Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 22:27:05 +0000 From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk> Subject: Re: libertarian Shawn Agreed - thanks for the sketch it has helped enormously in understanding the and clarifying the differences along the social/political faultline that divides us. (I should say the same thing about religion to Eric but suppose that he already knows that....) Most left-libertarians in europe have merged into what would be recognisably socialist, communist/neo-communist , the usual array of trotsykist groups, some exetrme left anarchist groups and a range of other interesting single issue groups. (I apologise - it's an insult to call people/animals trying to stop the 6th mass extinction event, and the only one caused by an animal a 'single issue group'...) Socialism has always been, as a notion, a mixture of Owenite socialism and forms of Marxism in UK/Europe, the autonomy tendency to move the term communism along the Negri and Guattari lines is bearing interesting fruit at the moment - we'll see what happens. regards steve shawn wilbur wrote: >Steve, > >Individualism in the US has a very mixed heritage, as does "free market" >thinking. Very early in the >19th century, in his "Rights of Man to Property," Thomas Skidmore beat >Proudhon to the punch in >showing the (historical) capitalist property relation to be "impossible" >and thus unjust. (We would >wait for Marx to give us the language of fetishism to explain the >functioning of this impossibility, >and then for folks like Bataille to generalize the conditions of >possibility of any limited economy.) >He then (again stealing a march on Proudhon) proposed a just property >relation as necessary to a >just society, and attempted to lay out its conditions according to >natural rights doctrines. He came >to the conclusion that property was (if natural rights obtained) an >inalienable and individual right, >practicable (and this is the sweet part) only in the context of a broad, >ultimately international social >concensus. Socialism in the US could have been both individualist and >internationalist from very >close to the start - which would have certainly kicked the props out >from a whole lot of sectarian >action over the years. Naturally, Skidmore was labelled a dangerous >"agrarian" - and this by the >nominal followers of Paine - lost the struggle for the direction of the >NY Workingman's Party >(which ultimately ended up in a weird relation to Tammany, spun of the >Locofocos, provided the >Republican party some of its most radical early voices), fought with >Robert Dale Owen over birth >control and Malthusianism, died young, and was largely forgotten. Josiah >Warren's individual >sovereigntism (from roughly the same period, born from cooperation then >opposition to the senior >Robert Owen's version of the newly-christened "socialism") was not so >elegantly expressed, even >when popularized by Stephen Pearl Andrews (back in the days before he >began to write like Comte.) >Curiously, it seems to have led the individualist anarchist tradition >that grew from it both into the >International and towards the Egoism of Stirner. (And even egoism, when >most rigorously applied, >as with the English individualist Badcock, it might well have led >towards internationalism, had not >other conflicts narrowed the conception of socialism in the interim.) > >My take on "libertarianism" broadly in the US is that it was always >closer to the initial revolutionary >tradition here than we might credit, and that, however much the waters >have been muddied over the >years, the early socialist and agrarian radicalism has never been >completely stripped from the >individualist countercurrents here. There are plenty of "nasty people" >wandering around, professing >part of an old doctrine that might have come straight out of Skidmore, >and often explicitly draws >some influence from folks like Warren or Tucker. About half of our ideas >are "in everyone's heads" >but they're damned muddled, partially by the failures of anarchists and >other socialists to get them >much straighter. The constant ideological unease that Ken MacLeod's >novels can give you - as you >watch his characters blend and compromise recognizable positions, is >constant if you scratch beneath >the surface of oppositional politics in the US. The Greens were much the >same, if generally less >serious, when i was working with them. The "progressive populists" seems >stuck between concerns >about first impressions and the work of actually articulating a >position. But, of course, the same >could be said of many of us, in our public political postures. > >I'm not trying to whitewash anyone by suggesting common ground (however >muddied by time >and sectarian strife). "Gone wrong" or half-digested, libertarian >thought can lead some pretty >ugly places. But it remains interesting - and not in the "all 'extremes' >are alike way liberals are >resorting to - that there is this common heritage of sorts. > >-shawn > >"steve.devos" wrote: > > > >>Shawn >> >>Quite different from here - the equivilent figures started out in the >>70s as anti-union (anti-working people) though organisations such as >>'Freedom', engaged during the counter-reformation in occupying the >>cultural/political high ground within the then dominant >>Tory/Conservative party, extremely pro-business and oddly >>nationalistic. On the extremes they are anarcho-capitalist, minimal >>statists and racist. To a major extent they merged with the right of >>the tory party and produced a pro-nation, anti-european, >>pro-american-style capitalism. Recently they have begun to argue >>pro-cyborg type positions - democracy through the internet, >>free-market voting etc. In addition there is a deep individualism and >>reactionary proposals against censorship which works surprisingly >>easily with their approach to conservatism. >> >>(to be clear they are against censorship) >> >>Nasty people all round... >> >>regards >>steve >> >> > > >
