Re: [CTRL] My Anarchism Problem by Bob Black
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nurev Ind Research wrote: I don't classify myself anymore. My only purpose in life is to bust bullshit. That endeavor manages to piss everybody off. ;} I don't like to classify myself anymore either; but out of sloppy, lazy 'thinking' and for the sake of convenience I seem to have a bad habit of classifying others. Also, IMO some bullshit doesn't really seem worth busting, and might be better left ignored. Although some of the most profound, 'eye-opening', stuff one can ever come across might be found growing on "bullshit", if you know what I mean. (McKenna, et al) I know exactly what you mean. And if you don't classify yourself anymore, 'sup with calling yourself "a plain old Anti-Capitalist Humanitarian Survivalist" in another message in this thread? Not a classification as much as a description. I am not an anarchist though I love and support what the more radical Anarchists are doing. I am NOT a Libertarian of any sort whatsoever. Historically (and currently) many radical 'anarchists' have styled themselves as "libertarians"; and argue that right-wing 'anarcho'-capitalist types have insultingly usurped and perverted the term. I falsely assumed you might have felt the same way. Once again, I stand corrected. Please excuse. I hate Right Libertarians because I consider them a bunch of greedy, shallow, self centered shits who would sell children chocolate covered rat poison if " the Market " demanded it, and would cuss out the Gubbment if they tried to regulate them. The VAST majority of right-libertarians, when they hear the term "free market capitalism" (so-called), their minds seem turn to mush, and "anything goes" with regards to this sacred cow. Until not too long ago, I tended to be the same way. Congratulations. You deserve credit for that. It's not easy to make such a turnaround. Most people are afraid to question, much less give up their entrenched world view. As with Nessie, I have little problem with 'free market' exchanges and commerce amongst fairly equal individuals, or groups of individuals, but I do have a problem when such relationships are compelled between individuals and vastly unequal legal fictions grunching around like 'giants'. Markets have always existed in human societies. No problem with that. The problem is with Capitalism. In a capitalist system markets overwhelm every other aspect of life. EVERYTHING gets commodified for sale in THE MARKET. The market is where those who have capital, can DOMINATE and exploit every body else. But the main problem is that in a Capitalist system, you ALWAYS get concentration of wealth. Always. It's beacause of this reason that corporations get bigger and bigger. The corporation is only a tool/weapon used by the Rich. The problem is the Rich. Through capitalism and markets they use their wealth to accumulate more wealth and power. This is why there are poor. This is why we are not permitted to govern ourselves. There is not enough money in our 9 trillion dollar economy for our citizens to have a decent comfortable life, AND for the Rich to stop accumulating more wealth. As Bucky puts it: "Each of the giants of today's great Grunch is a quadrillionfold more formidable than was Goliath. Each is entirely invisible, abstract, and completely ruthless -- not because those who run the show are malevolent but because the giant is a non-human corporation, a many-centuriesold, royal-legal-advisor-invented institution. The giant is a so one-sidedly biased abstract legal invention that its exploitation by the power structures of thirty generations have made the XYZ corporations and companies seemingly as much a part of nature as the phases of the Moon and clouds of the sky" I like Noam Chomsky who calls himself a Left Libertarian. Not because he is a Libertarian, but because he is very smart and very honest. There are things he puts out which I personally don't hold by. AND, his take on what we did to Yugoslavia is wrong. I've tended to agree with most of his writings I've come across so far, especially his insights on propaganda and the newsfakers, but I haven't read much on his Yugoslavia opinions. In what way are they "wrong"? [I assume he must have supported the interventions (extortion and murders) the Western terrocrats (terrorist-bureaucrats) have perpetrated]. The great Noam Chomsky, the expert on propaganda, fell for it. He bought into the " genocide " bullshit that justified the war. As it turned out, there was no genocide at all. In any case, it is better to be a Left Libertarian than a Right Libertarian if you have any aspirations of becoming a human being. Good luck, So if I'm not yet a "human being" what, in your opinion, am I? Not Just you, all of us. Becoming a human being is something to aspire to. J2 A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/"www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion
