(originally published by OpEdNews)If pure Anarchy or Communism is to work, the premise “to each according to his needs, from each according to his ability” has got to be a realistic premise.
Under each of these non systems, government will ultimately become unnecessary. Everyone will be equal. There will be no bosses and there will be no classes. Each person will share possessions as well as the responsibility for getting things done, even the most mundane and menial tasks.
The last thing that Libertarians would have you believe is that they’re anything like Anarchists or Communists. Libertarianism, as far as Libertarians are concerned, is a legitimate, responsible form of governance and the other two forms can only lead to chaos and probably totalitarian dictatorship.
In chapter 5 of his publication entitled THE STATE AND REVOLUTION, Vladimir Lenin writes, “From the moment all members of society, or at least the vast majority, have learned to administer the state themselves, have taken this work into their own hands, have organized control over the insignificant capitalist minority, over the gentry who wish to preserve their capitalist habits and over the workers who have been thoroughly corrupted by capitalism--from this moment the need for government of any kind begins to disappear altogether.”
Lenin goes on to say that the “fundamental rules of the community will very soon become a habit.
In its Statement of Principles, The Libertarian Party states that “…they (the government) must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action -- accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.”
The Libertarian Party Statement of Principles also states that “The principle of non-initiation of force should guide the relationships between governments.”
It was quite easy to find sample quotations which reference Anarchism. In fact, it was too easy. It merely depends upon which type of Anarchism one wishes to reference.
Interestingly enough, while doing search for Anarchism, one finds hits for Libertarianism and Communism. One might say that Anarchism utilizes the best of Libertarianism and Communism or, depending on the point of view, the worst of Libertarianism and Communism.
Why, then, are Libertarians thought to be right of Mussolini and Communism left of Marx? Well, not left of Marx; sort of right there next to him.
The answer is in the fact that both Libertarians and Communists believe that a central government is either totally unnecessary or minimally necessary. Government merely restrains the freedoms of the individual. Rules of community will become a “habit” and non-initiation will, in and of itself, be strong enough to “guide the relationships between governments.” Human beings will lose any desire they may have to want more than they need, want what is fair or want more than the other person has. No one will go without because there will be no governing body to interfere with the ability to obtain anything at either no cost or the fairest of costs.
Tariffs are duties paid by companies for the privilege of importing their goods into another country. Although tariffs are very complicated financial instruments - that’s what the call such things these days - the truth is that Ronald Reagan and his administration put the final touches on eliminating tariffs which companies would have to pay to import products into the United States. Note that there is no link, no proof here provided. The reason is that tariffs are based upon the product in question, the countries in question and many other factors that economists use to keep the rest of us in the dark.
Reagan, being a “student” of Milton Freidman who said that the private sector can handle anything that humanity could ever want, wanted to make it easy for American manufacturers to have their products manufactured by people living in nations which make it legal to pay workers less than subsistence wages and then import them back into The FUSA with impunity.
This completed the thinning of the American labor herd, which was begun in the late 1970s with the advent of automation.
To look at this from another angle, as soon as the top executives of American corporations saw the chance to murder American labor, it didn’t give a second thought to pulling the trigger. It sort of shoots holes (no pun intended) in the theory that, left to its own devices, humankind will ensure that everyone is treated fairly, doesn’t it? As soon as American executives found that they could improve so called “worker productivity” and, consequently, increase profits, they planned to keep the extra profits for themselves. They could have spread it out among those American workers fortunate enough to remain employed, but chose to role in it like little piggies rolling in slop. They laughed and reveled and played with the profits like they were some sort of new transformer toys.
Let’s look at the Preamble to the Libertarian Party Platform:
“As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.”
Yet, immediately following the above passage, the Preamble states:
“We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.”
Do these statements seem to be contradictory or at least dependent upon whose “individual’s rights” one is referring? In the case of the recent Rand Paul statement, the right of the property owner is obviously the object.
Could, however, an “individual’s rights” refer to the rights of individuals to enjoy the freedom to enter any establishment, public or private, that the remaining individuals in that society enjoy?
Is this left purposely ambiguous? I submit that, considering the premise of most of the Libertarian Party’s ideology, the rights refer to those belonging to the owner, the moneyed class. Possibly it could be argued that the term “moneyed class” in many instances is an embellishment considering that some who own small businesses like restaurants aren’t actually wealthy. However, they are in control because they are the owners and those who are forbidden to enter their establishments are being controlled, at least as it pertains to entering those particular establishments.
Putting aside the fact that the so called “Founding Fathers” were, themselves, the moneyed class of their time, my personal interpretation of the passage from The Declaration of Independence which reads, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”, the term “unalienable Rights” means rights with which people are born. People are born with the right to equal access to all accommodations offered to the public, whether those accommodations are privately owned or publicly owned.
