Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 02:50:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jamal Hannah <jah-AT-iww.org>
Subject: Bookchin, Anarcho-Capitalism


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 01:50:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jamal Hannah <jah-AT-iww.org>
To: anarchist-poc-AT-yahoogroups.com (Anarchist People of Color)
Subject: Bookchin, Anarcho-Capitalism

I should elaborate on some things mentioned in my previous message.
Murray Bookchin made waves in the late 60's/early 70's with his
book "Post-Scarcity Anarchism", where he said the reason we dont have a
huge labor movement like in the 1930's with revolutionary potential is
because after WWII, the US became an affluent, post-scarcity society,
where food and other resources were no longer in short supply. People are
supposedly no longer desperate like they used to be, so they arnt becoming
ardent revolutionaries.  It is important to remember a few things:

1) The mass media has a total stranglehold on public opinion in the US
today, more so than it ever had before WWII... this effects poor
people and makes it harder for them to take revolutionary ideas seriously
or hear them consistantly.

2) The Marxist-Leninist experiment totaly turned the left into a
joke... it was no longer an issue of libertarian socialist ethics
vs. capitalist ethics, as was the argument before the 1930s & Stalin 
/Mao... it became "freedom vs. tyranny"... given a choice, most people
will chose freedom.  If that means forgetting about the left or
revolution, then so be it, goes the logic.  With the collapse of
Marxist-Leninism, a real left can re-emerge. (It has been replaced by
electionist social-democracy...) All non-maoist Communist Parties are
social democratic. (outside of Cuba, Viet Nam, etc).. the rest
are state-capitalist, placing the means of production in the hands of the
government, not the workers.

3) The formation of pro-capitalist labor unions has delegitimized the very
concept of unions... when people think of "unions" they think of high-dues
organizations that collaborate with the bosses. (If they investigate them
much, at any rate.)

4) Social Democracy has created things like minimum-wage laws and social
security. This has taken the steam out of the revolutionary idea, but
these things are always under attack by the more ardent capitalists in the
government, media, and industry.  The smart capitalists know they need
them to survive.

5) The US population is at any time a few weeks or months from
starvation.  No matter how much food is produed, it is not being stored on
a wide scale because it is not profitable to store it.

...based on these things, I think Bookchin's idea of a "post
scarcity" society are off-base.


Anarcho-capitalism is a strange concept promoted by a small number of
capitalist ideologues.  They want a "pure" capitalism with no government
involvement.. this means more of what we have right now, but without any
government regulations or protections. Supposedly people would
"voluntarily", as consumers, magicly act in their own informed interests
and bad companies that make bad products or pollute would be put out of
business. The idea that the "free market" and "invisible hand" are so
great and wonderful that they should totaly run society is strong.  Noam
Chomsky has pointed out that such a society would quickly destroy itself,
and it doesnt take a genius to figure it out. Most capitalists know that
real capitalism needs government to finance it and defend it... and they
regaurd the "anarcho-capitalists" as sort of a joke or something useful
for people to be fooled into thinking that "anarchism" and
"freedom" stands for.  Anarcho-capitalism is sort of a way for
capitalists... people who love capitalism with a passion but are disturbed
by criticisms of it, to feel good about themselves.. to have a
"philosophy" that is based on flowery language and lofty platitudes that
sounds somehow as good as the stuff Bakunin or Kropotkin were talking
about (which they know deep down is a million times better than their
shit, but they dont want to believe it.)

Anarcho-capitalist society would supposedly be a wonderful utopia where
capitalists interact freely, have total liberty, live well and can explore
boundless oppertunities... the things socialism offered the poor/working
class.  But this is "socialism for the rich". For the poor who would dare
to disregaurd the sanctity of private property, or are born "stupid" or
unlunky, there is pure capitalism: the baton or gun of the privately-paid
cop, the regimentation of a humiliating shit-job, quick or lingering death
or disability in case of health problems, and no avenue to complain: pure
capitalism, which nobody in their right mind would want to live
under given a choice.

- Jamal