Re: [CTRL] My Anarchism Problem by Bob Black
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: nessie wrote: ...Also, I respected the guy because I knew him mainly from his writing, which is eminently respectable. He's written some very funny and insightful stuff. He's an extremely articulate guy. But I didn't know him very well personally Neither did I. Thanks for the personal insights, Nessie. The notion that there were two sides to this story never crossed my mind. Its been a pleasant surprise to find out otherwise. As a recovering right-wing libertarian, I still have MUCH to learn about left-wing libertarianism; thus will have a tendency of putting my foot in my mouth from time-to-time, as I obviously just did here. Sorry, I had NO idea! Screw Bob Black and screw his opinions. The opinions of jerks do not matter. Except, I assume, for the "very funny and insightful stuff", found in most of "his writing, which is eminently respectable", (to use your words, with which I tend to agree). Off the top of your head, are there other writings of Bob Black that you have major problems with? For example: http://www.spunk.org/library/writers/black/index.html Also, I've noticed there are LOTS of anarchist lists out there, what listserver would you (or J2) recommend a newbie anarchist subscribe to / lurk on? Hi Paul, I don't classify myself anymore. My only purpose in life is to bust bullshit. That endeavor manages to piss everybody off. ;} I am not an anarchist though I love and support what the more radical Anarchists are doing. I am NOT a Libertarian of any sort whatsoever. I hate Right Libertarians because I consider them a bunch of greedy, shallow, self centered shits who would sell children chocolate covered rat poison if " the Market " demanded it, and would cuss out the Gubbment if they tried to regulate them. I don't believe that " Liberty " is the most important thing going. I think LIFE is the most important thing going, and liberty enhances life but is not essential to it. Where there is a choice liberty should be striven for. No LIFE is worth Liberty. To me, the slogan " Give me Liberty or give me death," is a sign of mental illness. I like Noam Chomsky who calls himself a Left Libertarian. Not because he is a Libertarian, but because he is very smart and very honest. There are things he puts out which I personally don't hold by. AND, his take on what we did to Yugoslavia is wrong. In any case, it is better to be a Left Libertarian than a Right Libertarian if you have any aspirations of becoming a human being. Good luck, Joshua2 Preferably one without TOO much traffic, as I'm already subscribed to 6 other lists, besides CTRL (although CTRL seems to have as much traffic as the other lists combined). Regards, Paul A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/"www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html"Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/"ctrl/A To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] My Anarchism Problem by Bob Black
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Funny thing, about a year and a half ago, when J2
("anti-Grunch libertarian")
Not, not, not a libertarian. Just a plain old Anti-Capitalist
Humanitarian Survivalist.
was cutting heads regularly with
MJ ("pro-Grunch libertarian"), and I was still a "pro-Grunch
libertarian" myself, J2 quickly found his way on my "delete
without reading" shit-list. As I began reading more and more
"anti-Grunch libertarian" books and web pages, I began reading
more and more of J2's posts, to the point where I eventually
read them all (except for the endless 'bagel feuding' he has
with FWP).
Hey wait a minute! Bagel feuding is an ancient and honorable pastime.
