Bill Bartlett wrote:
> On 3/7/07, Bill Bartlett <billbartlett at aapt.net.au> wrote:
> It isn't free, it is coerced. However the point "Andie" is making is
> that capitalism uses economic coercion (work for us or starve) rather
> than political coercion (work for us or we'll shoot you).
Yes, but this ignores the fact that I have repeatedly clarified that the force I am talking about is not necessarily applied directly to getting people to work, but rather in maintaining unequal property relations.
[...]
> If your understanding is that the capitalist class rules via physical
> force (politically) then you are likely to be inclined towards
> fighting the class war by taking up arms. However once you realise
> that they rule economically, it becomes apparent that this is
> completely the wrong strategy.
Oddly, this is the exact opposite of my conclusion from the same point of departure. As force is not required for Socialism, thus it is mutual productive capacity that Socialists need to form, not the capacity for force.
Political power is an extension of economic power, if you achieve economic power, political comes along with it.
Therefor my focus is on worker self-organized production and obviously, the question of the suitability of free exchange as a component of Socialism is crucial in the organization of worker-controlled enterprises.
> Even if you could defeat what is ultimately an economic dictatorship
> by taking up arms, it is doubtful such a strategy can achieve
> economic and political freedom.
I fully agree with this. In fact, I go much further here and say that insurrectionist revolution can only end in terror. In my view it is incongruous to embrace the Russian Revolution but denounce Stalin, as Stalinism is the only possible outcome of insurrectionist revolution. But, like so many other things, that is another topic, and one of only passing interest to me as organizing a violent uprising is not within my capacity even if I did believe it was worthwhile.
> So you see, this apparently insignificant "theoretical"
> misunderstanding of capitalism is the first step down a slippery
> slope towards inevitable defeat.
The important thing to understand is that Capitalism is not an efficient mode of production, and therefore it can be defeated economically.
-- Dmytri Kleiner, robotnik Telekommunisten, Berlin.
dk at telekommunisten.net http://www.telekommunisten.net freenode/#telnik