HTML VERSION:
Steve, Individualism in the US has a very mixed heritage, as does "free market" thinking. Very early in the 19th century, in his "Rights of Man to Property," Thomas Skidmore beat Proudhon to the punch in showing the (historical) capitalist property relation to be "impossible" and thus unjust. (We would wait for Marx to give us the language of fetishism to explain the functioning of this impossibility, and then for folks like Bataille to generalize the conditions of possibility of any limited economy.) He then (again stealing a march on Proudhon) proposed a just property relation as necessary to a just society, and attempted to lay out its conditions according to natural rights doctrines. He came to the conclusion that property was (if natural rights obtained) an inalienable and individual right, practicable (and this is the sweet part) only in the context of a broad, ultimately international social concensus. Socialism in the US could have been both individualist and internationalist from very close to the start - which would have certainly kicked the props out from a whole lot of sectarian action over the years. Naturally, Skidmore was labelled a dangerous "agrarian" - and this by the nominal followers of Paine - lost the struggle for the direction of the NY Workingman's Party (which ultimately ended up in a weird relation to Tammany, spun of the Locofocos, provided the Republican party some of its most radical early voices), fought with Robert Dale Owen over birth control and Malthusianism, died young, and was largely forgotten. Josiah Warren's individual sovereigntism (from roughly the same period, born from cooperation then opposition to the senior Robert Owen's version of the newly-christened "socialism") was not so elegantly expressed, even when popularized by Stephen Pearl Andrews (back in the days before he began to write like Comte.) Curiously, it seems to have led the individualist anarchist tradition that grew from it both into the International and towards the Egoism of Stirner. (And even egoism, when most rigorously applied, as with the English individualist Badcock, it might well have led towards internationalism, had not other conflicts narrowed the conception of socialism in the interim.) My take on "libertarianism" broadly in the US is that it was always closer to the initial revolutionary tradition here than we might credit, and that, however much the waters have been muddied over the years, the early socialist and agrarian radicalism has never been completely stripped from the individualist countercurrents here. There are plenty of "nasty people" wandering around, professing part of an old doctrine that might have come straight out of Skidmore, and often explicitly draws some influence from folks like Warren or Tucker. About half of our ideas are "in everyone's heads" but they're damned muddled, partially by the failures of anarchists and other socialists to get them much straighter. The constant ideological unease that Ken MacLeod's novels can give you - as you watch his characters blend and compromise recognizable positions, is constant if you scratch beneath the surface of oppositional politics in the US. The Greens were much the same, if generally less serious, when i was working with them. The "progressive populists" seems stuck between concerns about first impressions and the work of actually articulating a position. But, of course, the same could be said of many of us, in our public political postures. I'm not trying to whitewash anyone by suggesting common ground (however muddied by time and sectarian strife). "Gone wrong" or half-digested, libertarian thought can lead some pretty ugly places. But it remains interesting - and not in the "all 'extremes' are alike way liberals are resorting to - that there is this common heritage of sorts. -shawn "steve.devos" wrote:Shawn Quite different from here - the equivilent figures started out in the 70s as anti-union (anti-working people) though organisations such as 'Freedom', engaged during the counter-reformation in occupying the cultural/political high ground within the then dominant Tory/Conservative party, extremely pro-business and oddly nationalistic. On the extremes they are anarcho-capitalist, minimal statists and racist. To a major extent they merged with the right of the tory party and produced a pro-nation, anti-european, pro-american-style capitalism. Recently they have begun to argue pro-cyborg type positions - democracy through the internet, free-market voting etc. In addition there is a deep individualism and reactionary proposals against censorship which works surprisingly easily with their approach to conservatism. (to be clear they are against censorship) Nasty people all round... regards steve