|
|||||||||||||
Anarcho-Syndicalism versus
Letters #71-#75
Letter #071
Dear Andy, Yes, it is possible to create an idyll with a few compatible people united in a common purpose - like monks working in a vineyard who grow their own food and produce wine to sell for their other needs. But no such idyll survives on a large scale - mostly because of original sin (study this in Catholic theology if you don't understand what I mean) hence we have to have armies, police etc. Babette
Letter #072
Hello again, Babette,
Monks didn't grow their own food, but spent their time doing services for the church. "Spiritualistic as the language of the monks was, serfdom, tithes and charity were the material support of their moral twaddle. The same tune, though with some variation, is played by our capitalists." -- Joseph Dietzgen, (Part II of "Ethics of Social-Democracy"). Monks were dependent on those who labored. The difference between this and Anarchist-Collectivism is that monks exploited the people and established their "freedom" this way. In Anarchism, the people themselves establish freedom, by abolishing exploitation of all people. A handful of monks at this or that monastery, depending on the slavery of the serfs, doesn't compare as freedom with millions of workers and peasants who rose up and overthrew monarchy, state, religion, and capitalism. The more important argument is this: is there any place on earth where people are starving where Capitalism does not hoard up the lands from them? We've reached a population of 7 billion, yet poverty and starvation has existed since the dawn of landed property -- since when humans excluded others from working the land and reaping its benefits. If a planet with 500 million people did not have enough land to produce for everyone, how have we reached a planet of 7 billion? This perpetual starving has always existed, no matter what "political reforms" occur and what "technological changes" happen. If you found someone who was starving, do you think they're really doing it as a preference to the opportunity offered by the Capitalists around them? Actually, that's probably the only option, since the alternative of employment doesn't exist due to the absence of so-called "entrepreneurial ability." (i.e. today's economic principle people work for less when they're starving)
That's the thing. These Anarchist-Communist territories would have survived, but in every case, they were under assault by major world powers: the Bourbon Monarchy, the Hohenzollern Monarchy, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Fascist Spain, Nationalist Germany (WW1), Nationalist Yugoslavia, and even Imperialist Japan. These powers, when they came to democratic nations, violently destroyed them without any hope, usually in just a few days. Anarchist-Communist territories face the same power that obliterated France in an hour and Czechoslovakia in day, and they survive for two and a half years. "Original Sin" and "Catholic Theology" have nothing to do with it. The fact is that these nations, without their armies and police, survived better than liberal, conservative, and catholic nations. And besides, original sin sounds quite arguable. So, if original sin is in all humans, then how is it that armies and police, who are also humans, escape it? And, if the people themselves have original sin, they're the ones who choose politicians that pick the individuals for the armies and the police. If everyone is corrupted, then how does making one part in charge of the other eliminate that corruption? It actually does the reverse: it encourages the corruption! Look at the Catholic countries of World War 2: Germany, Italy, and Spain (after slaughtering the Anarchists). Somehow, the people who believed in original sin were the most obedient to dictators, while people who didn't believe in religion at all put up the strongest fight against tyranny and Fascism. Sounds like Catholicism corrupts the soul. Not sure if you're a fan of British literature, but I just read this the other day. It reminded me of our discussion poverty, but it seems to even have some value in regards to your idea of original sin and inescapable corruption: "A propensity to hope and joy is real riches: One to fear and sorrow, real poverty." -- David Hume, From "Essays Moral, Political, Literary" (Part I. Essay XVIII. The Sceptic.) Sincerely,
Letter #073
Dear Andy, Everyone including police and armies suffer the consequences of original sin, hence we have police corruption, rape by victorious armies etc. What you are admitting is that your idyllic anarchist societies have not survived anywhere. But we are feeding ourselves better - life expectancy before land ownership was about 30 years, now it is close to 80. And I don't agree with you about monks employing serfs - they did grow their own food - and still do - wine was a surplus. In Australia we have Carmelite convents who still do the same. No serfs around. By the way you don't know of a spare serf I could employ do you? Promise a fair wage - but there don't seem to be any available here. All doing too well on government welfare.,,, Babette
Letter #074
Hello again, Babette,
That's correct. And the causes that destroyed them required years. When those same forces came to "democratic" nations, it required hours or days. Do you understand the important moral of this? Nazism destroyed France. I don't hear you mumbling "Therefore, Liberalism and Democratic Government has failed." But it did, especially compared to the Anarchists who fought the Nazis. Therefore, what can you assume, if Anarchism resisted Fascism better than elected officials? Simply, that Anarchism is STRONGER than elected officials when it comes to resisting Fascism. Oh, by the way, did you forget what the Catholic Church did to these Anarchist societies? More than 50,000 executed in Paris -- that's one out of every forty civilians. Infants with their skulls smashed in and wounded men in ambulances dragged out and killed in the streets. And the Catholic Church praised all of this. Your only rejoinder to the failure of Anarchism can be, "And then the Catholics came in, raped the children, and killed the adults!" Hoorah, your side wins. What glory.
Your quaint little monastery in Australia doesn't really compare to more than a thousand years of feudalism in Europe, now does it?
The real unemployment rate in Australia is 12%. Maybe they'd be asking you if you needed a worker, if "Solicitation for Employment" wasn't itself a cause for arrest and imprisonment. I have a better question. How about you answer my argument? Would a human being rather work or starve to death? Because if they'd rather starve to death, then that makes sense why the world is full of hunger. But if they'd rather work, well, where's all the land for them to work?
This is from your own article. Diouf is a little off, though. The technology from the year 1900, sufficiently employed, would be able to provide bread for all. That is to say, the problem is not the condition of our technology -- it is, far more than that, a condition of our social organization. Either you explain to me why people prefer starvation and homelessness to work, or you concede that it is the social organization that inhibits access to the right to work. Also, welfare doesn't exist in underdeveloped nations, or on such a miserable level, so that doesn't really explain why mass starvation occurs. Sincerely,
Letter #075
Dear Andy, The alternatives for people in Australia and western democracies is not between work and starvation/homelessness but between work and free taxpayer funded welfare, and alas, many prefer the latter. Why not - they get enough to live on (modestly) and are free to laze on the beach etc in our balmy climate. Babette
|
