I find it amazing that people will demand Washington create work, but will not demand freedom from unnecessary work created by Washington. The fixation on work is the principal lever of the fascist state. But, the fixation on work is only a reflex of the role fascist state issued currency plays as the mediator of the means of life. The very same means the fascist state employs to satisfy the demand for jobs, currency issue, increases the demand for jobs.
So, what do Frankenstein, Karl Marx and the Occupy movement have in common?
Here is a fascinating quotation from anarcho-capitalist Ralph Raico:
It seems, therefore, that there are two theories of the state (as well as, correspondingly, two theories of exploitation) within Marxism. There is the customarily discussed and very familiar one, of the state as the instrument of the ruling class (and the concomitant theory which locates exploitation within the production process). And there is the theory of the state which pits it against “society” and “nation” (two surprising and significant terms to find in this context in writers who were supremely conscious of the class divisions within society and the nation). Moreover, it would seem suggestive that it is the second theory that predominates in those writings of Marx which, because of their nuanced and sophisticated treatment of concrete and immediate political reality, many commentators have found to be the best expositions of the Marxist historical analysis.
Raico’s argument is taken up by anarcho-capitalist Brad Warbiany: who chastises
It is thus interesting that those today who would call themselves “Marxists” support the very oppressive governments that Marx himself derided, while attacking the classical liberal underpinnings of Adam Smith and the classical liberals, who were likely very influential to Marx’s own thought.
It is so funny, when lame-assed Marxists get called out on their dumb shit by the very people who they purport to oppose, capitalists. The anarcho-capitalist has a better grasp of Marx’s writings than the Marxist who can do no more than distort and caricature Marx.
The heart of the eurocrisis is how to starve the proletariat without killing capitalism itself.
Creating a global average wage for labor power can only be done with a global currency; and the dollar is the only global currency. Against dollar denominated prices, every other currency is overvalued; i.e., wages denominated in all other currencies are too high. This is not to say the worker is “overpaid in these currencies — the opposite is true: labor power is ridiculously “undervalued”, and there is a crying need to address the hunger and misery of society. However, capital is not driven to satisfy these needs, but by the need to accumulate.
Wayne Price’s “Marx’s Economics for Anarchists” makes the fatal error of treating Marx’s Capital as a description of how the economy works. This mistake Price makes is on the order of treating Einstein’s Theory as a description of how H-Bombs work. I suppose, in some limited fashion, Marx does give something approaching a description of “how capitalism works.” But, this was neither his project, nor even the most significant aspect of his life works. Even from the point of view of an anarchist like Price and his audience, what Marx explains in Capital of economic interest is insignificant.
In response to my post, “The case for welcoming racists and gun nuts into Occupy”, Kirsten Tynan, who participates in the Missoula Occupy General Assembly, had this response on Twitter:
The nutty case for welcoming racists and gun nuts into Occupy (fixed that for ya! you’re welcome!)
She followed that up with this comment and question:
I believe everyone else has the right to identify for themselves whose participation is less in their own lives than others’. Does welcoming have a different implication in your mind than merely tolerating?
Her question sparked an almost week long conversation between us on the significance of the Occupy movement and the General Assembly as an association embracing anyone who wanted to fight the state. I am reproducing the entire conversation here (it really is very long and desperately needs an editor) because Kirsten not only challenged me on this issue, but forced me to think about and express my views on a host of issues, not the least of which is the nature of a post-state society itself, as well as the actual object of occupying the public space. To anticipate the entire discussion, my response to her relentless questioning gradually teased out of me that this object is nothing less than compelling each of us to take control of our own relations, and asserting control over our capacities as individuals. I was not able to express this at the beginning of the conversation.