J2
A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/"www.ctrl.org/A
DECLARATION DISCLAIMER
==
CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html"Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]/A
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/"ctrl/A
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
Re: [CTRL] My Anarchism Problem by Bob Black
Nurev Ind Research wrote: I don't classify myself anymore. My only purpose in life is to bust bullshit. That endeavor manages to piss everybody off. ;} I don't like to classify myself anymore either; but out of sloppy, lazy 'thinking' and for the sake of convenience I seem to have a bad habit of classifying others. Also, IMO some bullshit doesn't really seem worth busting, and might be better left ignored. Although some of the most profound, 'eye-opening', stuff one can ever come across might be found growing on "bullshit", if you know what I mean. (McKenna, et al) And if you don't classify yourself anymore, 'sup with calling yourself "a plain old Anti-Capitalist Humanitarian Survivalist" in another message in this thread? I am not an anarchist though I love and support what the more radical Anarchists are doing. I am NOT a Libertarian of any sort whatsoever. Historically (and currently) many radical 'anarchists' have styled themselves as "libertarians"; and argue that right-wing 'anarcho'-capitalist types have insultingly usurped and perverted the term. I falsely assumed you might have felt the same way. Once again, I stand corrected. Please excuse. I hate Right Libertarians because I consider them a bunch of greedy, shallow, self centered shits who would sell children chocolate covered rat poison if " the Market " demanded it, and would cuss out the Gubbment if they tried to regulate them. The VAST majority of right-libertarians, when they hear the term "free market capitalism" (so-called), their minds seem turn to mush, and "anything goes" with regards to this sacred cow. Until not too long ago, I tended to be the same way. As with Nessie, I have little problem with 'free market' exchanges and commerce amongst fairly equal individuals, or groups of individuals, but I do have a problem when such relationships are compelled between individuals and vastly unequal legal fictions grunching around like 'giants'. As Bucky puts it: "Each of the giants of today's great Grunch is a quadrillionfold more formidable than was Goliath. Each is entirely invisible, abstract, and completely ruthless -- not because those who run the show are malevolent but because the giant is a non-human corporation, a many-centuriesold, royal-legal-advisor-invented institution. The giant is a so one-sidedly biased abstract legal invention that its exploitation by the power structures of thirty generations have made the XYZ corporations and companies seemingly as much a part of nature as the phases of the Moon and clouds of the sky" I like Noam Chomsky who calls himself a Left Libertarian. Not because he is a Libertarian, but because he is very smart and very honest. There are things he puts out which I personally don't hold by. AND, his take on what we did to Yugoslavia is wrong. I've tended to agree with most of his writings I've come across so far, especially his insights on propaganda and the newsfakers, but I haven't read much on his Yugoslavia opinions. In what way are they "wrong"? [I assume he must have supported the interventions (extortion and murders) the Western terrocrats (terrorist-bureaucrats) have perpetrated]. In any case, it is better to be a Left Libertarian than a Right Libertarian if you have any aspirations of becoming a human being. Good luck, So if I'm not yet a "human being" what, in your opinion, am I? A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/"www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html"Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/"ctrl/A To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] My Anarchism Problem by Bob Black
In 1985 I was so disgusted with the lot of them that I broke off all ties. I was there. That's not what happened. He behaved in a wholly intolerable manner to a number of people, mostly women, Caitlin in particular, and so he was ostracized by the anarchist community. He doesn't have anything to do with us because we don't have anything with him. He had no choice in the matter. That just a lot of crap he made up later to make himslef look good. He's lying through his teeth. I've known Bob Black since the late Seventies. Take it from me, he's a flaming jerk. He's also a snitch. Ask fellow author Jim Hogshire. Some people think Black is a paid infiltrator whose function is to sew discord among us. Things like this do happen. It's an age old technique of suppression. He has a long history of showing up in town, using pathological charm to get in with people, and then instigating faction fights, often by means of a bald faced lie, getting run out of town and going on to a new town and doing it again. He's been at this for twenty-five years. He moves around a lot. I, personally, don't think he's an