From: bashford@scripps.edu (Don &)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: The word "Libertarian" was invented by Spanish Anarchists
Date: 12 Sep 92 05:42:19 GMT
Organization: The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA, USA

>>>>> In article <BuEztt.5Eu@ais.org>, plucky@ais.org (Chris Adamson) writes:

plucky> In article <BASHFORD.92Sep10232136@griffy.scripps.edu> bashford@scripps.edu (Don &) writes:

Don> It seems to me that most of the people running around these days calling
Don> themselves "Libertarians" (e.g.  Libertarian Party, Self Governors,
Don> Ayn Rand groupies, etc.) are really just timid and truncated Anarchists.

plucky> 	I, for one, am no anarchist.  As I understand it,
plucky> anarchy is a state of lawless mob-rule, in which no rights are
plucky> guaranteed by the society, and "might makes right" instead.

You don't understand it.  Anarchism as a political movement developed
in the 19th century in response to the industrial revolution and the
growth of the modern nation-state.  Their critique of the society of
their time was that industry had reduced workers to cogs in machine
working long hours at exhausting jobs for near-starvation wages, and
the State functioned not so much as a protector of the common people
but as a defender of the property rights of the wealthy.  They
advocated the elimination of the State and the expropriation of
factories and farms by the workers who worked in them.  Different
factions had different ideas about what would come next, but I think
the most developed ideas were those of the anarcho-syndicalists who
advocated worker's councils to run the factories democratically,
higher coordinating bodies with representatives from these councils to
organize distribution, and so on.  Thus, Anarchists are Socialists in
the sense that they wish to "socialize" the means of production (i.e.
seizure by the workers), but they are sharply at odds with Marxists
who see the centralized State as the agent of socialization (i.e.
seizure by the State of the means of production).  In fact, the 19th
century Anarchist leader, Bakunin, seems to have anticipated that
Marxism would lead to Stalinism -- he criticized Marx and Engle's
"authoritarian Socialism" as the worst form of tyranny saying it would
lead to a "red beaurocracy" which would be the "vilest lie of our
century."  Benjamin Tucker, writing in the 1890's made similar
predictions.  The Anarchists often referred to themselves as
"anti-authoritarian Socialists" or later, "Libertarian Socialists"
or "Libertarian Leftists".

The Anarchist program, or something like it, was actually put into
effect in a few brief episodes: The Paris Commune of 1870 (crushed by
govt. troops from Versailles); the formation of workers councils, or
"Soviets" in Russia in 1917 (crushed by Lenin & Trotsky); Barcelona in
the 1930's (crushed by Franco).

Having only dabbled in the liturature, I'm less able to say what
Anarchism stands for nowadays.  It seems to me that the old "smash
the State" idea, while perhaps valid for the 19th century, is not
much use today.  I see anarchism's main strength in criticism and
direction rather than in prescriptions.  I particularly like their
skepticism toward all forms of centralized power, be they State
or "private," their insistense on liberty as a basic precondition
for human and social fulfillment, and their faith in a basic human
instinct for forming societies, such that it should be possible
to establish a "Voluntary Society."  Even if the perfection of
these ideas can never by realized, I think it is useful to hold
them as ideals.



plucky> 	I expect my society to keep my mind, body, and
plucky> property safe from violent attack, either from criminals or
plucky> from foreign enemies -- without this security, society cannot
plucky> function and freedom cannot exist.

[....]

plucky> When the government injures me, I cannot simply boycott it and
plucky> turn to another US government.  [and I am not yet so hopeless
plucky> that I would consider fleeing to another country]

plucky> 	The other difference between public and private
plucky> institutions is that the government is legally authorized to
plucky> use physical force -- to fine, imprison, or even kill its
plucky> citizens -- "against a populace that is legally disarmed"

[...]

plucky> 	George Carlin once noted that the government,
plucky> specifically the army, is "the guys with all the
plucky> flame-throwers".  He then added "I'd say we're fucked if we
plucky> have to go up against the army!"

So I'm confused.  Do you oppose the coercive power of the State?
Do you assert the right of armed resistence against it?  If so,
how do you want the State to defend you?

Don> They oppose concentrated power in the form of "Big Government" but
Don> seem blind to the need to oppose concentrated power in the form
Don> of big business.  They spend their energies railing against taxation
Don> and some of the Govt's more odious invations of privacy (WoD, etc.)
Don> but ignore the tyranny of the workplace.

plucky> 	The difference is that of public vs. private policy.  If an
plucky> employer strong-arms me and offends my values or denies my liberties,
plucky> I am free to seek out another employer [and the employer is, of course,
plucky> free to fire me and seek out other employees].  

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.