Re: libertarian vs. socialist (Im a libertarian socialist!)
-- On 3 Dec 2001, at 8:06, mattd wrote: Disaster struck [anarcho socialism in Catalonia] for many reasons and it was not all as grim as the stories you put on the web.You could cite many more sources on your site that you wont thus letting people get away with questioning your honesty and motives.I simply agree with those that call you a liar on Spain If you read through McKay's pages, he calls me a liar, but then concedes the important facts -- concedes that anarchist Catalonia was in fact a dictatorship that ruled by terror, arguing not that I am lying because I say there was terror and there was no terror, not that I am lying because I say there was a dictatorship and there was no dictatorship, but instead claiming I am a liar because I imply there was unjust and oppressive terror whereas really it was necessary and justified terror, that I am a liar because I imply there was arrogant and cruel dictatorship when really it was benevolent and kindly dictatorship. For example in http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2374/govern.html an McKay writes: : : Moving on, James Donald presents one of his more : : outrageous statements. : : : : then later, their leaders decided in : : : : secret, in cheerful defiance of the : : : : democratic procedures to dissolve the : : : : militia committee, to officially : : : : recreate the state rather than : : : : unofficially He then rants at great length that I am lying outrageously, and that what I say is completely contradicted by the very sources that I cite, but after all this ranting concedes: : : [...] James Donald is right in that the CNT made : : the decision [...] in violation of its democratic : : principles, since the rank and file were not : : consulted. The decision in question stripped the anarchist nomenclatura of its power, and fed it into the hands of their enemies. If he concedes that the most important decision the anarchists ever made was made by a secretive elite, how then can my words be outragous? --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG AKpu2kepzNrk+gFVpsRFEhY123rgc5xUgow4eElm 4BitZRQhAj4p9f2SbO+b0zQWmqJVLbIw4UK+QcVD/
Re: libertarian vs. socialist (Im a libertarian socialist!)
Anarcho capitalism corresponds to what any normal person would call anarchy Who said I was normal? Normal for norte america Yes,maybe.(just say 'so') Explanations of anarcho socialism are evasive, euphemistic and full of equivocations I dont remember seeing any,Its usually anarchism or libertarian socialism or anarcho-syndicalism Isnt it? When they go into detail, for example par-econ, they describe in pleasant sounding words a system more centralized and authoritarian in form and theory than Stalin's was in form and theory, and often more centralized and authoritarian even in theory than Maoism was in actual practice. I dont recall.Could you cite anarchist stalins and mao's,please? before 1936 there were various unclear, confused, self contradictory, but undeniably sincere proposals as to how to implement anarcho socialism Such as Italian factory occupations?Malatesta who predicted ww2 as ww1 started was confused? What you say may be true but does it apply to anarcho-SYNDICALISM? Unclear,confused, self contradictory, but undeniably insincere seems to apply to someone. Then disaster struck. They actually had a go at it, with entirely predictable results. The contradiction between socialism and anarchism was demonstrated with the usual rivers of blood. Some became disillusioned. Some reinterpreted their now inconvenient past positions as standard socialism. Disaster struck for many reasons and it was not all as grim as the stories you put on the web.You could cite many more sources on your site that you wont thus letting people get away with questioning your honesty and motives.I simply agree with those that call you a liar on Spain(you also have useful stuff elsewhere, so not being a dead loss) The anarcho-capitalism you and tim seem so fond of would not survive long without all the instruments of state repression backing it up.How long would NIKE last in an anarchist world? McDonalds? Monsanto? Thanks for responding,see you at the 'punks. matthew proffr taylor. Ive just unpacked my PGP but have yet to read the user manual.The intro by phill is cool.Dig sig pending.
Re: libertarian vs. socialist (Im a libertarian socialist!)
