What is certain is that to believe in Tortuga in this space would have only talked about music and also in a rough, but do not rely on Tortuga, not for anything even the military service of the state in his foresight had provided trying to make him do the service for their country in the Navy, as a promise looks like a sailor.
But after days of heavy rain , here we are again talking about a matter which in its central importance, and for this you want to re-propose an old article of nine years, who knows rescued where, which deals with the now trite and hackneyed question of Anarchy (whatever that is) and the market (whatever that is).
For my part I can not help but warn potential readers and say that this thing has a little tired, as theoretical practices almost useless. Vista well stage we are going through.
market, property, anarchy
of Pietro Adamo
criticism on Charles Oliva last issue , Peter Adam reply explaining why, in his view, anarchism can not be "liberal."
N he recently I often be courted. Not only for my (admittedly exceptional) psychophysical virtue: because I happen to be courted openly anarchist. The experience is new. From right and left, secular and less secular, academics and movements Undeground , I receive signals of respect and appreciation. We live in clearance times (at least cultural). The fall of the schemes of socialism has apparently boosted all the traditions left marginalized and criminalized in the century. I think I see a kind of anarchy race (another example of purity and almost "untouched" on the left, libertarian socialism): The ultras of free magazines, newspapers moderate parties of the bodies of former Marxist left, the environmental movements and the like, the unrepentant former champions of the "communist revolution", are almost a race to take possession of some piece of anarchist thought, claiming affinity with their own paradigms. Good
Carlo Oliva, column "A" for many years, however, accuses me of making customs clearance of an inverse sign, ie groped - at par with D'Alema & Co. - to legitimize a particular political philosophy, anarchism in my case - with the use of the theme of 'liberal legacy. " Partly right. But before venturing into a specific response to the objections of fellow Oliva, which roughly accuses me, with my apology for ' liberal ethos, of playing the game of Berlusconi, I want to clarify the meaning of the vocabulary that I used and the relationships anarchism with terms (liberal civilization, market, private property) that seem to inspire in some uncontrolled visceral aversion.
If you speak in public of "civilization" or ethos liberal you can be sure to evoke a specific set of images: the rampant neo-liberalism, the companies of the duo Reagan / Thatcher, mass redundancies in the industries of the northern hemisphere, the intent of the Far East kids sewing Nikes for a loaf of bread, and so on . But from my point of view, the term has an entirely different meaning. The "ethos liberal" I mean the action taken in the course of modern and contemporary art against the concepts of absolutism, autocracy, hierarchy, privilege, on behalf of the ideals attached to individual freedom and human rights. Sure, it was an effort largely produced by those classes and social groups who were fighting for their own self-affirmation (the "bourgeois" Charles seems likely), but interpreted in a narrow sense the class phenomenon would ignore the very central instance, the pursuit of individual and collective liberation. In the throes of modernization subaltern groups have often seized the slogans of freedom, "liberal", reshape and second for their own needs. In many instances (revolutionary or less) slips of speech that are gathered to widen the sphere of freedom, universalisation of the underlying fundamentals and applying them in every sphere of human action. And the protagonists of this "slip" are often men and women from the upper classes lowest, claiming not only the freedom of religion or of the press, but that association, the sexual, economic, up to postulate a general redesign of the company based on the principle of free experimentation
against totalitarianism
of this ethos son is anarchism. Indeed, in some ways, only anarchism gave dignity of thought to these systematic trends of liberal civilization. And if liberalism has become, over the centuries, essentially a justification of the status quo, this does not prejudice any potential revolutionary. "Heroic era of liberal philosophy, which spread gradually over religion, science, economics and politics, from the sixteenth to the eighteenth century, the Liberals were saying more or less what I say, "admitted Paul Goodman, complaining the next" disaster "traditional" And that is why, "he concluded," that, after the nineteenth century, some of us liberals have chosen to call themselves anarchists. " 1
Within this ethos are however both the market and private property. Now, to understand how these "horrors" are not only integrated in a libertarian society, but it can not form an essential part, in my opinion one must look to the experience of the twentieth century not stopping the practical effects of the recent neo-liberalism. The phenomenon of totalitarianism, both in their determination of daily life, as in the classic cases of fascism and communism, and in that trend all'irregimentazione culture of dissent that we have learned to distinguish the actual functioning of western societies of the late twentieth century , has taught us some lessons that we can not give up, or that in any social system the measure of freedom is proportional to the power of choice, and that the centralization of the economic and political restricts the measures as necessary. The opposite process, that best embodies the libertarian project, is built on thesis of a general decentralization of these same options. But, if we assume some form of central unit that has plans and resource allocation, which probably reproduces the totalitarian logic, we should - if married to the bottom of the implications of the principle of freedom to experiment - trust in the free and spontaneous play interactions between communities and between communities and individuals. I call the "market" the framework within which lies the network of relationships, a framework which, in my opinion should be characterized by more or less intuitive correlation between supply and demand and free adaptation of human resources.
