From: bomgard@moose.cs.indiana.edu (Tim Bomgardner)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: equality before the law
Date: 15 Sep 92 01:56:36 GMT
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington

bashford@scripps.edu (Don &) writes

} [Discussion of the origins of Anarchism, from the 1800's to 1930]

A fascinating and enlightning discussion, one of the few such postintgs
that have appeared in this newsgroup.  However...

} [Discussion of how employees may seek employment elsewhere if they are
} dissatisfied with their employer, followed by...]
}
}The answer to this one is quite obvious, but for eloquence I shall turn
}to Rudy Rocker:
}
}      Democracy with is motto of "equality of all citizens before the
}      law," and liberalism [one might add, Right-wing Libertarianism]
}      with its "right of man over his own person," both were wrecked
}      on the realities of capitalist economy.  As long as millions of
}      human beings in every country have to sell their labor to a
}      small minority of owners, and sink into the most wretched misery
}      if they can find no byers, the so-called equality before the law
}      remains a pious fraud.  But in the same way, there can be no
}      talk of a right over one's own person, for that right ends when
}      one is compelled to submit to the economic dicatation of another
}      if one does not wish to starve....
}
}      In Russia, however, where the so-called dictatorship of the
}      prolotariat has ripened into reality, the aspirations of a
}      particular party for political power have prevented any truly
}      socialistic reorganization of economic life and have forced the
}      country into the slavery of a grinding State Capitalism.

It may be obvious and eloquent, but it is nevertheless a complete crock of 
shit.  It simply oozes self-righteous indignation over the "wretched 
misery" of "millions of human beings in every country" (every country? even
the "enlightened" socialist countries which have risen above the barbarisms
of capitalism?), as if capitalism were the cause and not the cure.  
Incredibly, it goes on to lament the fate of soviet Russia where the 
"aspirations of a particular party for politcal power" derailed the noble 
effort to establish a "socialistic economic life."  It's hard to know 
where to begin with this pack of double deals, evasions, and outright lies.

First of all, there has never been a capitalist economy, so nothing could
have been wrecked on one.  There are various approximations in the form
of mixed economies, and the U.S. has come the closest, particularly during
the 1800's and early 1900's.  Because of capitalism and the underlying moral
principals on which it's based, the world saw the most dramatic elevation 
of man's standard of living in all of history.

Second, there is no such thing as a "minority of owners" in a capitalist
system.  Each man is the owner of what he has produced and what he has had 
given to him (including by nature, i.e., brains and/or brawn), and is free
to trade it with others for what they have produced. Bear in mind, however,
that ideas are immensely more valuable than physical labor.  It is the man
who can think, and then implement his ideas, that will receive the greatest
rewards for his efforts.  

"But," you wimper, "that's not *fair*!  All most men have to trade is their
labor, and if they can find no buyers, they'll sink into wretched misery."
That conclusion is loopy, but I'll accept it for the sake of argument. It's
the premise which is so malignant.  What does it mean to say they can find
no buyers?  It means that what they can (or are willing) to do is of no 
value to anyone.  And as a result, equality before the law is a pious 
fraud??  Like so many socialist (non)thinkers, you confuse equality of 
opportunity with equality of results.  The right to work for food becomes
the right to be fed.

If you don't want to starve, you have two choices.  You can produce food
directly yourself (e.g., farming), or acquire it from someone who does.  
There are no other possibilities.  They only question is how you will 
acquire it.  Socialism is based on the premise "If you need it, someone 
has a moral obligation to give it to you", or, for the more highly 
motivated, "If you need it, you have the moral right to take it."

The "economic dictation" of capitalism amounts to this: I will trade you
the product of my labor for the product of yours.  The moral basis of
capitalism is the uncoerced exchange of value for value.  The moral basis
of socialism is plunder by those who have enough guns and thugs to get
away with it.  

Finally, concerning that drivel about Russia.  There is no such thing as
"aspirations of a party."  There are only aspirations of individuals, and
those individuals together were the communist party.  I have news for you:
they established a "socialistic economic life" *perfectly*.  The problem is
your fantasies about socialism have nothing to do with reality.  Slavery
(or death) is *exactly* the result of the Soviet economic system, starting 
with the 15 million peasants deliberately starved to death during the 
collectivization of Soviet agriculture, the 30 million in Soviet
concentration camps at the end of WWII, and the untold millions who have
died (or will) because of countless biological and nuclear "accidents".

And "State Capitalism"???  What an utterly ignorant misuse of the terms.
To those of you who remain convinced that socialism and/or communism will
preserve you from the wretched misery and economic dictation of democracy
and capitalism, I wish you bon voyage and godspeed as you hasten to 
participate in that worker's paradise.