I realize that The Declaration of Independence is not part of The Constitution, however, it can be looked at as sort of a preamble to the Preamble to The Constitution. The Declaration of Independence says to me, “These are the reasons why we’re cutting ties with the British Empire and, following our list of reasons, we shall write a constitution which ensures that our nation will not employ the unfair policies enunciated in The Declaration of Independence.” It’s a personal observation, admittedly, but one which I consider, if nothing else, at least legitimate.
Top officers of American based multinational corporations received an opportunity from the advent of automation and the virtual abolition of import tariffs to demonstrate what humankind would do left to its own devices. These people chose to keep the increased profits for the benefit of a few top executives of the corporations, to discard American workers like so many old dish rags and to export jobs heretofore done well by American workers to workers in nations which allow subsistence level wages, not to mention lax environmental and labor laws.
The argument has been made that these exported jobs have actually helped those in the slave labor nations by increasing their wages. It’s not that the wages haven’t increased. It’s that the point from which the wages were raised were so low that the new wages are still subsistence wages. Furthermore, the argument seems to be made as if to imply that the betterment of these slave labor nation workers played into why corporations actually sent the jobs to those nations in the first place. Call me cynical, but I find that hard to believe. Go ahead, you’re allowed to disagree with me. This is The Former United States of America after all.
Although some nation states have been referred to as “communist countries” throughout history, I submit that, in light of what pure communism is supposed to look like, there has never been nor will there ever be a “communist country”.
I’ve never even heard anyone even pretend that there’s been an anarchist nation state in history.
I do believe there have been Libertarian nations, but we refer to them as Fascist nations.
“Wait!” you say. “Libertarians believe in minimal or no government intrusion. It states that the only purpose of government is to protect the Mother Land or Father Land (I’ve yet to hear the phrases “Brother Land” or “Sister Land”, but that’s just me). We all know that Mussolini ruled over Italy with an iron fist and Franco didn’t spend a lot of time soliciting suggestions from Spaniards on how to improve his governing process.”
“You’re right,” I would reply.
However, I would remind you that both Mussolini and Franco did solicit input from corporations and that alliance, at least according to some antiquated, non corporate published dictionaries, was and is a mainstay of Fascism.
As an aside, I’ve referred to one of my favorite political talk show hosts on radio and/or TV in many of my articles. His name is Thom Hartmann. Ironically enough, my references have always been in the form of criticism. This reference is to the fact that Thom says that the difference between Progressives and Conservatives is that Progressives see people as innately good and Conservatives see people as innately bad.
This is an interesting observation as Progressives are usually behind initiating regulatory legislation and Conservatives are usually opposed to such legislation. This is an interesting observation as Progressives feel the need to mandate environmental conservation and Conservatives are willing to let corporations, or at least the people who run them, self regulate. This is an interesting observation as Progressives want universal health insurance while Conservatives want to leave it up to “the invisible hand of the market”, obviously manipulated by very visible people, to Ouija Board (a noun turned verb) the necessary financial decisions guiding the health of Americans.
I’d submit that, observing what people do when they’re left unattended with untold quantities of profits obtained from the backs of workers, they are innately narcissistic and self centered and unwilling to share. Hey, but who am I do question my favorite talk show host?
There are no Communist Party candidates running for office in 2010 of whom I’m aware and, if there are any such candidates, they have less than a snowball’s chance in the fictitious place referred to as hell of winning. The same can be said of Anarchist Party candidates.
We know, for sure, thanks to the media’s continuing to give Rand Paul, the Republican candidate for the US Senate from Kentucky, free air time, that there is a Libertarian dressed in Republican clothing running for office. If he’s elected, his influence will basically be the same as his father’s influence has been on American foreign and/or domestic policy. It will be the same as that of Dennis Kucinich and Barbara Lee. In other words, it won’t exist.
However, if the media, as it has done with the Pauls, continues to treat the Tea Party Movement (do I have that politically correct?) in the same perpetual open forum process, can we not at least give some credence that there may be a Ron or Rand at the top of the Republican presidential ticket in 2012? For, as much as President Obama has gone back on so many of his promises in the short time he’s played the present day version of “Queen for a Day” and as much as he’s been so blatantly obvious (or obviously blatant) a puppet of The Corporacracy, the president still looks more like a winner than most Republicans who are in that psychedelic spotlight at present. In fact, we’ve recently had a son following a father in that theatrical role with but one presidency separating them. Wouldn’t it be interesting to have a father-son ticket in 2012? To put it politely, this would most likely be more exciting than any sexual experience any member of The Tea Party Movement could have ever imagined in his or her wildest dreams.
One thing that I believe is certain about the Pauls is that they are not part of the political theater. They mean what they say and that, in conclusion, is what frightens me more than anything else.
“It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly American criminal class except Congress.” - Mark Twain
World Conditions and Action Items
Who Can I Be