On Mon, 7 Aug 2017 21:18:43 -0400
Steve Kinney <ad...@pilobilus.net> wrote:


> 
> >> http://pilobilus.net/Political-Power-Spectrum.png
> >     Looks good. However, the term "capitalism" isn't the right
> > one I think, because it's too ambiguous. More accurate terms :
> >     mercantilism or corporatism, which in practice lead to big
> >     businesses and monopoly. 
> 
> Any analysis at this level of abstraction will have plenty of
> ambiguities.  I was aiming for "common sense" a.k.a. propaganda driven
> terminology, with breaking certain "common sense" paradigms in mind. 
> Filling in the details is up to the individual.  That's where the fun
> is.

        Oh, OK. So let me play along and not ask for a consistent
        definition of capitalism...at least for now.



> 
> >     It's true that there are people who defend the current
> > fascist system and claim that big businesses are a poor oppressed
> >     minority and the government should stop taxing goldman sachs
> >     and google and raytheon. I'm referring to the randroid
> > scumbags of course. They certainly beong to the far right, but they
> > have obviously nothing to do with 'anarchism'.


> In a context where ownership of capital is highly concentrated in the
> hands of a small minority, but access to armed force is widely
> distributed across the population, you might get Robber Barons:  More
> or less the "Right."


        If capital is highly concentrated and the population is 'armed'
        I'd expect the 'capitalists' to be shot in no time. Unless
        something else is going on.



> 
> In a context where ownership of capital is highly concentrated in the
> hands of a small minority, and access to armed force is highly
> concentrated in the hands of a small minority, you might get
> NeoLiberals:  More or less the "Left."

        I'd argue that concentration of political power(access to force)
        and concentration of economic power go hand in hand. It's the
        basic recipe for tyranny and it's certainly not new nor liberal
        =P

> 
> These outcomes are not inherent in the model, but given that the Left
> and Right as described here already dominate the playing field... 


> 
> >> If most people who identify as Libertarian would rather live in the
> >> lower right quadrant of the above graph, so sorry.  That Party
> >> offers no such program or agenda:  
> >     well, the US libertarian party is really a non-entity so
> > their offerings don't really mean anything...
> 
> The Libertarian Party does divert a lot of bright, capable people
> down a blind alley.  


        As far as I know the libertarian party has a very small number
        of members, and the libertarian party hasn't never ever won
        any political position at all. 

        In almost 50 years the libertarian party achieved absolutely
        nothing, be it 'practical', or 'educational'. Furthermore,
        some of the founders were allegedly 'anarchists', in reality
        sell outs who 'agreed' to not talk about anarchism. 

        
> They are presented with a believable ideology
> that, if adopted as national policy, would remove present restraints
> (such as they are) from our Robber Baron capitalists.


        I have to disagree with that, at least partially. If
        libertarian ideology would actually be put in practice then
        goldman sachs, google, the cops and the military would be hung
        by their balls exactly like they deserve,  and so would be any
        wannabe robber baron. 

        The catch is, the vast majority of 'libertarians' are correctly
        described as republicans who smoke pot, so have like zero
        interest in justice.

        You have to also take into account that the americunt nazi
        empire was founded by slave owning 'libertarians' like
        jefferson and washington.



> Whether this
> is a good or bad idea is left as an exercise.


        "enforcement' of personal rights and justice would be a
        bloodbath for the establishment. Anything that doesn't hold
        'robber barons' and politicians accountable is not libertarian.



> >> Only a hollow promise that incorruptible
> >> Civil Courts will deliver equal justice to penniless individuals
> >> and corporate cartels, and that the infallible invisible hand of
> >> the Free Market will prevent systemic abuse of corporate power.  
> >>
> >>    well, that's indeed the philosophy behind "anarchist free
> >>    enterprise". If on the other hand, you think that a free
> >> market will NOT prevent abuse/concentration  of economic  power,
> >> then you'd need to call the state to 'regulate' the market....and
> >>    stop being an anarchist.
> 
> Again, a lot depends on the definitions of highly abstract terms.  In
> a localized, decentralized system of governance, the inhabitants of
> any given self governing region could do whatever they damn well
> please about regulating commerce 


        Oh, of course it all depends on definitions of terms and now
        you've just 'defined' 'anarchy' to mean 'governance'?

