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
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005