agent. I think he's just a flaming jerk. He's also an obnoxious drunk. At the request of their mutual publisher, Jim Hogshire put him up for the night once. The way I heard it he came there drunk and got drunker and drunker the longer he stayed. The Hogshires don't drink. Black grabbed Hogshire's wife's butt. Hogshire slugged him. Black pulled a knife. Hogshire pulled a gun. Given the circumstances, Black's extremely lucky Hogshire didn't shoot him. Personally, I'd have shot him. When I guy has your wife in one hand and a knife in the other, I figure you're supposed to let him live only as long as it takes to line up a clear shot and not one second longer. Hogshire let him live. It was a big mistake. Black ran for it. Then he told the police that Hogshire had a drug lab. It wasn't true. But the police came anyhow. Hogshire was a fugitive for a while. It broke up his marriage and cost him a fortune to straighten out. This is the kind of stuff that happens to people who befriend Bob Black. When he was living in Berkeley, in the early Eighties, Black taught law at UC. He's a lawyer by trade. He kept getting run out of one apartment complex after another. He has a real knack for making people hate him. At least once his feud with another tenant, a medical doctor by trade, culminated in he and the doctor chasing each other around the parking lot with knives. When the cops came he talked law at them and they busted the doctor instead. But he had to get out of there that night because the whole building was fed up with his antics and at least two other tenant were talking about killing him. This was an upscale complex, too, nothing but Yuppies, not one blue collar among them. There was a gate on the parking lot. It was that kind of place. I laughed my butt off when he called me for help and told me the story. I lived six blocks away for two years and he never once called me except to get help. Here's the scene: I'm a biker. I dress like Mad Max. I'm sitting down at dinner with my kid and my SO and some of our friends, a couple punks, a couple Goths, a biker who looks like a Yeti, only short, another biker, her boyfriend, and a guy who got his BA at 19 and works for minimum wage as a quadrapalegic's attendant while earning his Masters. Except for him, we all look like people you'd probably be scared of if you ran into us in an alley somewhere. And we're sitting around eating vegetables, all peaceable like, and we're discussing Camus and Kierkegard and Goth stuff like that and we're all getting a free education. Goths are good for that. Feed 'em little and they'll talk your ear off. It's way cheaper than matriculating, and quicker even than Cliff Notes. And that's what we were doing when Bob Black called about his latest problem. We're all people who do stuff for a living like spin wrenches, wait tables, drive cab, play music and whore. And we look it. Just having us live on the block brought down the property values. We not only look weird, we're loud. But there we are, eating vegetables, and we're minding our own business, peaceful as all get out. And six blocks away a doctor and a lawyer in business suits are chasing each other around a parking lot with butcher knives like something from Jerry Springer. It just goes to show, you can NOT tell by looking at people. I laughed till my ribs hurt. He used to call me up to help him whenever he had to move because I had a truck. It's about the only use for me he had, to pick heavy things up and carry them for him. I guess he figured me for a strong back and a weak mind. It's a common enough mistake. I helped him out of solidarity for what at the time appeared to be a fellow anarchist. At least that's what he said he was. We do stuff for each other. It's our way. Also, I respected the guy because I knew him mainly from his writing, which is eminently
Re: [CTRL] My Anarchism Problem by Bob Black
nessie wrote: ...Also, I respected the guy because I knew him mainly from his writing, which is eminently respectable. He's written some very funny and insightful stuff. He's an extremely articulate guy. But I didn't know him very well personally Neither did I. Thanks for the personal insights, Nessie. The notion that there were two sides to this story never crossed my mind. Its been a pleasant surprise to find out otherwise. As a recovering right-wing libertarian, I still have MUCH to learn about left-wing libertarianism; thus will have a tendency of putting my foot in my mouth from time-to-time, as I obviously just did here. Sorry, I had NO idea! Screw Bob Black and screw his opinions. The opinions of jerks do not matter. Except, I assume, for the "very funny and insightful stuff", found in most of "his writing, which is eminently respectable", (to use your words, with which I tend to agree). Off the top of your head, are there other writings of Bob Black that you have major problems with? For example: http://www.spunk.org/library/writers/black/index.html Also, I've noticed there are LOTS of anarchist lists out there, what listserver would you (or J2) recommend a newbie anarchist subscribe to / lurk on? Preferably one without TOO much traffic, as I'm already subscribed to 6 other lists, besides CTRL (although CTRL seems to have as much traffic as the other lists combined). Regards, Paul A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/"www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html"Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/"ctrl/A To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] My Anarchism Problem by Bob Black
