Welp (Tumblr)

I've forgot to tell Blog Followers that a majority of my activity in debating the issues surrounding mutualism and philosophy has been moved to my tumblr: http://sushigoat.tumblr.com

I guess it's easier for me because I get to respond directly to what I have a problem or thought about.

Plus, responding to anarcho-capitalists who've just had a cry-wank over the mutualist wikipedia page directly is just too much fun! Follow along, I haven't abandoned this blog though, I'm definitely going to make use of it.

The Involuntarism of Existence.

No matter where I go in terms of trying to understand the universe, I always fall back on this: That life, (or the chemical process of our brain helping our material body interact with other material bodies) is a form of slavery.

My reasoning for this is based on 2 facts that I feel are apparent about our human consciousness.

1. I did not ask to be Born.
2. I cannot escape Death.

To elaborate: First point: One cannot consciously choose to be conscious, that would be impossible. Other conscious beings have made that choice for you, and even if you only experience it briefly, you did not ask for it.  There was no "Terms and Conditions" for you to accept, when you first encountered consciousness. We are Born, necessarily against our will.

Second point: Being Born means that you will Die. Death of human sense experience is a fact. The human brain, the thing which makes us experience what is called "consciousness", will end it's activity, as a fact of nature. You could make the claim that there is an "essence of life" that exists outside of the brain that lives on, but, as always when dealing with claims that are un-falsifiable, the burden of proof is on them.

The involuntary nature of Consciousness doesn't have to be a problem. It is a logical must that my consciousness is against the will of my consciousness. Human consciousness only becomes vulgar when you take point 2 into account, that I cannot escape the end of my consciousness. If I were able to choose existing consciously forever, or die when I see fit, then the involuntary nature of conscious existence wouldn't be a problem. However, I don't have that, and it turns existence into a state of in-voluntarism.

I can choose to live another day. I can abandon my life in the blink of an eye. If I choose to live, I have chosen to die in the future. If I choose to end my consciousness, then I have chosen to cut life short. Neither of these actions change the absurdity of a consciousness programmed to die. Whatever you choose, you choose death. I think it is a situation best comparable to Slavery.

Now, return to your regularly scheduled "existence" (whatever you think that means).

Progress - Yes, but for whom? Toward what?

Excuse the Leninist word-games, but I felt I had to.

Progressives! Ah! The intellectuals! With high morals and a love for progressive "democracy", believers in "compassionate capitalism", the politically correct thought police, the "rational middle ground" between Soviet Gulags and Reaganomics, the upper middle class people who'd rather tell a welfare mother they voted Democrat (but the social program got voted down) than buy groceries for her or help her with the kids. 

It's not with complete disgust I approach American Progressives. I mean, at least they have the decency to lie about not being corporate hacks. It's just that while they at times sound egalitarian, righteously standing up against oppression, corporate bailouts and environmental disaster, their solutions seem to imply they don't mind it's cause.

Take Elisabeth Warren for example. I know, I know, her rant on taxing the rich is old news by now. But it's pretty interesting to look at how she touches upon some important truths about the state of state capitalism. We all remember this rant:

You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for.

Correct, infrastructure spending is a huge subsidy for corporations.

You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. 

This is correct, and absolutely frightening. State education came about as a form in which to create wage slaves. 

You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that maurauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.

Also right, the poor pay for all the protection of the giant corporate monsters we see today, pretty sure anyone can see the problem with that. 

So far, so good. 

But wait. Just wait for it. 

"Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea - God bless! Keep a hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along."

Ok. So much bullshit here. The social contract bullshit, the myth of corporations "paying forward to our kids" bullshit, but that's not the worst part. I believe this is the problem of progressive "egalitarianism". 

The first part of her analysis talks about how the system Americans live under is a system designed directly for the rich. We build roads for, educate our children for, pay for the protection of Corporate power, and Corporate elites. Ah! What an open and honest statement in our deluded status quo! What do we do? Do we build a new system? Do we revolt? Do we start building a society for OURSELVES?

Nope. No. You're forgetting, this is a progressive speaking. The best she can come up with is "i dunno, tax the rich, social contract, whatever". The "social contract" thinking works both ways: we enslave ourselves for the rich, create their wealth, as it is is said in the "underlying social contract" (somewhere, I can't find a copy of said contract online, or anywhere else), and they, by the same contract, might share a portion of their wealth to society so maybe they generate revenue for some food stamps for the unemployed debt slaves of tomorrow. 