The difference between the "free market" capitalism of the late twentieth century, this hypothetical "market society" libertarian lies in the setting of background: when the "market" Berlusconi is designed, a little 'religiously, in an absolute faith in its ability to regulate inland exclusively economic (cartels in the narrow sense of "financial"), the "market" libertarian should be understood as a product of logic and of an imaginary economy dropped by the link / domain, or as the result of a free game in which cultural considerations also enter and social, which may take the aspect of individual decisions and collective decisions, community and transcomunitarie. Let me be clear: I'm not saying the community (whatever form it takes in practice) it is for the control of economic life, but that the community and the individual should be able to participate in the complex interactions each contributing its own specific socio-economic values, ethical, sexual, religious or otherwise, in a "free play", which requires a constant search for balance, however, reached only by way of (knowingly) Provisional.
Within this "market" libertarian, I believe the property is an important function. Too often it is believed that the slogan Proudhon "Property is theft" corresponds Apology Anarchist communism (as I think I think my interlocutor Oliva). In fact, Proudhon closes his pamphlet of 1840 with a violent attack on communism, which he accuses of violating "the autonomy of conscience and equality." His ideal was founded before the "equality of conditions, namely the means, not equality of wealth, which means it must be equal to the worker's work", and then - surprise, surprise - the "personal possession" , the only "condition of social life", and finally, the "free association, and freedom, which is limited to maintain equality in the means of production and equivalence in trade," the fundamentals of "one form of society possible." In a treatise later, he came to redefine the role of ownership in the community as "an instrument of security, freedom, justice and order" 2. I just mentioned
Proudhon, known as the inventor of just above slogans to show that the anarchist views on property are far from trivial dall'appiattirsi on its negation. While most of the libertarians of the late nineteenth century accepted the logic of communism, it is equally true that other trends of the movement - represented by the same worthy Proudhon, for example - have taken a risk with greater insight inherent in the idea of \u200b\u200ba totalitarian companies without owners, in which the only true "owner" is the state, community or other appropriate authority.
Market and anarchy
And after the experience of the early twentieth century, many theorists of anarchism have recovered the idea of \u200b\u200b"possession" as a barrier to the formation (or reformation) of the mechanisms of coercion state, first set in the frame of the aforementioned "market society" based on the interaction libertarian individual / community (which in some ways implies a constant risindacazione tangible property rights), emphasizing the other instances are linked to its membership possible (and perhaps desirable) collective state.
I think this picture is one of the most significant landmarks of some of the most powerful post-processing of the classic exponents of anarchism. The reference can be immediate in the case of Camillo Berneri, self-described "liberal", who declared himself in favor of "free competition between labor and trade cooperative and individual work and trade" 3. Or in the case of Colin Ward, whose gradualist perspective, decentralized federalist and appears to assume, as a basis for generalization of anarchic experimentation, a "market society" libertarian.
may be more nuanced and problematic in the case of Luce Fabbri who has repeatedly reaffirmed its commitment to the socialist model in terms of "collective ownership of means of production and exchange", but his repeated insistence on the 'association that multiplies and extends up to the limits of the known universe and the possibilities irradiation of individual action, "or" multiply indefinitely the projections of individual effort, "also seems to imply, with its references to a certain extent bound to a context focused on some kind of choice / competition between different options , a form of living together is not very different from the "market" libertarian.
