should flow from bottom up and
>not as the communists think that it should flow from top down.
>
>Anyways here is Bakunin on communism/Marx:
>
>Bakunin:
> 
> "I detest communism because it is the negation of liberty and I cannot
> concieve anything human without liberty. I am not a communist because
> communism concentrates all the powers of society and absorbs them into the
> State, because it leads inevitably to the centralization of property in
...
> claiming to moralize and civilize them. I want society, and collective or
> social property, to be organized from the bottom up through free association
> and not from the top down by authority of any kind . . . In that sense I
> am a collectivist and not at all a communist."

Bakunin sais "in that sense" because he was a communist in the common parlance
of the time. The word communist can mean, Communist as in Communist Party, or
it can mean communist, as in the belief that "From each according to his
abilities; to each according to their needs." The first is a vanguard formation
that anarchists should fight, and Bakunin did. The second is in fact an
economic program that doesn't specify whow society makes decisions. The
program of the International Workers Association was and is to establish
"libertarian communism". Unlike authoritarian (State) communism, power would
flow from the bottom up in this case.
-- 
--
     Edward Elhauge       You will eat (you will eat), bye & bye (bye & bye)
    Lever Industries      In that glorious land above the sky (way up high)
      San Francisco       Work & pray (work & pray), live on hay, (live on hay)
From: kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse)
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Please Help
Date: 7 Oct 92 23:49:45 GMT
Organization: HP Western Response Center


              Please answer these 9 questions and return.

1.) Do you think equal rights for men and women is generally a good idea?
Yes                  [ ]
Sometimes            [ ]
No                   [ ]
Haven't heard enough [ ]
Other                [ ]

2.) Are you pro choice?
Yes                  [ ]
Sometimes            [ ]
No                   [ ]
Haven't heard enough [ ]
Other                [ ]

3.) Are you in favor of adoption?
Yes                  [ ]
Sometimes            [ ]
No                   [ ]
Haven't heard enough [ ]
Other                [ ]

4.) Do you think men should be allowed to legally terminate their parental
rights and responsibilities before fetal viability?
Yes                  [ ]
Sometimes            [ ]
No                   [ ]
Haven't heard enough [ ]
Other                [ ]

5.) What sex are you?
Male               [ ]
Female             [ ]

6.) How old are you?
Under 18           [ ]
19 to 65           [ ]
Over 65            [ ]

7.) What religion are you?
Protestant         [ ]
Catholic           [ ]
Jewish             [ ]
Other              [ ]

8.) What political party are you affiliated with?
Democratic         [ ]
Republican         [ ]
Other              [ ]

9.) How many years of education have you completed?
Grade School       [ ]
High School        [ ]
College            [ ]
More               [ ]
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu (Walter Lee)
Subject: FE diatribe on elections
Reply-To: w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, MI
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 01:11:53 GMT


From _Fifth Estate_ vol. 27, no. 2 (340) Autumn 1992
(no copyright)


10 REASONS NOT TO VOTE FOR BILL CLINTON

1. He thinks Bush is too soft on Castro.
2. He thinks Bush is too hard on the Israelis.
3. He supports Bush on Iraq.
4. He wants 100,000 more cops.
5. He supports the death penalty.
6. 70% of his campaign is financed by big corporations.
7. He smoked pot, dodged the draft and isn't proud of it.
8. He is the darling of the garbage and toxic waste incineration industries.
9. His running mate's wife supports rock and roll censorship.
10. He wants business as usual for the Empire.


10 REASONS NOT TO VOTE FOR GEORGE BUSH

1. He slaughtered 100s of thousands in Iraq for oil.
2. He slaughtered thousands in Panama after his drug running cohort no longer
   served his purposes.
3. He supported and armed Saddam Hussein and Manuel Noriega along with other
   wretched dictators to support U. S. interests.
4. He and Reagan slaughtered 100s of thousands of peasants in Guatemala,
   El Salvador and Nicaragua during the 1980s.
5. He and Reagan looted the poor, workers and middle-class to enrich the
   already wealthy.
6. 70% of his campaign is financed by big corporations.
7. He wants Constitutional amendments to abolish abortion and to allow prayer
   in public schools.
8. He and his party cater to the country's most vicious homophobes, racists,
   religious fanatics and woman-haters.
9. He is a millionaire.
10. He wants business as usual for the Empire.