Thanks for the personal insights, Nessie. No problem. Dishing the dirt On Bob Black is deeply satisfying. I've said enough, though. Let's talk about somebody else. The notion that there were two sides to this story never crossed my mind. Its been a pleasant surprise to find out otherwise. There always at least two sides to every story. As a recovering right-wing libertarian, I still have MUCH to learn about left-wing libertarianism; Don't recover too far. While much is made of the dramatic differences in economic outlook by different kinds of libertarians, there's a LOT more to life than economics. On the rest of life, we agree whole heartedly. Liberty is all. Were we disagree is on responsibility. We agree that we must take personal responsibility for our own freedom and well being. "Left wing" libertarians also believe that we must take personal responsibility for the freedom and well being of those around us. My personal take on economics is that while sharing is better, commerce is cool too, perhaps even necessary. As long as it is done without coercion and between equals, I have no problem with commerce. I myself engage. But free exchange among equals can't happen between individuals and corporations. Corporations have powers greater even than state powers. Also, I advise against using the very terms "left" and "right" when describing (small 'l") libertarianism. Left and right refer to different modes of state government. As such, they differ little. And libertarianism isn't about state government. It's about self government. Only direct democracy is real democracy. Anything else is a fraud and a sham. thus will have a tendency of putting my foot in my mouth from time-to-time, as I obviously just did here. Sorry, I had NO idea! Oh no. You brought up a very important point. Every political tendency represented on this list has had people like Black disrupt their social relationships at one time or another. This list itself is frequently beset by disruptive individuals. It's certainly not an anarchist problem. It's a social problem. Some people like being disruptive. It's also a political problem. It greatly behooves the powers that be to actively encourage, even to pay, disruptive individuals to sew divisions among their enemies. During early COINTELPRO days they even went so far as to forge letters to convince the Panthers that they were sleeping with each other's wives. No stratagem is too petty for the powers that be to employ. They will do anything, whatever it takes, to keep us divided. Off the top of your head, are there other writings of Bob Black that you have major problems with? For example: http://www.spunk.org/library/writers/black/index.html I don't want to spend time on specifics. I have better things to do with my time than rebut Bob Black point by point. Generally speaking, when he talks about society at large, he tends to be right on. When he gets into critiquing individuals and individual relationships, I've learned to just skip ahead. Often he's dead wrong about individuals. At best, he's calling the kettle black. Also, I've noticed there are LOTS of anarchist lists out there, what listserver would you (or J2) recommend a newbie anarchist subscribe to / lurk on? Preferably one without TOO much traffic, as I'm already subscribed to 6 other lists, besides CTRL (although CTRL seems to have as much traffic as the other lists combined). The beauty of CTRL is that it relatively easy to suss out which posters are most likely to to be presenting useful information and analysis. Then you can skip the rest. It's important to remember, though, that you can't make this decision solely on the basis of how much your personal opinions overlap with any given poster. For example, take me and Bard. I disagree with almost everything that's important to him. (Though when the gun grabbers come I'm sure we'll both defend with our lives each other's right to bear arms) But as much as I disagree with many of his opinions, I always check out what he posts because he's a tireless researcher and he comes up with a LOT of valuable information. He posts crap, too. Big deal. Sort it out. Nicky's another one. I strongly that her critical reasoning abilities are woefully deficient. Nevertheless, she too is a tireless researcher. It is the nature of research that the more you dig, the more gems you uncover. Nicky digs a lot. So before we too much bemoan the incredible volume of CTRL. let's remember that it is a tremendous resource. Like all such resources, it needs to be employed with critical selection. That's what your delete key is for. As for anarchist lists, the only one I read every day is A-infos. It's mainly news items. Discussion is automatically diverted to a parallel list A-infos-d. There isn't a lot of discussion, but when it does come up it's usually insightful. It's really important to remember that there is no single anarchist "line." We disagree among ourselves on a great many