I can now respond to criticism by fellow Oliva. Are substantially agree on the idea that traditions should be considered as a whole and certainly the world of contemporary tardocapitalismo owes much to a substantial moderate and static interpretation of the principles of liberalism. But that does not mean that all traditions should be put on the same floor. There are serious structural differences between socialism, communism, anarchism, and liberalism. The most compelling among them is that only the community ("real", of course) seems to imply structural - or at least that is the lesson of history - the fall of totalitarianism: "Many roads lead to dictatorship by democracy and not liberalism," wrote in the early thirties Rudolf Rocker, meaning "democracy" different versions of the principle of the general will - among which the best known at the time was that communist) 5.
Yes, Charles is right. I believe that you actually give free society without private property. In complex societies, non-tribal, from ancient Egypt to France until the Soviet Union of the Sun King, absolutism tends to totalitarianism has always focused on the denial of property rights of individuals. In the case of fascism, it was still accepted, though in a context in which they had taken for granted over the needs of the nation.
Freedom of enterprise
short, although private property appears to be not sufficient condition to indicate how "free" a certain company, appears to me that it represents a necessary condition for private property, and then, but not necessarily individual. The steps of Berner and Camillo Luce Fabbri above involves (in the first thinker explicitly) a social world in which the mechanisms of production are assigned mostly to cooperatives and communities compete against each other in economic terms. This kind of voluntary communism in an "open" (in which rules are in force no explicit prohibition of any form of private property) seems perfectly congruent with the principles of (Possible) libertarian society.
is true that the anarchist insistence on complete freedom (including the economic sphere) causes some to see the theoretical affinity with the ultra liberalism. This affinity is there and I think it is true. There are also obvious and marked differences. As I wrote above, the ideal "market" libertarian takes place in a context where cross instances not only economic, but ethical, political, social, and so on. The free trial anarchic power all the spheres in which man acts, not just the economic one: just the interaction of these spheres should be some sort of limit the scope of "market". The reason for which Berlusconi is exquisitely conservative liberalism is that it is a "free trial" limited to the economic sphere: it is known that, in terms of family, sex, religion, etc., the forzaitalioti are not as "liberal." But, my dear Charles, for anarchists the freedom of enterprise is, as it were, an essential principle, genetic: we can not sacrifice our deepest identity as a left short-sighted and protectionist statolatra allowed the right to appropriate the words of 'order of freedom. There is a risk of being on the side of liberals? This will run the risk (we can not do), taking care to emphasize, whenever we will have the opportunity, the difference between us and them.
ask me to choose between the oppressed and the oppressors, between "masters and who is not master." I'm surprised you're so sure you can safely identify the two categories. The social reality of the world tardocapitalista seems a bit 'complex to the sleeve of this kind. On large corporations sull'intreccio and business / political hegemony in this world we agree (in the negative, that is). But on other social subjects I find most difficult to pronounce: the civil servant, the best symbol of parasitism, the worker (para) state interest in protection of its privileges indefinitely (paid from the rest of the population), the opposite spectrum, the small businessman "creative" (there are, it seems), the merchant overburdened by taxes, I'm not sure you can tell which categories (if "oppressed" or "oppressors") these individuals belong to, even though the latter two are clearly "masters." And even if you speak of those who live in situations of real distress (the "downtrodden") are not sure you can share recipes and economic policies are usually proposed by them or by their spokesman, I seem to culminate with their insistence protectionism, in a strong enhancement of the powers associated with their state and pilasters.
1. P. Goodman, Distinct from Liberalism Is Anarchism? , now Patterns of Anarchy, edited by L. Krimerman and L. Perry, Anchor Books, New York 1966, pp. 55-56.
2. PJ Proudhon, What is property? , tr. com. Laterza, Bari 1978, pp. 268, 286, 290, 292; The size of libertarian PJ Proudhon , tr. com. edited by N. Berti, New Town, Rome 1982, pp. 190-191.
3. C. Berneri to L. Battistelli, unpublished in Letters, vol. I, edited by A. Chessa and PC Masini, Family Archive Berneri, Pistoia 1980, p. 19. Berneri calls itself "Liberal" in that same letter, but in the edition mentioned above the term has been incorrectly transcribed as "liberal" (if you see the original in the Archives of Family Berneri Reggio Emilia).
4. L. Fabbri, Road, Edizioni Social Studies, Montevideo, 1952, pp. 17-18.
5. R. Rocker, Nationalism and Culture , tr. com. 2 vols., Anarchism Editions, Catania 1977, I, p. 155.
Source: A magazine anarchist year number 253 29 April 1999
