 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
The person Benjamin Tucker was known to me but until just last week I had not read those words. I had arrived at the same understanding and I condensed that understanding in Joe's Law.
Power produced into oversupply reduces the price of power while purchasing power (money) increases because power reduces the cost of production.
Here is the link to Josiah Warren's work:
Equitable Commerce
That is the work that Benjamin Tucker is describing as the Liberty path of Socialism.
Proudhon and Warren were commented on by Stephen Pearl Andrews before Tucker put his two cents in.
Here is Andrews commenting on Warren:
http://www.anarchism.net/scienceofsociety.htm
Here is Andrews commenting on Proudhon and Benjamin Tucker:
PROUDHON AND HIS TRANSLATOR.
Note in Tucker's work he claims:
"It must not be inferred that either Warren, Proudhon, or Marx used exactly this phraseology, or followed exactly this line of thought, but it indicates definitely enough the fundamental ground taken by all three, and their substantial thought up to the limit to which they went in common. And, lest I may be accused of stating the positions and arguments of these men incorrectly, it may be well to say in advance that I have viewed them broadly, and that, for the purpose of sharp, vivid, and emphatic comparison and contrast, I have taken considerable liberty with their thought by rearranging it in an order, and often in a phraseology, of my own, but, I am satisfied, without, in so doing, misrepresenting them in any essential particular."
So...Andrews takes up the challenge to correct any obvious (obvious to Andrews) misrepresentations that may exist in the connection between Warren and Proudhon.
It may be a good idea to know, exactly, what might be different about Warren's work and the work of Proudhon, when those 2 people, and Marx are grouped into a set of people who revolutionized political economy.
Note too that Warren's work is almost completely censored from any modern usage, and yet his work continues today in various forms that adapt to modern times.
Quoting from Andrews in his answer to the challenge of accurate representation of the facts (as Andrews saw them):
"Proudhon had the genius of discovery, a wonderful depth and clearness of perception,wonderful accuracy of statement, in the main, and wonderful strength of intellectual grasp upon his conception; but after all he is by no means, always, a luminous writer, sometimes because he had not reached the bottom of his subject, and sometimes because his love of epigrammatic and paradoxical statement betrayed him into astounding rather than convincing the reader. For example, he heads a long succession of propositions with the repetition of the statement that property is impossible, and proceeds to show, under each head, why it is so. But if property is impossible, then it cannot exist; and if it cannot exist, then it does not exist; and why should Mr. Proudhon write a big book to do away with what does and never did have any existence? Of course the literal meaning of what he says is absurd; but if you have the patience to study him intensely, you will find out that what he intends by this expression is: that property (in so far as he is here considering it, as that what gives increase) contains within itself a suicidal principle; that it is self-defeating; that it is constantly "killing the goose that lays the golden egg." His statement covers, but it does not convey, that idea. The idea is, in part, true; is profound, and profoundly important; but his way of saying it is afflicted with the same evil; it is repellent, self-defeating, and suicidal of his supposed purpose, that of being understood by the reader."
I think, but may be wrong, that you have a similar critical perspective concerning my writing?
Not much time for reading, I know, but there is so much more, such as:
Love, Marriage, Divorce
Andrews again (in my opinion) shows up as offering the more accurate viewpoint and having command of the power to convey that viewpoint better than most, a very competitive example.
I think the following word combinations may help:
voluntary cooperative genuine mutually beneficial productive competition versus involuntary antagonistic counterfeit mutually destructive competition
or
Liberty versus Legal Crime
or
Voluntary associations versus Involuntary associations
or
People using the power they have to make power abundant versus people using the power they have to take power from those who have it