Garbage In:Garbage Out 00001010

[Ben Burgis Class] Proudhon’s System of Economic Contradictions: Chapter VII. Fifth Period. — Police, Or Taxation.

Chapter begins with an idealistic notion of historical teleology…

Proudhon considers state functionaries to be their own sort of economic class, the class of non-producers. He claims that this class must be distinguished from the capitalist and proletariate because their ability to exist depends on an income that can not be acquired through (market) exchanges and must be supplied through taxation. He also mentions a further division of the non-productive class into a class of monarchists and a class of democrats. This division results in two different forms of tax-based income: a monarchical form and a democratic form.

“What I propose to bring to light, and what the economists do not seem to have sufficiently understood, is that the condition in which the laborer is placed by this new phase of social economy is susceptible of no amelioration; that, unless industrial organization, and therefore political reform, should bring about an equality of fortunes, evil is inherent in police institutions as in the idea of charity which gave them birth; in short, that the STATE, whatever form it affects, aristocratic or theocratic, monarchical or republican, until it shall have become the obedient and submissive organ of a society of equals, will be for the people an inevitable hell, — I had almost said a deserved damnation.”

“According to the theory that we have just seen, the tax is the reaction of society against monopoly. Upon this point opinions are unanimous: citizens and legislators, economists, journalists, and ballad-writers, rendering, each in their own tongue, the social thought, vie with each other in proclaiming that the tax should fall upon the rich, strike the superfluous and articles of luxury, and leave those of prime necessity free. In short, they have made the tax a sort of privilege for the privileged: a bad idea, since it involved a recognition of the legitimacy of privilege, which in no case, whatever shape it may take, is good for anything.”

[Audio Book] Charles River Editors – The Wobblies: the History of the Industrial Workers of the World in the Early 20th Century

A 2-hour Listen

Jean-Paul Sartre – Marxism and Subjectivity

A translation of Sartre’s lecture at the PCI’s Istituto Gramsci in Rome.

This text is a slightly abridged translation of La Conference de Rome, 1961: Marxisme et subjectiveté, Les Temps Modernes, 560, March 1993, itself based on a transcript of Sartre’ s lecture, for which no script or other notes of his own survive, and prepared by Michel Kail

Fredric Jameson – Sartre’s Actuality

Fredric Jameson wrote a companion piece for the issue of New Left Review that the above was published in:

“As to whether we can expect a Sartre ‘revival’ to challenge the ongoing and often vacuous invocation of Heidegger one still finds everywhere in contemporary thought, I can testify that younger readers are still electrified by the descriptions of Being and Nothingnessand readily acknowledge the phenomenological and philosophical truth of its accounts of freedom; yet its terminology no longer seems to generate the fresh problems the institution of philosophy demands of its solutions. Instead, it seems to be the first Sartre, of the Transcendence of the Ego, which has again achieved philosophical actuality, in its insistence on the impersonality of consciousness and its displacement of the ‘self’ and of personal identity: this short essay indeed may be said to have heralded that structuralist and post-structuralist ‘death of the subject’ which is still very much with us today.”

“This is surely, for Marxists, the most interesting and subtle lesson in the Sartrean analysis of subjectivity today, where wholly new kinds of technology and labour have transformed our social life and seem to have left the older categories of social and political analysis behind them. For today, it is not particularly the notion of class struggle that needs reviving: we see it inescapably everywhere around us. What we need is some renewed awareness of what class consciousness itself is and how it functions. The Sartre of these early 1960s lectures has significant things to tell us about that.”

Kevin Carson – A Mutualist FAQ

“Note–In this FAQ, mutualist and individualist anarchism are treated as more or less synonymous, unless otherwise noted. The Anarchist FAQ at Spunk divides anarchism into two main branches, social and individualist anarchism, and treats mutualism as a subset of social anarchism. We prefer to treat individualism as a distinctly American form of mutualism, developed under peculiarly American conditions. The most famous American individualist, Benjamin Tucker, was more affected by free market liberalism than other mutualists. (Although this has caused him to be claimed as a predecessor by right-libertarians and anarcho-capitalists, he regarded himself as a libertarian socialist.) When this puts him at odds with the rest of the broader mutualist movement, we acknowledge it. In our terminology, therefore, mutualist anarchism will be contrasted to various forms of communal anarchism: anarcho-communism, anarcho-collectivism, anarcho-syndicalism.”
‘Mutualist theory first appeared as an organized thought system in the work of Owen and his interpreters.”

Iain McKay – Mutualism in the First International

Samuel Hayat – The method of “Naissance de l’Anarchisme”: for another history of political ideas

René Berthier – Considerations on Proudhon’s Theory of Property

Obed Frausto – Ricardo Flores Magón and Post-Anarchism: His Exile and His Ontological Anti-Essentialism and Becoming

[Video] Sublation Media – Is There a Biological Basis for Transgenderism

Pierre Ansart – Sociology of Proudhon – Chapter IV: Anarchism and Sociology of the State

Pierre Ansart – Sociology of Proudhon – Chapter VI: Revolutionary Theory and Practice

René Berthier – Proudhon and the problem of method

René Berthier – Proudhon and German Philosophy

Wikipedia – Legal History

Shlomit Lasky – How the Nazis Destroyed Berlin’s Thriving Fashion Industry