10 REASONS NOT TO VOTE

1. If voting could change anything it would be illegal.
2. Voting only encourages power seekers.
3. Voting is one of the few official acts that is not required.
4. "The voter is a man who comes where he is summoned one day like a flunky,
   to one who whistles for him as for a dog trained to obey, who comes on the
   said day only and not on any other day."  --Paraf-Javal
5. Picking one's rulers is humiliating.
6. Voting means you consent to being ruled.
7. Voting even for the "lesser of the two evils" still means voting for evil
   (or the evil of two lessers!).
8. No matter who you vote for, government always wins.
9. The cops can never be voted out of office.
10. Voting means business as usual for the Empire.


10 BETTER THINGS TO DO ON ELECTION DAY

1. Dream.
2. Play.
3. Sleep.
4. Read.
5. Write.
6. Love.
7. Listen.
8. Talk.
9. Walk.
10. Stop business as usual for the Empire.


Walter Lee    wlee@argo.acs.oakland.edu, lee@plex-1.ann-arbor.mi.us

Keep the Aspidistra Flying!
From: ee@lever.com (Edward Elhauge)
Subject: Re: warfare
Organization: Lever Industries
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 21:16:25 GMT

In article <Bvq3ty.527@acsu.buffalo.edu> sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski) writes:
>	Why shouldn't a left anarchy have problems with gangs of people
>becoming a threat?!?  Because other people are protecting you?

No because the people are in arms.

>	If people in a right anarchy had the pacificm that left anarchists
>require in their society, then how can left anarchists criticize right
>anarchy.  It would work according to their own requirements of human
>nature.

Left anarchists do not require pacifism. Look at the CNT during the Spanish
Civil War, the Workers Councils during the Hungary 1956 uprising the Mahknoviks
in the Ukraine during the Russian Revolution.

>	Try reading David Friedman's _The Machinery of Freedom_ and
>Bruce Benson's _The Enterprise of Law_ for complete arguments supporting
>this view.

Try reading "The People Armed - The Friends of Durruti" by Paz.
-- 
--
     Edward Elhauge       You will eat (you will eat), bye & bye (bye & bye)
    Lever Industries      In that glorious land above the sky (way up high)
      San Francisco       Work & pray (work & pray), live on hay, (live on hay)
From: kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse)
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Please Help
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:44:45 GMT
Organization: HP Western Response Center

Oops! My apologies for posting my previous "Please Help" survey to this
group. It was an honest mistake and won't happen again.

Kingsley
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: cb926@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Edmund Joseph Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: What are the differences...
Date: 15 Oct 1992 21:31:28 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


Between the libertarian right and the libertarian left?
I thought we were above that. Sort of like on the Nolan
Chart.

But anyway, I'm interested considering everyone is writing
these open letters.

Virtually,

Ed
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: galt%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Greg Alt)
Subject: Re: Whence property rights?
Date: 7 Oct 92 09:45:54 MDT
Followup-To: alt.society.anarchy
Reply-To: galt%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu
Organization: University of Utah, CS Dept., Salt Lake City

In article <1992Oct5.214459.5336@shearson.com>, pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Neuromancer ) writes:
>>Property is theft...  Property is rape...  Let's not beat
>>around the bush,  what makes property possible is violence
>>and coercion.   In order for property to exist, you will
>>either need a government, or a libarbarian's hired thugs.
>
>No, in order for property to exist, you need someone to construct it.

What about land?