        But no, 'inhabitants' cannot do whatever they please
        'regulating', for instance, commerce. Or the vast majority of
        human activities. You only get to 'regulate' people if they
        attack you. 




> and addressing the impact of
> industrial processes on resources of value to the community, i.e.
> what the folks upstream are doing to the water you irrigate your
> fields with.  In the event of conflicting interests some sort of
> settlement will be worked out, with or without resort to brute
> force.   

        So how is that different from the current system? 

 
> The definition of anarchy as the absence of governance would be a
> joke, if it was not a very well established article of indoctrinated
> faith, 

        Well you seem to be defining 'anarchy' as "local government I
        like" so your definition is hardly impressive either...

        Whatever kind of 'governance' anarchy allows, it is just
        individual self government. Individual, at the individual
        level. So for instance, no 'regulation' of commerce at all.



> bestowed on us by our forbears' authoritarian rulers.  People
> organize into groups and make collective decisions;


        lawl - so now 'anarchy' has become 'democracy' or mob rule? 


> those who don't
> have that trait went extinct ages ago.  How they do that, and at what
> scale, have varied widely.  In my view, the smaller the units of
> governance, the more widely distributed the decision making process,
> and the fewer barriers to participation the better.  


        Well yes, but more 'distributed' GOVERNMENT is not anarchy. 



> To err is human
> and every form of governance fucks up; 
> but, generally speaking,
> tribal councils that act by consensus seem to have done the least
> harm. 

        oh yeah, "consent of the governed"....



> >> That is why I call my own orientation and agenda Anarchism.  My
> >> preferred quadrant of the above graph is the lower right one:
> >> Broadly distributed political and economic power among autonomous
> >> local communities.  Clockwise from lower left, I associate the
> >> quadrants with Free Market Capitalism, Socialist State Capitalism,
> >> Feudal Aristocracy and Tribal Federations.  
> >>
> >>
> >>    Sorry, the red (lower left) quadrant is not free market
> >>    capitalism at all. The red quadrant is an absurd position
> >> IF we use your definition of capitalism. You can't have state
> >>    privileges(capitalism) if there's no state. 

> Let's see:  The red quadrant indicates high concentration of economic
> power in the hands of a small number of people, plus distribution of
> power mediated by armed force across a large number of people.  
> The
> power of a wealthy minority, not restrained by rules enforced by an
> armed central authority, sounds like Free Market Capitalism to me.


        Sorry, that's not true. First, the scenario doesn't make
        sense, because economic and political power will be both 
        concentrated. Second, calling that "market capitalism' is
        just...inconsistent propaganda. 

        

> With that concentration of wealth, it should be no problem for an
> economic ruling class to hire enough mercenaries to protect their
> interests from all those armed citizens. 


        Why wouldn't the rest of armed citiznes fight back? 

        But are you talking about the US and their right-wing,
        gun-carrying nutcases? If so I don't think you are describing
        the whole situation correctly. 


> 
> Note that capitalism != corporatism, it only indicates a
> specialization in acquisition and growth of private wealth. 

        You changed the definition of 'capitalism' for the third
        time or so? Maybe you should define "capitalism" and then
        re-state your views.



> 
> >     Free market capitalism is basically the green quadrant. But
> > you are referring to it as "tribal federations" which is term you
> >     just made up...

> Made up?  Far from it.  A tribal federation is a group of local
> councils, coordinating regional relations with other councils by
> treaty agreements.  It was the dominant form of governance in North
> America when the Europeans showed up in force with superior
> technology.  


        OK, So you are not advocating anarchy but tribal
        statism. 
        