Re: [CTRL] My Anarchism Problem by Bob Black
nessie wrote: Dishing the dirt On Bob Black is deeply satisfying. Sure sounded like it brought back a lot of memories. Thanks for taking the time to share them with us. I, for one, highly enjoyed it. Even fwd your post to a few others who got a kick out of it as well. I've said enough, though. Let's talk about somebody else. Okay, what do you think about RAW's theory on The RICH Economy (RICH meaning "Rising Income through Cybernetic Homeostasis"), and similarly, Bucky Fuller's theory on DSR (Design Science Revolution) as a future anarchist-related economic system? In other words, the ending of corporate (and 'gubbnmint') wage slavery via advanced and emerging technologies (automation, robotics, AI, nanotech, etc.) with a 'Guaranteed Annual Income' roughly equal to the average middle-class income for the vast majority of the masses who, in the looming Cybernetic Age, will eventually find themselves unemployed and unemployable later this Century due to such advances? Basically: "We no longer have to hunt for our food and other basic necessities of life. But we still have an "economy" where we must accumulate "money" to "purchase" those necessities. We call this the "market." The hunt has been replaced by the rat race for money, but the rat race has now become as obsolete as the hunt. Why can't we accept that?" -- Steve Mizrach "Isn't it obvious that the whole purpose of machines is to get rid of work? When you get rid of the work required for producing basic necessities, you have leisure -- time for fun or for new and creative explorations and adventures. But with the characteristic blindness of those who cannot distinguish symbol from reality, we allow our machinery to put people out of work -- not in the sense of being at leisure but in the sense of having no money and having to accept public welfare." --Alan Watts "What may have been dismissed as the Utopian dreams of socialists and anarchists less than a century ago, are now in the realms of reality, thanks to technology and science. Materially, socialism or anarchism, is within the reach of the "toiling masses"...if they so wish. The problem now is to persuade them to want to be anything but contented, unthinking, pay-packet slaves." unsigned editorial in Freedom, 1959 "There is no more fatal blunder than he who consumes the greater part of his life getting his living." --Henry David Thoreau "As Bucky Fuller says, the first thought of people, once they are delivered from wage slavery, will be, "What was it that I was so interested in as a youth, before I was told I had to earn a living?" The answer to that question, coming from millions and then billions of persons liberated from mechanical toil, will make the Renaissance look like a high school science fair or a Greenwich Village art show." -- RAW http://whywork.org/rethinking/whywork/rawilson.html http://whywork.org/rethinking/leisure/bucky.html The notion that there were two sides to this story never crossed my mind. Its been a pleasant surprise to find out otherwise. There always at least two sides to every story. Obviously; what I meant to say was that Bob Black seemed to have numerous "problems" with historical and modern-day 'anarchists', and the notion that (many) modern-day 'anarchists' have PROBLEMS (personal, or otherwise) with Bob Black never occurred to me. As a recovering right-wing libertarian, I still have MUCH to learn about left-wing libertarianism; Don't recover too far. While much is made of the dramatic differences in economic outlook by different kinds of libertarians, there's a LOT more to life than economics. On the rest of life, we agree whole heartedly. Liberty is all. Were we disagree is on responsibility. We agree that we must take personal responsibility for our own freedom and well being. "Left wing" libertarians also believe that we must take personal responsibility for the freedom and well being of those around us. My personal take on economics is that while sharing is better, commerce is cool too, perhaps even necessary. As long as it is done without coercion and between equals, I have no problem with commerce. I myself engage. But free exchange among equals can't happen between individuals and corporations. Corporations have powers greater even than state powers. Understood; yet most 'anarcho'-capitalists fail to grasp this obvious point. It took me a decade to fully grasp it myself. The VAST majority of my pervious libertarian opinions remain intact, while my view towards "LAWCAP", multi-nationals, capital as "personal 'property'" and, especially, wage labour (wage slavery) have dropped WAY down on my "logic of probabilities" scale during these past six months. Also, I advise against using the very terms "left" and "right" when describing (small 'l") libertarianism. Left and right refer to different modes of state government. As such, they differ little. And libertarianism isn't about
