.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Mutualist Blog: Free Market Anti-Capitalism

To dissolve, submerge, and cause to disappear the political or governmental system in the economic system by reducing, simplifying, decentralizing and suppressing, one after another, all the wheels of this great machine, which is called the Government or the State. --Proudhon, General Idea of the Revolution

My Photo
Location: Northwest Arkansas, United States

Friday, May 30, 2008

Chapter Thirteen Draft

A new draft chapter in the anarchist organization theory project:

Chapter Thirteen. Dissolution of the State in Society
A. Revolution vs. Evolution
B. Dialectical Libertarianism and the Order of Attack
C. The "Free Market" as Hegemonic Ideology
D. Gradualism and the "Magic Button"
E. "Dissolving the State in the Economy"
F. Counter-Institutions
G. Counter-Institutions and Counter-Economics
H. The Two Economies and the Shifting Correlation of Forces
I. Privatizing State Property


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great chapter! But footnote 8 attributes to me a quote that I think is actually Chris Sciabarra's -- anyway it's not mine.

May 30, 2008 6:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

nice... any idea of how long will it take you to finish?

in time, i have made a portuguese translation of a part of "studies in...", it´s published on www.açao-humana.blogspot.com , hope you don´t mind i did it without saying before

May 30, 2008 8:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

nice work... any idea of how long will it take you to finish it?

in time... i have made a portuguese translation of a part of "studies in...", it´s published on www.acao-humana.blogspot.com, hope you don´t mind i did without asking permission

May 30, 2008 8:56 AM  
Blogger Kevin Carson said...

Thanks for the tip, Roderick. I'll check the original sources to sort out who said what, and correct it in the next revised version.

Thanks very much for your work on the translation, Rafael. But Blogger gives me a "Blog Not Found" notice.

May 31, 2008 12:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


i´ve typed it wrong

May 31, 2008 7:59 AM  
Blogger Kevin Carson said...

I see you've translated several long passages. Thanks again.

May 31, 2008 10:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

James Jannard, eyeware mogul, has brought us the first "Universal Camera" offering. He's not exactly anti-establishment but he is anti-institution-as-usual. Would his Red One company be a counter-institution?

I like to think od Red One cameras as the multi-use transformer technology that extends advanced simplicity with economy of diversification scales.

June 01, 2008 2:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"...such persons are often victims not only of structural dislocations in the economy caused by
the economic machinations of the ruling class, but of barriers to market entry maintained by
those who wish not to face competition. Welfare is the means by which resentment against
these effects is kept under control; welfare recipients ought not be looked at as members of a
dominant class, but as enemies of the dominant class whose silence is purchased with state

Consolation Prize politics...

June 01, 2008 3:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Again a very interesting chapter, I look forward to the completed work. I've read through section D and have found your argument on gradualism with Charles Johnson to be particularly interesting.

I'm facing a somewhat related decision in the upcoming primary election in California, where there is a proposition on the ballot (a constitutional amendment) which would accomplish two things: End eminent domain takings for transfer to other private interests, and end rent control across the state.

I assume that ending so-called eminent domain "abuse" is unequivocally good. There is no libertarian reason I can think of to defend arbitrary transfers of property from one owner to another. And the "vulgar" libertarian position on ending rent control is that it would be unequivocally good. But I take it from your writings that you may think this is unstrategic, that abolition of protections for landlords should precede any legislation eliminating ameliorative legislation like rent controls.

I wonder what your opinion would be here. I suppose I've long been an "atomistic libertarian", and previously I would have reflexively supported this sort of thing. I still lean towards Johnson's "absolutist abolitionist" position that it is unconscionable to persist in immoral behavior, regardless of the order you stop it in or the potential consequences. But I'm still interested in hearing your thoughts, particularly on something concrete that will potentially - after tomorrow - affect the lives about 1 million mostly low-income Californians. I'm surprised to find myself, in light of your persuasive arguments, to be balking somewhat.

June 02, 2008 12:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is a subtle catch with simple and immediate abolition of rent control; it gives some landlords a windfall gain at the expense of others. I described it here as follows:-

Actually, there is a subtlety here, the same one that escapes many Georgists.

Suppose A rents to B and rent control comes in. A then sells the property to C. If you just come along with the idea "rent control steals from landlords", you will get the idea that C is a victim. He isn't - A was. C faced no loss because A had to sell at a price with his own loss embedded in it. Abolishing rent control wouldn't be getting B to make restitution, it would be providing a gain for C at A's expense. If C then sold to D, he would realise the whole gain because the new price would be higher to reflect it.

June 03, 2008 2:58 AM  
Blogger Kevin Carson said...


I don't know enough about cameras to make head or tail of what I found through a Google search, but if it has the effects you describe it would certainly lower entry barriers and reduce the power of the corporate dinosaurs.


PML probably beat me to it. Roderick Long also dealt with the issue in an old article, arguing that (say) the repeal of a monopoly should precede repeal of a price control--otherwise the monopolist would profit from the legacy effects of his state-created monopoly position until new competitors could enter the market.

Beyond that, I don't know enough about rent control in California to comment intelligently.

June 03, 2008 9:31 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home