-- James A. Donald: Anarcho capitalism corresponds to what any normal person would call anarchy mattd Who said I was normal? If you use the word anarchy to refer to something that is very far from anarchy as it is normally understood, without explaining that you are using a special and unusual meaning, this is lying. If you were to say: : : I am an anarchist, but by anarchist I mean a : : really really really democratic and decentralized : : government exercising all power and total power : : over every person's action and every good, with a : : general committee to decide all matters of : : general interest and authorize any truly : : necessary use of force most people would say: : : You are not an anarchist, you are a democratic : : socialist -- we already went through that stuff : : in the twentieth century. On those rare : : occasions when they were both actually : : democratic, and actually socialist, the economy : : collapsed and they got voted out the next : : elections. James A. Donald: When they go into detail, for example par-econ, they describe in pleasant sounding words a system more centralized and authoritarian in form and theory than Stalin's was in form and theory, and often more centralized and authoritarian even in theory than Maoism was in actual practice. mattd: I dont recall.Could you cite anarchist stalins and mao's,please? If you call the what the authors of ParEcon propose anarchism, then PolPot was as much an anarchist as they were, Stalin ten times as much an anarchist as they were, and Mao one hundred times. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG OQYECo7+gyIrQKctq60cC1UvKMKkPdfA7ARhBGkw 4UK2wPuK5XGJbFyc2DKUBMmRzR7WU8jLgbvndXR7N
Re: libertarian vs. socialist
On Friday, November 30, 2001, at 02:21 AM, mattd wrote: libertarian socialist is an oxymoron. Like anarcho-capitalist? I do use anarchist gerberally.Tim Im posting articles under your name at Indymedia.When I do I try to be very exact with it. but sometimes Im cutting and pasting like a whirling dervish and dont attribute.Thats usually with the more outre statements you make in your less lucid moments.Im just telling you as a courtesy,Oh and thanks for not popping me in the corn. Who wants to participate to help form what will be the LAST revolution on earth, the one that'll take down ALL the governments? You need to get back on your medications. But thanks for helping with my defense: Tim Im posting articles under your name at Indymedia. Persecutor: Mr. May, did you write these words? Me: I don't know. Other people post things under my name. I really can't say for sure whether I wrote those words. What did the digital signature say? (Note in general: Even without the forgeries from Detweiler, and now this admission from mattd, I expect that if asked if I wrote something I would say I don't know. Without checking my own archives, it would be hard to know if something attributed to me was actually written by me, was a clever forgery, or was a satirical forgery. It's why digital signatures, with flaws of their own, exist. And it's why I don't sign. A signature is giving away something of value, to a prosecutor in this case.) --Tim May That government is best which governs not at all. --Henry David Thoreau
Re: libertarian vs. socialist
-- On 30 Nov 2001, at 21:21, mattd wrote: libertarian socialist is an oxymoron. Like anarcho-capitalist? Anarcho capitalism corresponds to what any normal person would call anarchy -- see for example my web page Brief explanation of anarcho capitalism http://www.jim.com/anarcho-.htm Explanations of anarcho socialism are evasive, euphemistic and full of equivocations. When they go into detail, for example par-econ, they describe in pleasant sounding words a system more centralized and authoritarian in form and theory than Stalin's was in form and theory, and often more centralized and authoritarian even in theory than Maoism was in actual practice. If we go back to before 1936 there were various unclear, confused, self contradictory, but undeniably sincere proposals as to how to implement anarcho socialism. Then disaster struck. They actually had a go at it, with entirely predictable results. The contradiction between socialism and anarchism was demonstrated with the usual rivers of blood. Some became disillusioned. Some reinterpreted their now inconvenient past positions as standard socialism. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG XTtxm0n0NJYn22tGuTgjnb/I/8pFZ/4F/GPmswQS 4WQUz86T9xxAvoWOQ1+XoDx7DDoI0GoYPO90ChZ7V
libertarian vs. socialist
...libertarian vs. socialist ..From Tims epistle to the faithful.9-11 certainly shook a few authoritarians out of the woodpile in both the libertarian and the socialist scenes.Nasty stuff. What happened to libertarian socialist? An R.Crumb cartoon for the noughties,Im a libertarian socialist! http://world.std.com/~mhuben/cypher.html Assassination Politics Convicted tax evader Jim Bell proposes a system of anonymous ecash awards for the murder of aggressors, such as IRS agents. See also Crypto-Convict Won't Recant. What he misses is that his system, if tolerated, would merely force government to operate secretly rather than openly. They can do that?
Re: libertarian vs. socialist
Fair Warning: I never, that I recall, responded to some of the inanities here that got a few people prosecuted. I think that this save me from being subpoenaed. I will respond below to the mattd rainman because I choose to. And if it results in a subpoena for me to fly to Australia for some trial, I will of course ignore it. On Thursday, November 29, 2001, at 10:42 PM, mattd wrote: ...libertarian vs. socialist ..From Tims epistle to the faithful.9-11 certainly shook a few authoritarians out of the woodpile in both the libertarian and the socialist scenes.Nasty stuff. What happened to libertarian socialist? An R.Crumb cartoon for the noughties,Im a libertarian socialist! I have no idea who you really are, mattd, except that I hear you deface McDonald's restaurants and may or may not be under indictment or whatever by the Australian cops. Your calls to have George Bush Jr. killed have likely drawn interest from the polizei. From your posts here, you look to have the same mental state that C.J. Parker had/has, and that maybe other have. To wit: fragmented sentences, discombobulated logic, weird juxtapositions of words. I'm beginning to think there's a Rainman Syndrome at work. But in the event that you are not too addled to think straight, the very idea of a libertarian socialist is an oxymoron. It doesn't compute. Sure, we are libertarian socialists in a sense within our families or circles of friends, in a manner of speaking, but we are not coerced by external agents to be nice, or socialist, to our family and friends. Therein lies the reason why libertarian socialist is such an oxymoron. If you think about this in a lucid period, you will realize why this is so. --Tim May That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. --Samuel Adams