Truly radical people don't want a milder version of invisible despotism, we want it's complete abolition. Don't tax the rich, stop paying for their privilege.   

LEAVE PROUDHON ALONE

Ok, nobody is claiming a monopoly on "Property is Theft!", but for Christ sakes, if you're going to quote Proudhon, it's good if you've at least READ "What is Property?" before you want to discuss how true/false it is. He said three things, all equally true and consistent, if you actually UNDERSTAND his arguments: 

Property is Robbery!

Property is Liberty!

Property is Impossible!

If you can't grasp what he meant by these 3 apparent contradictions, please refrain from using "Proudhon said Property is Theft!" as the rallying cry for your own personal ideology. The term "Property is Theft" has been misused and misquoted by both the pro-capitalist right and the pro-collectivist left for SO LONG. If you're going to say "Property is Theft!"in reference to Proudhon, please also mention that Property is Liberty and that Property is Impossible. If you want to find your own, black and white definition of property, fine. But stop misconstruing Proudhon's message. I'm especially looking at you, authoritarian socialists. NEVER, EVER use "Property is Theft!", because you're the last ones to understand that.

Proudhon's view was that property was complex, and he rejected both the classical liberal idea of private property and the communist idea of a gift economy. He recognized what property was, and saw it's contradictions, evils, and a swell as it's liberating qualities. He was neither an "anarcho-collectivist", neither could he be seen as an "individualist" in the same way that Warren, Tucker, and Stirner was.

What I'm saying is: Communist and Market anarchists can't claim Proudhon, neither can you, neither should I. Let Proudhon be Proudhon.

"But it's VOLUNTARY" - And so?

-"Working for wages is dehumanizing!" 

-"But it's VOLUNTARY!"

-"I think there should be a social safety net!"

-"Why do you want to COERCE me into paying for it?"

-"Women should be paid equally!"

-"But the woman agreed upon entering that contract VOLUNTARILY!" 

Notice the pattern? Notice how these knee-jerk reactions to the concerns of mainstream statists really doesn't answer much at all?

It seems to me that if the voluntaryism-movement wants to be taken seriously, maybe it should start taking actually ADDRESSING some of the issues discussed. Maybe then it can evolve into, you know, something more than just currently existing capitalism minus the state. 

"Property is Theft" is a contradiction - and it must be.

Proudhon, from The System of Economic Contradictions, responding to the critics who said "Property is Theft is a contradiction:

Property is, in fact and in right, essentially contradictory and it is for this very
reason that it is anything at all. In fact,

• Property is the right of occupancy; and at the same time the right of exclusion.
• Property is labor’s reward; and the denial of labor.
• Property is society’s spontaneous work; and society’s dissolution.
• Property is an institution of justice; and property is theft.

From all this it results that one day property transformed will be a positive idea,
complete, social and true; a property that will abolish the older one and will become for
all equally effective and beneficent. And what proves this is once again the fact that
property is a contradiction.
From this moment property started being recognized, its intimate nature was
unveiled, its future predicted. And yet, it could be said that the critic had not realized
even half of its task, because, to definitely constitute property, to take away its exclusion
characteristics and grant its synthetic form, it was not sufficient to have analyzed it in
itself, it was also necessary to find the order of the things, of which property was not
more than a particular moment, the series that ended it, outside of which it would be impossible either to comprehend or to initiate property.

 Proudhon actually never finished his analysis of property, because he couldn't solve these problems. But it's a fascinating look at the problems of property.

Thomas Hodgskin on Government and Property.

Interesting quote I found while binge-reading mutualist critique of property, by one of the Ricardian socialist and minarchist mutualist Thomas Hodgskin:

"Among the legislative classes embodied into, and constituting the government, we must place the landed aristocracy. In fact, the landed aristocracy and the government are one--the latter being nothing more than the organized means of preserving the power and privileges of the former.... His [the landowner's]right to possess the land, not to possess the produce of his own labour, is as admirably protected as can be effected by the law. Another must not even walk on it, and all the wild animals and fruit it bears are said by the law to be his. Nature makes it a condition of man having land, that he must occupy and cultivate it, or it will yield nothing.... The mere landowner is not a labourer, and he never has been even fed but by violating the natural right of property. Patiently and perseveringly, however, has the law endeavoured to maintain his privileges, power, and wealth." - The Natural and Artificial Right of Property Contrasted, 1832

 I found it pretty powerful and on point.