by Guest » Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:01 pm
i'm not 'hostile' to mutualism (i'm not Y, i'm just chiming in), i just don't see it as qualitatively different from what we have now, at least not in enough respects. markets, money, banks, etc. ok, so i don't have to pay taxes, and i'm 'free' to 'compete' in the market without the limitations that currently exist. i guess that's swell, if that's what you want. i don't. and i'm not alone. and the fact that the reader is now saying 'you'll be free to form a commune under mutualism, and not seeing the problem in that line of thinking -- the same line i get from defenders of the status quo -- is scary.
i see mutualists as the hostile ones. every time i dare make a peep against markets, i get fucking pigpiled. there's a religious adherence to markets that i find really frightening. i DO NOT trust such people. if i woke up tomorrow and found global anarchy, i'd want to get as far away from the mutualists as from the ancaps. their minds are closed to the efficacy of any ideas outside the market paradigm. what that says to me is that these are people who would disregard my concerns about what markets do to people and the environment. they see markets as a force of nature, like gravity. there's no getting through to such people. all you can do is avoid them, if possible, so that their market activity doesn't act as a corrosive on your own community. that would require large buffer zones between communist and market societies. perhaps entire continents. but history suggests that even that probably wouldn't be enough to insulate those who oppose markets from their toxic effects.
i really see no possibility for any real anarchy as long as there are market religionists who see markets as wholly positive, or at least benign, and refuse to acknowledge externalities. this isn't hostility, it's fear.
anyway, as to the 'anarchy' label, i see no reason to just blurt out the word when you first meet someone. you can talk issues in general terms first. it's like 'communist': say the word, and people see mustachioed men in military uniforms standing over shivering, huddled, starving masses. when people have been propagandized against a word, saying it will only close their minds to anything else you say. using general terms, you can let them see that you're not a monster, then if they press you for a label you can say 'ok, brace yourself...' then drop the A-bomb and immediately begin debunking all the propaganda before you lose them. it's tough. the elite have the money, the power, the propaganda organs, so they define the terms. anything to the left of them is going to be difficult space to defend, but we must.
i'm not 'hostile' to mutualism (i'm not Y, i'm just chiming in), i just don't see it as qualitatively different from what we have now, at least not in enough respects. markets, money, banks, etc. ok, so i don't have to pay taxes, and i'm 'free' to 'compete' in the market without the limitations that currently exist. i guess that's swell, if that's what you want. i don't. and i'm not alone. and the fact that the reader is now saying 'you'll be free to form a commune under mutualism, and not seeing the problem in that line of thinking -- the same line i get from defenders of the status quo -- is scary.
i see mutualists as the hostile ones. every time i dare make a peep against markets, i get fucking pigpiled. there's a religious adherence to markets that i find really frightening. i DO NOT trust such people. if i woke up tomorrow and found global anarchy, i'd want to get as far away from the mutualists as from the ancaps. their minds are closed to the efficacy of any ideas outside the market paradigm. what that says to me is that these are people who would disregard my concerns about what markets do to people and the environment. they see markets as a force of nature, like gravity. there's no getting through to such people. all you can do is avoid them, if possible, so that their market activity doesn't act as a corrosive on your own community. that would require large buffer zones between communist and market societies. perhaps entire continents. but history suggests that even that probably wouldn't be enough to insulate those who oppose markets from their toxic effects.
i really see no possibility for any real anarchy as long as there are market religionists who see markets as wholly positive, or at least benign, and refuse to acknowledge externalities. this isn't hostility, it's fear.
anyway, as to the 'anarchy' label, i see no reason to just blurt out the word when you first meet someone. you can talk issues in general terms first. it's like 'communist': say the word, and people see mustachioed men in military uniforms standing over shivering, huddled, starving masses. when people have been propagandized against a word, saying it will only close their minds to anything else you say. using general terms, you can let them see that you're not a monster, then if they press you for a label you can say 'ok, brace yourself...' then drop the A-bomb and immediately begin debunking all the propaganda before you lose them. it's tough. the elite have the money, the power, the propaganda organs, so they define the terms. anything to the left of them is going to be difficult space to defend, but we must.