[CTRL] My Anarchism Problem by Bob Black
"And Bakunin's 'invisible government' of anarchist militants is, at best, a poor choice of words, especially on the lips of a Freemason." from: MY ANARCHISM PROBLEM by Bob Black http://www.spunk.org/library/writers/black/sp001644.html (This was written to introduce the chapter on anarchism -- better, on anarchists -- in my book "Beneath the Underground" [1994].) Anarchism has always been problematic for me. It helped me to arrive at an unconditionally anti-statist, anti-capitalist perspective by the mid-1970's, and yet my first public statement from that perspective explained why I did not identify with anarchism. By dictionary definition, I am an anarchist, but the dictionary is only the beginning of wisdom. It cannot bestow coherence where contradictions abound or reduce differences to a unity by calling them by the same name. Once an idea is launched into history it takes more and more of its meaning from its experience. Revivalist calls to return to first principles prove the point, for they are history too. And just as no Protestant sect has ever really recreated the primitive Church, no subsequent anarchist fundamentalism ever did or could reenact pure anarchism on Bakuninist, Kropotkinist or any other models. Anything which has entered importantly into the practice of the anarchists has a place in the anarchist phenomenon-in-process, whether or not it is logically deducible from the idea or even contradicts it. Sabotage, vegetarianism, assassination, pacifism, free love, co-operatives and strikes are all aspects of anarchism which their anarchist detractors try to dismiss as un-anarchist. To call yourself an anarchist is to invite identification with an unpredictable array of associations, an ensemble which is unlikely to mean the same thing to any two people, including any two anarchists. (The most predictable is the least accurate: the bomb-thrower. But anarchists have thrown bombs and some still do.) The trouble with anarchists is that they think they have agreed on what they all oppose -- the state -- whereas all they have agreed on is what to call it. You could make a good case that the greatest anarchists were nothing of the sort. Godwin wanted the state to wither away, but gradually, and not before the progress of enlightenment prepared people to do without it. Which seems to legitimate really existing statism and culminate in the banality that if things were different they would not be the same. Proudhon, who served in the French national legislature, in the end arrived at a theory of "federalism" which is nothing but the devolution of most state power on local governments. Kropotkin's free communes may not be nation-states but they sure sound like city-states. Certainly no historian would regard as anything but ludicrous Kropotkin's claim that medieval cities were anarchist. If some of the greatest anarchists, upon inspection, appear to fall somewhat short of consistency on even the defining principle of anarchism itself -- the abolition of the state -- it is not too surprising if some of the lesser lights are likewise dim bulbs. The One Big Union of the syndicalists, who also uphold the duty to work, is one big state to everybody else, and totalitarian to boot. Some "anarcha"-feminists are book-burners. Dean Murray Bookchin espouses third-party politics and municipal statism, eerily parallel to the borderline fascist militia/Posse Comitatus movement which would abolish all government above the county level. And Bakunin's "invisible government" of anarchist militants is, at best, a poor choice of words, especially on the lips of a Freemason. Anarchists are at odds over work, industrialism, unionism, urbanism, science, sexual freedom, religion and much more which is more important, especially when taken together, than anything that unites them. Each of the North American annual "gatherings" of 1986-1989, the first time most of these anarchists dealt with one another face to face, resulted in a hemorrhage of the disillusioned. Nobody cares to host the next one, although some regional gatherings have gone off fairly well. But despite the demogogues, doctrinaires and dimwits, a portion of the anarchist press has let in some air, not all of it hot air; and oxygen is antiseptic. Anarchist or, better, anarchistic marginals have often known what to take and what to leave. A family of unorthodoxies I've called "Type 3" or "Watsonian" anarchism has made major inroads into the traditionalists in recent years. Type 3's, the category of the unclassifiables, enrich their anarchism (or whatever it is) with borrowings from neo-primitivism (or else neo-futurism!), surrealism, situationism, the joke religions (Discordian, Moorish Science, SubGenius), punk culture, dope culture, beer culture and Beat culture. Several years ago the outnumbered workerists launched a hate campaign against Type 3's among others -- lumped or I should say