> We are not taught about the tribal council and
> federation model, because it is important for us to understand that
> the natives were "ignorant savages, incapable of organizing and
> governing themselves."  Otherwise, what becomes of Manifest Destiny
> and the White Man's Burden? 

        
        I can reject both the political system of the fucking,
        joo-kristian, european invaders of the american continent
        without siding with the local tribal governments. 

        Anarchy, you know, means no rulers, no government, no
        authority, et cetera. 



> >     Your red quadrant and your violet quadrant are absurdities
> >     and not recognized in 'standard' political philosophy, plus
> >     your classification can't account for  plain old state
> >     socialism/communism.

> The graph seems to account exactly for plain old state
> socialism/communitsm:  


        So you are using capitalism to mean communism? And communism to
        mean capitalism as well, I should assume? 
        
        While I certainly can see how the americunt 'capitalist' system
        is hardly different from the soviet commie system in many ways,
        I don't think your usage of the term "capitalism" leads to clear
        thinking. 

        capitalism : system based on 'capital' - so unless you live
        naked in the woods, evertything is capitalism.

        capitalism : private property - free enterpreise

        capitalism : corporatism/fascism

        capitalism : state communism

        so which one is it? 

        

> See the dot marked "Left."  Maximum
> concentration of economic power in the hands of a minority (State
> appointed functionaries), plus maximum concentration of coercive
> force in the hands of a minority (State legal, police, and military
> activities).  How is that inconsistent with plain old state
> socialism/communism? 

        It isn't. But that's where the "right" should be placed too.



> >> All loosely defined, as is
> >> proper with high level abstract labels.  All have their upsides and
> >> downsides, but Tribal Federations have, so far, produced the least
> >> harmful results overall. Can that model make a comeback in the
> >> post-industrial world?  
> >     Are you assuming this is a 'post industrial' world? Or are
> > you talking about some hypothetical collapse of the industrial
> >     world? 
> >
> >     I've bad news for you (and me). The industrial world isn't
> >     going away anytime soon.

> Depends one's definition of "soon."  I do expect today's global
> economic system to crash, hard, within 10 to 20 years, taking "heavy
> industry" and long range transportation of bulk material commodities
> with it.  Not completely, but sufficiently to cause a domino effect
> leading to a significant human population crash. 


        It certainly would be great if the industrial system blew up,
        but things are moving in the exact opposite direction. 


> 
> I could be wrong in this case, but exponential growth inside a closed
> container usually ends badly for whatever is growing exponentially,
> and/or for its container.  In the context of human affairs, that end
> typically comes as a shocking surprise because exponential growth
> functions are counter-intuitive; our normative bias leads us to expect
> linear change where we anticipate any change at all.  The immediate
> self interest of millions of human actors whose combined decision
> making drives the exponential growth of industrial process, 


        What does 'exponential growth' mean here? Exponential growth of
        control, I'd say...


> biases
> the lot of them toward magical thinking - even those who /can/
> accurately imagine exponential processes. 
> 
> Just now, peak extraction rates for many non-regenerating
> environmental resources are arriving at the same time; the humans
> have been spending down their 'natural capital' faster than Donald
> Trump spending down his inheritance to maintain the illusion that he
> is a brilliantly successful businessman.  One of the more alarming
> features of material economics today, is that the rising curve of
> food demand and falling curve of food production rates are presently
> crossing, while essential inputs to agriculture (and animal
> husbandry) - potable water, topsoil, phosphates
> - have reached or passed peak utilization rates.  Worldwide, food
> reserves are at historic lows and resupply is not expected. 


        So population will adjust. Assuming your 'curves' are correct
        which I don't think they necessarily are. 

        You seem to be missing a couple of  points : 

        1) the industrial system allows the non-human psychos at the top
        'exponential' amounts of control and power, both over nature
        and people. 

        2) malthus was wrong.   


> 
> Our industrial civilization is brittle, but the humans themselves are
> very resilient.  Although I do expect Very Bad Things to happen, I see
> lots of room for very good long term outcomes. 


 

Reply via email to