>[a bunch of stuff about building chairs deleted]

You talk a lot about property that is manufactured, but you don't make
any mention of land.  I'm sure that you believe someone has the right
to own land, even though it is something that is not "constructed".
Where does this right come from?  And before you answer, remember that
most of the land in the U.S. used to be occupied by native Americans and
was stolen by Europeans (or if you don't accept that, then explain why).
Now what happens to property rights when property is stolen?  The 
accepted convention is usually that thieves are allowed to keep it if
they hold it long enough, especially if it gets sold several times and
a few generations pass.  But what right does anyone have in owning land
in America (excluding the land that was actually purchased without 
coercion)?



>>Property is the antithesis of freedom.  Property is the
>>single greatest obstacle to Anarchy.
>
>I'm an anarchist, sir. I'd argue that property and anarchy are
>perfectly compatible. The only two anarchist societies that actually
>operated for prolonged periods on the face of this earth, in Iceland
>and Ireland, agreed with my pronouncement in so far as they had the
>concept of private property.

But to have property (land, not chairs), someone sometime has to say,
"This is my land because I say so.  No-one else can use it."  Then they
sell it or their children inherit it when they die.  But that first
act of declaring a piece of land to be property is coercive.  Whether 
or not they use it, they are saying that they will use violence to 
prevent others from using it.
From: glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Neuromancer )
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: warfare
Date: 8 Oct 1992 19:56:06 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4


> If people in a right anarchy had the pacificm that left anarchists
> require in their society, then how can left anarchists criticize right
> anarchy.  It would work according to their own requirements of human
> nature. 

As long as you have property, you will never have peace.  As long
as you have people who value themselves by how much they own, rather
than how much they love, you will have property.

glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
From: w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu (Walter Lee)
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: warfare
Date: 17 Oct 92 02:53:22 GMT
Reply-To: w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, MI

In article <1bmr0aINN22r@uwm.edu>, glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Neuromancer ) writes:
> 
>I guess what I am trying to say is hey, maybe there are some flaws with
>a system based on capitalism, cut-throat competition, and retaliation,
>and maybe just maybe there is a better way.

There GOTS to be a better way!

  Not that I expect you to
>give away all your property today, (I can't even bring myself to do
>that at this point) but try to see that we all have something in common.

My guess as to why you can't bring yourself to give away your property at this
point:  (Pleaze correct me if I'm wrong)

I assume you've heard the popular cliche "own or be owned".  Advocates of
capitalism (both authoritarian and libertarian) use that buzz-phrase to imply
"have 'property rights' or be owned by the State".  I interpret it as
representative of the cynicism of capitalism, along the lines of "eat or be
eaten".  In our society, you have to be a homeowner AND self-employed AND in
the "black" to have ANY degree of control over your own life.  Being a tenant
or an employee or a debtor puts you under a de-facto State.  "Laissez-faire"
doesn't improve this, it just takes away any legal recourse the de-jure State
is "generous" enough to offer people as tenants, employees, debtors.  A legal
system based on property rights means: iff (misspelling intentded) you have
property, you have rights.  I'll give some credit to those who advocate
capitalism for anti-statist reasons...under the statist quo, NOBODY has rights.

To reiterate my guess:  You're aware of this "own or be owned" doctrine, but
you're not ENTIRELY convinced that the third alternative really exists. (?)

(me either)

>We all have feelings and needs.  And maybe just once you will ease off
>just a little on cutting someone else's throat to save your own.   And
>maybe you be able to see your action as a success and not a failure.
>

In other words:
The price of eternal vigilance is liberty. (?)
I couldn't agree more.
 
>Glenn                                  glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Lee    w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu, lee@plex-1.ann-arbor.mi.us

Keep the Aspidistra Flying!
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Neuromancer )
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: non-propertarian
Date: 12 Oct 1992 19:15:20 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4
Originator: glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

Argument #743 for a non-propertarian society.
 
My car.  The headliner falls on top of your head... It's a
rustbucket... the trani slips...  It conks out until it's
warmed up... both door handles fell off on the inside (you have
to roll down the windows to close the doors) (I had a mechanic
fix this, they fell off again the next day)... the tires are bald...
and the damn drivers door won't shut... (you have to drive with
the drivers window down to hold the door shut, and you had better
not take any fast right turns.)  (had this fixed before too)...
etc... etc... etc...  No wonder I ride the bus so much.
 
