File spoon-archives/postanarchism.archive/postanarchism_2003/postanarchism.0312, message 102


Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 19:23:31 -0600 (CST)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?eduardo=20enriquez?= <eduardofenriquez-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [postanarchism] anarchism & markets


 --- Paul Jacobson <pj-AT-cutlerco.com.au> escribió: > hi

> Delanda's work in this area has sparked my interest
> so I'm looking 
> for recommendations  for readings on the idea of 
> anarchist/non-capitalist markets - not
> anarcho-capitalism - as i'm 
> currently of the working through the idea that the
> ideal of material 
> equality is is a highly problematic concept.
> 
> peace
> pj

sounds like someone is trying to resucitate the corpse
of proudhom.
i think i have never really heard socialist,
communist, or anarchist discouse which has as its goal
"material equality". markets havent been always
present with humanity but nevertheless things like
trade between communities and such has been
contemplated within all these discourses. also
exchange of things its something which doesnt really
lead towards facts like a single person like bill
gates having more wealth himself than entire
countries. 
things start to get negative for me when the nasty
phenomena of labour/employer,owner appears and of
course also accumulation. now of course these things
are perhaps two or three milleniums old (which of
course means they havent been with humanity always too
like markets and seems even humanity lived most of its
life without these things). but the pathological
growth of accumulation and of inequalities was
propelled mostly by three things combined:money,
markets and state. feudalism was a regime of private
property but nevertheless it stayed within a non
wasteful and cancerous mode since within it money and
markets had few influence. now of course these two
things along with state dominate and tend to determine
almost all aspects of life. 
for me accumulation, money and state are three things
to really say no to. markets i can tolerate only if
they are limited to the direct exchange of goods.
anyway seems to me that without money, state and with
a people who are being provided with the nessesary as
well as being properly allowed to pursue their
subjectivity, you really cant expect for markets to
have too much of a role on society or really to
develop significantly.
the problem with the soviet union where a black market
developed illegally as well as in the middle ages in
which the same thing happened was the existence of
money as well as a shortage of certain basic goods. on
this thing of shortage and the government imposed
quotas that happen today even in cuba for example,
well capitalism has its own way of producing shortage
and quotas which is whether one has omeny or not. as
the eastern europe people are discovering now, the
market does not provide abundance for everyone and
also do not provide satisfaction for the provision of
basic goods for everyone but to the contrary as can be
seen in a comparision of life conditions between say
cuba and neighbors haiti and domincan republic, it
really tends to worsen provision and imposes nastier
quotas on food than will stalinist bureucracies. 
but one of the problems seems to me for the push for
establishing markets in stalinist countries is also a
perverse dream of aqcuiring unsustainable regimes of
consumption  such as those possesed by the western
capitalist countries and japan. indeed it shouldnt
surprise anyone that the communist party in russia s
still the larget party there as well as that moldova
elected with a landslide the communist party which is
governing them now. 
but as far as anarchism and markets on the specific
question of liberty one can hardly equate markets with
liberty and really a lot of people such as those
protesting againts ftaa in latin american actually
want liberty FROM the ugly dog eat dog state of the
capitalist market. 
but to end up anyway not even the most stupid
communist argumentation will really argue so that
everyone will have the exact same amount of shoes or
that will drink the same ammount of soup. 
actually a person who seems to think communism
(libertarian/anarchist as is my case or otherwise) has
a main goal which is "material equality" seems to get
a bit suspicious for me of being not to happy with the
fact of abandoning the goods for a certain privilged
few that money, markets and state can provide.
this phrase really smells like paranoid things
liberals and conservatives say in order to defend the
market, excessive wealth, inequality, etc.
indeed the idea of "market socialism" became a bit
popular in the eighties and nienties as supposedly
being more viable than eliminating markets and private
property as more radical variants of socialism,
communism, anarchism want to do as well as not
allowing the "inneficiencies" of the collapsed
stalinist soviet apparatus. to me the idea of
communism seems at time as viable as both "market
socialism" as well as even social democratic takeover
of the state. i mean when the social democrats finally
were able to recover control of the liberal bourgoise
republic as in the cases of jospin, clinton, or blair
it wound up the gys who ended up for president werent
really social democrats anymore as well as that the
biggest campain contributions will go to market and
big wealth friendly candidates even if they ran for ex
statist refromist social democratic parties and in the
case of third world countries that they will find
themselves uncapable of social democratic policy
because of being forced to sign FMI agreements. 



_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Información de Estados Unidos y América Latina, en Yahoo! Noticias.
Visítanos en http://noticias.espanol.yahoo.com

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005