...in response to the endless discourse on bailouts, bonuses and the global financial catastrophe:
"Because of his social position there are left no limits to the power lust of the modern capitalist. He can interfere with inconsiderate egoism in the lives of his fellowmen and play the part of Providence for others. Only when we take into consideration this passionate urge for political power over their own people as well as over foreign nations are we able really to understand the character of the typical representatives of modern capitalism. It is just this trait which makes them so dangerous to the social structure of the future."
Rudolf Rocker, "The Insufficiency of Economic Materialism"*
*Chapter 1 of Nationalism and Culture. You can find links to Rocker's collected works and more information about him at Anarchy Archives
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Damn straight.
Thanks! Nothing like a scathing indictment of Capitalism to start off my morning right!
Do you consider yourself an anarchist (little "a")? I go back and forth on this ... I used to be very direct about it, toting around my Emma Goldman essays and telling anyone who asked "I'm an anarcho-syndacalist." These days, I vote for Democrats (because of what happened last time I voted for a Green) and my Facebook status says "non-authoritarian leftist," which is just a cute way of saying "comfortable middle-class anarchist, minus the black hoodie and face scarf." But I have no patience with anarchists who don't vote ... sure the system is fucked to the core and there is an element of futility in participating, but things could actually get a lot worse with the wrong people in charge, too. Saying that doesn't matter because it's all corrupt anyway is just another manifestation of class privilege, I think. It may not matter to you, but it will matter to someone, somewhere. Luckily, most of my more hard-core anarchist friends seem to get that. They voted for Obama with their noses held and fingers crosssed, and waited until he got elected to say they didn't think anything would actually change.
Hello, Leo! (That is you, isn't it?) How are the dahlias?
If you look at my Facebook profile, J, it says, "left libertarian," which is a way of saying anarchist or libertarian socialist without freaking people out completely.
I always label myself reluctantly, since no matter what you call yourself, the person you're talking is likely to have a whole set of notions attached to the word that have nothing to do with you. "Socialist" gives people the idea that you favor some sort of bloated nanny state; "libertarian" is, sadly, firmly associated with the heartless, pro-capitalist philosophy of Ayn Rand, et al.; and "anarchist" is just another word for "stupid, spoiled kid who needs to get a job."
What I really am is a simple anti-authoritarian hillbilly with a college education. Unlike Rocker, I am inclined to believe that humans are hardwired for power hierarchies, but I think there's always a moral responsibility to resist them.
This post was actually inspired by watching the Dear Leader's press conference last night. The new Dear Leader is ever so much smarter and more attractive than the last Dear Leader, but of course he's just scrambling madly to repair the system that his predecessor fucked up, not to overturn it.
I agree with you about voting, but I vote entirely cynically now. I took the trouble to write in Nader in '96, and I cast my vote for him again in 2000. I don't regret that a bit, but I am past the kind of innocence that believes in any profound change through party politics.
Yes, I noticed your "left libertarian" status. It seemed to ring a rather similar note to my "non-authoritarian leftist," not only in what ideology it seemed to be pointing toward, but also in its exactness ... its clear intention to stake out a certain territory, while at the same time rejecting the bold, black and white font of more ready-made labels.
I'm fond of the word "anarchist," and have claimed it - off and on - since at least the ninth grade, even during my most laced-up Christian years (remind me to tell you, someday, about the fallout over my refusal to say the Pledge of Allegiance at school, beginning when I was 13). The sheer shock value that word still inspires makes it feel sexy in my mouth. But it also feels a bit silly to apply to myself at 32, with a house and a wife and a white-collar job and a car and piles and piles of shit I don't need.
It's funny to me that "socialist" was the word you wanted to avoid using. I did, too, but if I had a finite list of adjectives I from which to choose, I'd describe myself a "socialist" before a "libertarian" any day, for the exact reasons you mentioned.
Freedom to exploit others - and I'm using "others" loosely here, since I believe we're "not one, but also not two" - isn't really "liberty" at all. Unfortunately, that seems to be what the American Libertarian (big "L") movement is all about.
Re the negative associations of "libertarian" and "socialist," I guess I'd say the former are more distasteful than the latter to me as well--but not to the people I encounter in daily life down here. The word libertarian had a proud history before the Libertarian Party got hold of it, and I like the fact that it points to the common ground I share with certain very conservative friends I have. We all believe in personal freedom and responsibility, we despise an intrusive state, etc.
"Socialist" is a much more difficult word in this cultural context, since in most people's minds it's inseparable from authoritarian state socialism, or even totalitarianism. Since I can't go around lecturing people on the various models of socialism, I just like to leave the word alone. I actually think calling myself an anarchist would scare them less, just because they have a much hazier idea of what an anarchist is.
I'd love to hear your Pledge of Allegiance story. They quit making us say the pledge after grade school, but I remember getting shit for refusing to stand for the national anthem.
I think this is probably another case of North meets South ... We Northerners - especially in New England - are used to getting called "socialists" by the rest of the country, and we laugh it off ... "yeah, yeah ... we're all a bunch of commie pinkos up here ... whatever!" We don't have a very large Libertarian contingent here, though, mostly because our Republicans tend to be pretty socially liberal, anyway. If you're at all familiar with Maine's Republican senators, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, you'll get the picture.
As for the Pledge thing ... I was in the 9th grade, and had gotten myself "born again" less than a year before. I'd read the Bible cover to cover over the previous summer, and came to the conclusion that. not only had Jesus been a socialist and an anarchist, but I didn't owe my "allegiance" to anyone but God. The first time I refused to stand up, the other students in my homeroom went apeshit! They were screaming at me to stand up and yelling "love it or leave it," calling me a commie and saying I should go live in Iraq (this was shortly before the start of the first Gulf War). My teacher was actually pretty sympathetic. He asked me to stay back one morning, to ask what this was all about. When I told him, he seemed surprised. I think he originally thought I was just doing it for attention. Eventually, after a couple of weeks, the other students stopped freaking out about it. I even had a couple of kids I wasn't really friends with tell me they thought it was cool I had the balls (ovaries?) to do something like that.
I've never said the Pledge since, though when I was a reporter, I did stand up for it during town meetings. It doesn't do to give the locals any more cause to mistrust the media ...
Isn't it amazing how rigid children can be about rituals and beliefs? Especially at that age. It's funny, I went through a very religious phase at around 13 also, but it was after that passed, a year or so later, that I got interested in radical politics. I'm starting to think it might not be a phase. ;-)
I wonder what kind of response kids get from teachers now if they dare to question the political norms? I fear there's a lot less tolerance these days of children with fringe ideas.
I'm a socialist. There, I wrote it. Continue with your fascinating discussion! And no, that wasn't sarcastic.
Julie, I'm glad you chimed in, and came out!
On good days, I think this country is full of quiet radicals--is that a contradiction in terms? Anyway, as nervous as people are about the label, a lot of them do seem to be sympathetic to basic socialist ideas.
Thank the whoever/whatever for you American radicals. It makes me believe we still have a future.
Dahlias are still sleeping tubers, M, my lovely. Other stuff is growing though...
Hope you're well well well.
Same wish back to you, Leo. (Your Posse posts have been exquisite, by the way. I always feel I am too late to the party to comment, but I enjoy them a lot.)
We American rads need all the support we can get. Can we trade you Jon Stewart for Mark Steel?
Nope. We need to keep Mark Steel - I'm not sure that's a fair trade, anyways.
And thanks for your kind words. Tomorrow's post is, erm, more prosaic...
Post a Comment