My fellow homosapiens, verily I tell you, if we had a
non-propertarian society, I could be tooling around in Perry
Metzger's car right now!
 
Glenn                                 glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
From: sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski)
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Anarchy and Evolution (was Re: AN OPEN LETTER TO THE LIBERTARIAN LEFT)
Date: 8 Oct 92 21:58:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Oct8.002119.9281@lever.com>, ee@lever.com (Edward Elhauge) writes...
>In article <Bvq2y6.4Lx@acsu.buffalo.edu> sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski) writes:
>>	Agreed.  Especially since left-anarchists have difficulty answering
>>even the simple questions on how conflicts would be resolved between people
>>without government.  It seems that history has already answered with the
> 
>Wrong you just don't like the answer. Decisions would be made collectively.

	Do go on.

	How would decisions be made collectively, and why should people
follow them?


Mark Sulkowski
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu (Walter Lee)
Subject: Re: What is @ cookbook?
Reply-To: w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, MI
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 00:08:49 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.185738.7311@midway.uchicago.edu>, duve@ellis.uchicago.edu (michael andrew duvernois) writes:
>
>Moreover, not only are the explosives a fraud, the alleged psychoactive
>chemicals are either fake or downright hazardous.  For example, bananna 
>peels contain NO psychoactive chemicals and the "synthesis" of LSD is
>ludicrous.  The cookbook is rumored to have been authored my an ex-marine
>who had it in for those 'pinkie anarchist symps.'  
>

The banana peel thing is in there?  I saw that in Abbie Hoffman's "Revolution
for the hell of it".

>
>Mike DuVernois  m-duvernois@uchicago.edu
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Lee    w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu, lee@plex-1.ann-arbor.mi.us

Keep the Aspidistra Flying!
From: david@wal6000b.udc.upenn.edu (R. David Murray)
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: fecundity factiod (was Re: black herring on econ)
Date: 9 Oct 92 19:15:58 GMT
Reply-To: david@penndrls.upenn.edu
Organization: University Data Center, University of Pennsylvania

Dale R. Worley writes:
> sufficiently quick breeding.  (Weird factoid:  The slave (black)
> population of the ante-bellum US South had one of the fastest rates of
> natural increase ever recorded before the era of modern medicine.)

Just to place this factiod in context, since I was just reading about it...

From "Without Consent or Contract: The Rise and Fall of American Slavery",
Robert William Fogel:

  ...the white rate of natural increase in Britain's North American
  Colonies had already substantially exceeded the European rate by
  1700...Though lagging behind that of whites, the natural increase of
  southern slaves probably exceeded the European rate as early as 1725
  and continued to accelerate throughout the eighteenth century and 
  the early nineteenth century.  It was not until about 1840 that
  the slave rate of natural increase surpassed that of whites.  By then
  the rates of both US groups, although still greatly in excess of
  the European rates of increase, had begun to decline, and continued
  to do so for the next century.  However, the black decline lagged the
  white decline by about two decades, so that after 1840 natural increase
  among US blacks was somewhat greater than among whites.

Funny how 'factoids' sometimes mean somewhat different things when
placed in context of the wider facts from which they are extracted . . .
From: bhattach@quip.eecs.umich.edu (sayan bhattacharyya)
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Anarchist Picnic
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:39:01 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI

In article <1992Oct12.162232.12670@eskimo.celestial.com> kurt@eskimo.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum) writes:
>
>Does anybody know of any major historical thinker who had a sense of humor?
>As far as I know, they all seem to be intensely goal-oriented sourballs.
>-- 
>kurt@grogatch.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum)


While I don't know about sense of humour, the second sentence is certainly
not true. I have always found it interesting that so many leftist leaders
and thinkers were poets. Marx wrote some exquisite love poems in German to
his wife Jenny von Westfalen. Both Mao Zedong and Ho Chi Minh were 
accomplished poets. So was Che Guevara.

-Sayan Bhattacharyya.
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy