So i've been reading some books and watching some documentaries ─ though i know it was not enough ─ about libertarianism or of libertarians' for, i don't know, maybe around 2 years. And lately, i'm really going mad.
At first i thought i got the idea, the bottom line, i was pretty sure that i got the bottom line of libertarianism. But after the latest reading and watching, i can officially say that i don't understand a fucking shit about it.
So, i'm not in the capacity of saying that i'm a big fan of Noam Chomsky for i believe that i haven't read enough to state that. But by far, he's been fucking up my head through only 2 books of his. But i hate him cause he fucked my whole understandings about libertarianism, which happened to be something i started to think as something worthwhile to adapt as something equal to life principles. Only after i watched the last 3 documentaries, which were Manufacturing Consent (1992),The Corporation (2003), and Requiem For The American Dream (2015), i found out about the existence of the opposite wing of libertarianism conception i got in my head: something named libertarian socialism, the left wing of libertarianism.
I know that's stupid, i know. I know that's very stupid like after more than 2 years i just found out that libertarianism itself got different stances on viewing. But dude fuck it i really don't understand why things should always be so complicated when it comes to this kind of philosophy.
FOR FUCK'S SAKE I REALLY DON'T KNOW SHIT ABOUT ANYTHING.
Okay so here's the case. All libertarian literatures i've been reading before Chomsky was taken from the austrian school ─ more specifically Ludwig von Mises, Henry Hazlitt, Friedrich Hayek, Frederic Bastiat, Leonard Read, and Hans Hermann Hoppe. I haven't really read Murray Rothbard nor Milton Friedman, well as a matter of fact i haven't even read John Stuart Mill nor Adam Smith, but i more or less believed that i got their points. So from what i understood, the austrian school advocates laissez-faire, capitalism, free market, competition, and private ownership. Some of them are having extreme radical ideas about privatizing everything which in this age of world condition would sound like literally total nonsense. But as far as anyone could observe, revolutionary and visionary ideas are often initially sounded like a meaningless noise from a murmuring lunatic whose routine includes going to a meeting of an exclusive, yet cheap, sun worshipper cultist sect every 4th sunday of December when the sun was at its lowest point, yet god knows what happens at the end of the day. To put it simply: everything is still possible nonetheless, even the craziest radical idea about anything.
But after i found out about libertarian socialism, i'm not so sure about the bottom line of the austrian school, or at least i'm not so sure about which values to hold on to, personally.
So before i read Chomsky, i always thought that the right values, the accurate values the whole world needs to hold on to to get to our maximum capacity, the values to be implemented, the only one that makes total sense and absolutely attainable is libertarianism, with neoliberalist economy. Every literature i've read made total sense in theoretical and somehow practical level. In fact i kept asking "why the fuck is this shit so hard to be implemented when the world (or probably most of the aspect of the existing conditions) itself already is in the earliest or perhaps middle phase of full functioning libertarianism?" for good. But then, i'm sure that i'm stupid stupid enough to think that i understand things. I am stupid that way and i am now aware that i'm not very capable of understanding the entire things i read, since the more i read, the more i try to comprehend, the more i believe that i don't understand a single shit.
Okay get back on to the chronology. Suddenly, somehow, i started to read Chomsky out of nowhere. So at some first glimpses of his ideas, my first impression upon Chomsky is that he sounds pretty much alike a marxist, which almost had me ended up reading at that point cause i've got enough garbage and i'll be having more to come. But then i kept reading and then at a point, i found out that he's actually a libertarian cause he's against the state, but it's weird cause he also attacks the private corporation. So i did a deeper research and found out that he's sort of like an anarcho syndicalist, to be more precise, he's a libertarian socialist. And i never thought that the meaning of 'socialism' and 'left' has shifted/broaden this far/wide from the traditional compass of political spectrum. Or am i the only one who understood socialism as an economic doctrine in which the authoritarian state is in control over the means of production? A condition where there were no wages, no profit for the workers, nor there were social classes? Nor there were foods nor goods, only famine and sky high taxes? Fucking hell i thought the definition of 'left' or 'socialism' as something people-centered is a contemporary term and only applied in america and some countries in the world, yet apparently socialism and left are globally referred to the beliefs which rely on the sole ideal where people have values on caring each other. Or maybe this is something that's called the 'new-left' i don't know.
So, only by finding out those things, something somehow just clicked in my mind about the austrian school after 2 years of not so intense reading as a proof that i don't understand this shit. That something is: if most of the things were privatized (like it already does) and government role is minimized to the most extreme portion, how do we avoid corporate tyranny?
That question was dawned to the condition where as far as i could get is: corporation is as totalitarian as any fascist regime or monarch or aristocrat in its organizational structure, say for instance: the whole, top to bottom, from the highest boards of directors to the lowest labors, rows of a corporation will be doing what the boss/bosses say or else you're jolly fucking out. Other simple explanation is who will inherit the company or some share of the company when the boss is like dead or something? It's that boss' right to decide, but one thing is 99% certain: any boss with the right mind won't just give a huge asset to some random homeless guy, will he? Got the point? No? Me neither.
Everyone has the equal right of opportunity in the austrian school doctrine, but anyhow some layers of spoiled pricks got more privileges in getting opportunity. And i'm not aware about the existence of any resolution to this problem according to the doctrine. Anyway that shit is not something to be emphasized upon, kind of incoherent with the main idea but fuck you it's my blog. What's more important is, the liberty and the tyranny itself.
The tyranny that's mentioned above is a condition where there were ruling classes. The most observable indication of this condition is highly concentrated wealth and power. So here's how the simple cycle works: the rich people fund the campaign > the candidate is in debt with them > the candidate win the election > the candidate gets into the office > he does what the rich people say since he's in debt with them > too bad what the rich people want is not a policy that mentions fair distribution of wealth, they want more money and more power cause fuck yeah that's what i would do either, when given a chance > or at least they request the elected to go forth for the policy that would maintain their power or more profitable toward their businesses when expansion is kinda far too much > the rich people is, according to past events, more likely to get richer than let down by the legislations, which means they're getting more powerful > now they go on finding another candidates for the next elections.
I'm pretty sure most of you are already aware about the presence of the cycle above. It looks like it's unstoppable isn't it? Well it does look like it's unstoppable, but it isn't. Maybe for now you think that's unstoppable, which is fine, at least you still know that's not something right. What we need to keep in mind is: it's not right, never forget that it's not right. It's against the democracy, but when we pay a little more attention to the population, most of the people are either don't care or just think "that's how it's been done for decades or perhaps century, we're still here anyway, nothing really bad happens, so that's okay with me." No! Just because we're accustomed to something doesn't mean it's the right thing, think about that for a while. Don't be stuck in their designed frame of mind, don't think the way they want you to think. If the entire generation think that way, to hell with any idea of liberty and to hell the poors!
The only thing that's in between the private corporations or institutions and what they're after is the few conscious part of the public like Chomsky. And if there were more than one Chomsky in the public, like a million more, the tyrant sons of bitches are fucked, really really fucked. That's why one of their aims is social control, and they've done it very well, like very very well.
The private sectors are controlling the society through sophisticated means like the media and advertising industry. People are controlled mentally through their subtle propaganda. They turn the public into fabricated consumers whose idea of decent life is what they see in the, say the media or the internet and similar sorts. When the public is turned into bunch of fucking irrational jackasses, it's not that hard to control the society. Controlling people through physical atrocities is one thing, but it's old fashion, and it's very fragile to address (as we can name hundreds of past events about social revolution against the cruel authority), but controlling people's minds? Making people unable of critical thinking? Making people irrational? Making people stupid? God that's the most genius thing ever when it comes to indoctrination in massive scale. They want us to be passive and obedient just so we don't do anything when they shove their dicks to our throats.
That tyrannical situation would be against the basic principles of liberty and libertarianism itself, or in other words, the corporation in that respect would be as good as any state, well might be even worse. The dominating tyrant is also against the principles of free market and absolutely will abolish the competition ─ turning public consumers into a vanguard instead of making them 'the authority'. The basic ideal value of market, which is "informed consumers making rational choices" becomes obsolete. There will be no real market, only the prosperous few laughing at the stupid public who are buying the newest gadgets with the newest shoes and newest clothes and all that kind of stupidly expensive shits, while maneuvering on making the legislation that's been passed to be even more profitable.
The tyrant corporation that operates transnationally will be even worse than any state cause they'll be reformed into a concrete imperialistic figure which doesn't only dominate the economy but also every possible aspect of human's life's, globally. And yet there's no substitution strong enough to fight it while it attempts, through their products or power or god knows what, to fullfill the role which was used to be state's ─ as an authority which others submit to. There's nothing strong enough to fight it except the public, but as far as few could observe, the public is in their hands.
Oh wait, there's another figure strong enough beside the public, know who? Another tyrant private corporation in pursuit of more and more power leaving the public fucking blind and fucking stupid and fucking obedient and fucking passive and god damn fucking poor.
Or maybe even worse than corporate tyranny, it might be the international bankers imperium, the dynasty that has been ruthlessly shoving its huge mandingo dick to everyone's asses since the early 20th century. I can explain about this international bankers and shit but it will take another long post to do so. I recommend you to watch Zeitgeist (2007), and i guarantee that you'll be like "holy jumping fucking shitballs" afterward.
So i guess the anarcho libertarian/the austrian school will juxtapose the plausible (in fact has already been happening) tyranny outcome above with the argumentation of 'the role of the government in the market' during the past century, which will sound more or less like this i suppose:
"The tyranny could only be possible to exist through means of protectionism, interventionism or any state action which interfere the rhythm of the free market. Without the intervention of the state in the market, this rate of dominations and shenanigans from only some specific corporations or institutions would never occur in the first place. In fact, if Woodrow Wilson were wise enough to refuse the sponsor of the banker assholes, this stupid fraudulent system which dominate the world wouldn't even take place. And who was Wilson representing when he pushed forward the central bank? You're right, the god damn state. That's why getting rid of it is something essential. We don't need to bother to find ways to avoid the tyranny if there were no state intervention in the market beforehand."
So they'll argue that this whole happening thing in the world is not the real capitalism, it's either corporate mercantilism or bankers imperium or socialism at its subtlest form. And i agree with this one whatsoever. Bitch this article is not a pure critic article, i'm merely whining on it.
Or no... it's communism, the international communism. This tyranny sounds a lot like a highly developed and sophisticated communism to me. Call it stalinism or leninism, i say it's communism from one point and another, especially about the the fucking poor and hungry side of society. Knock it off lefties, i'm on your side now, although i don't think we share the same role models.
The language used to write this post sounds kind of marxist isn't it? Yeah gotta admit that the arguments from Chomsky shared the same foundations, that's why it belongs to left. But the approach to the solution is howsoever different, fundamentally. The one principle that Chomsky advocates is "there's a better value to hold on to for society beside making profit, it's sympathy. A society that cares for each other." And that kind of society is ideally to be attained through the real democracy, not this illusionary democracy. The real democracy where public opinion and policy is not very sharply disconnected.
Okay back to the frame of the post. So this is where i get more lost in comprehending the austrian school, this very question: "how's privatization gonna work without harming one of the very fundamental principles of libertarianism itself: the liberty? And what does the doctrine propose on how to get out of the current condition?"
This post is now too long and the next part is super complicated to write it involves a lot of philosophy and coffee and cigarettes and chips and masturbations. Now if you excuse me for a while, give me some time to finish the topic a bit later aight. Chomsky is a hell of an enlightening figure, i suggest you to put a deeper attention to his thoughts.
You'll laugh very loud after knowing how naive we truly are.
I still laugh whenever i look in the mirror.
And i cry afterward,
on the inside, of course, not literally shedding tears.
God this place is fucking awful.
At first i thought i got the idea, the bottom line, i was pretty sure that i got the bottom line of libertarianism. But after the latest reading and watching, i can officially say that i don't understand a fucking shit about it.
So, i'm not in the capacity of saying that i'm a big fan of Noam Chomsky for i believe that i haven't read enough to state that. But by far, he's been fucking up my head through only 2 books of his. But i hate him cause he fucked my whole understandings about libertarianism, which happened to be something i started to think as something worthwhile to adapt as something equal to life principles. Only after i watched the last 3 documentaries, which were Manufacturing Consent (1992),The Corporation (2003), and Requiem For The American Dream (2015), i found out about the existence of the opposite wing of libertarianism conception i got in my head: something named libertarian socialism, the left wing of libertarianism.
I know that's stupid, i know. I know that's very stupid like after more than 2 years i just found out that libertarianism itself got different stances on viewing. But dude fuck it i really don't understand why things should always be so complicated when it comes to this kind of philosophy.
FOR FUCK'S SAKE I REALLY DON'T KNOW SHIT ABOUT ANYTHING.
Okay so here's the case. All libertarian literatures i've been reading before Chomsky was taken from the austrian school ─ more specifically Ludwig von Mises, Henry Hazlitt, Friedrich Hayek, Frederic Bastiat, Leonard Read, and Hans Hermann Hoppe. I haven't really read Murray Rothbard nor Milton Friedman, well as a matter of fact i haven't even read John Stuart Mill nor Adam Smith, but i more or less believed that i got their points. So from what i understood, the austrian school advocates laissez-faire, capitalism, free market, competition, and private ownership. Some of them are having extreme radical ideas about privatizing everything which in this age of world condition would sound like literally total nonsense. But as far as anyone could observe, revolutionary and visionary ideas are often initially sounded like a meaningless noise from a murmuring lunatic whose routine includes going to a meeting of an exclusive, yet cheap, sun worshipper cultist sect every 4th sunday of December when the sun was at its lowest point, yet god knows what happens at the end of the day. To put it simply: everything is still possible nonetheless, even the craziest radical idea about anything.
But after i found out about libertarian socialism, i'm not so sure about the bottom line of the austrian school, or at least i'm not so sure about which values to hold on to, personally.
So before i read Chomsky, i always thought that the right values, the accurate values the whole world needs to hold on to to get to our maximum capacity, the values to be implemented, the only one that makes total sense and absolutely attainable is libertarianism, with neoliberalist economy. Every literature i've read made total sense in theoretical and somehow practical level. In fact i kept asking "why the fuck is this shit so hard to be implemented when the world (or probably most of the aspect of the existing conditions) itself already is in the earliest or perhaps middle phase of full functioning libertarianism?" for good. But then, i'm sure that i'm stupid stupid enough to think that i understand things. I am stupid that way and i am now aware that i'm not very capable of understanding the entire things i read, since the more i read, the more i try to comprehend, the more i believe that i don't understand a single shit.
Okay get back on to the chronology. Suddenly, somehow, i started to read Chomsky out of nowhere. So at some first glimpses of his ideas, my first impression upon Chomsky is that he sounds pretty much alike a marxist, which almost had me ended up reading at that point cause i've got enough garbage and i'll be having more to come. But then i kept reading and then at a point, i found out that he's actually a libertarian cause he's against the state, but it's weird cause he also attacks the private corporation. So i did a deeper research and found out that he's sort of like an anarcho syndicalist, to be more precise, he's a libertarian socialist. And i never thought that the meaning of 'socialism' and 'left' has shifted/broaden this far/wide from the traditional compass of political spectrum. Or am i the only one who understood socialism as an economic doctrine in which the authoritarian state is in control over the means of production? A condition where there were no wages, no profit for the workers, nor there were social classes? Nor there were foods nor goods, only famine and sky high taxes? Fucking hell i thought the definition of 'left' or 'socialism' as something people-centered is a contemporary term and only applied in america and some countries in the world, yet apparently socialism and left are globally referred to the beliefs which rely on the sole ideal where people have values on caring each other. Or maybe this is something that's called the 'new-left' i don't know.
So, only by finding out those things, something somehow just clicked in my mind about the austrian school after 2 years of not so intense reading as a proof that i don't understand this shit. That something is: if most of the things were privatized (like it already does) and government role is minimized to the most extreme portion, how do we avoid corporate tyranny?
That question was dawned to the condition where as far as i could get is: corporation is as totalitarian as any fascist regime or monarch or aristocrat in its organizational structure, say for instance: the whole, top to bottom, from the highest boards of directors to the lowest labors, rows of a corporation will be doing what the boss/bosses say or else you're jolly fucking out. Other simple explanation is who will inherit the company or some share of the company when the boss is like dead or something? It's that boss' right to decide, but one thing is 99% certain: any boss with the right mind won't just give a huge asset to some random homeless guy, will he? Got the point? No? Me neither.
Everyone has the equal right of opportunity in the austrian school doctrine, but anyhow some layers of spoiled pricks got more privileges in getting opportunity. And i'm not aware about the existence of any resolution to this problem according to the doctrine. Anyway that shit is not something to be emphasized upon, kind of incoherent with the main idea but fuck you it's my blog. What's more important is, the liberty and the tyranny itself.
The tyranny that's mentioned above is a condition where there were ruling classes. The most observable indication of this condition is highly concentrated wealth and power. So here's how the simple cycle works: the rich people fund the campaign > the candidate is in debt with them > the candidate win the election > the candidate gets into the office > he does what the rich people say since he's in debt with them > too bad what the rich people want is not a policy that mentions fair distribution of wealth, they want more money and more power cause fuck yeah that's what i would do either, when given a chance > or at least they request the elected to go forth for the policy that would maintain their power or more profitable toward their businesses when expansion is kinda far too much > the rich people is, according to past events, more likely to get richer than let down by the legislations, which means they're getting more powerful > now they go on finding another candidates for the next elections.
I'm pretty sure most of you are already aware about the presence of the cycle above. It looks like it's unstoppable isn't it? Well it does look like it's unstoppable, but it isn't. Maybe for now you think that's unstoppable, which is fine, at least you still know that's not something right. What we need to keep in mind is: it's not right, never forget that it's not right. It's against the democracy, but when we pay a little more attention to the population, most of the people are either don't care or just think "that's how it's been done for decades or perhaps century, we're still here anyway, nothing really bad happens, so that's okay with me." No! Just because we're accustomed to something doesn't mean it's the right thing, think about that for a while. Don't be stuck in their designed frame of mind, don't think the way they want you to think. If the entire generation think that way, to hell with any idea of liberty and to hell the poors!
The only thing that's in between the private corporations or institutions and what they're after is the few conscious part of the public like Chomsky. And if there were more than one Chomsky in the public, like a million more, the tyrant sons of bitches are fucked, really really fucked. That's why one of their aims is social control, and they've done it very well, like very very well.
The private sectors are controlling the society through sophisticated means like the media and advertising industry. People are controlled mentally through their subtle propaganda. They turn the public into fabricated consumers whose idea of decent life is what they see in the, say the media or the internet and similar sorts. When the public is turned into bunch of fucking irrational jackasses, it's not that hard to control the society. Controlling people through physical atrocities is one thing, but it's old fashion, and it's very fragile to address (as we can name hundreds of past events about social revolution against the cruel authority), but controlling people's minds? Making people unable of critical thinking? Making people irrational? Making people stupid? God that's the most genius thing ever when it comes to indoctrination in massive scale. They want us to be passive and obedient just so we don't do anything when they shove their dicks to our throats.
That tyrannical situation would be against the basic principles of liberty and libertarianism itself, or in other words, the corporation in that respect would be as good as any state, well might be even worse. The dominating tyrant is also against the principles of free market and absolutely will abolish the competition ─ turning public consumers into a vanguard instead of making them 'the authority'. The basic ideal value of market, which is "informed consumers making rational choices" becomes obsolete. There will be no real market, only the prosperous few laughing at the stupid public who are buying the newest gadgets with the newest shoes and newest clothes and all that kind of stupidly expensive shits, while maneuvering on making the legislation that's been passed to be even more profitable.
The tyrant corporation that operates transnationally will be even worse than any state cause they'll be reformed into a concrete imperialistic figure which doesn't only dominate the economy but also every possible aspect of human's life's, globally. And yet there's no substitution strong enough to fight it while it attempts, through their products or power or god knows what, to fullfill the role which was used to be state's ─ as an authority which others submit to. There's nothing strong enough to fight it except the public, but as far as few could observe, the public is in their hands.
Oh wait, there's another figure strong enough beside the public, know who? Another tyrant private corporation in pursuit of more and more power leaving the public fucking blind and fucking stupid and fucking obedient and fucking passive and god damn fucking poor.
Or maybe even worse than corporate tyranny, it might be the international bankers imperium, the dynasty that has been ruthlessly shoving its huge mandingo dick to everyone's asses since the early 20th century. I can explain about this international bankers and shit but it will take another long post to do so. I recommend you to watch Zeitgeist (2007), and i guarantee that you'll be like "holy jumping fucking shitballs" afterward.
So i guess the anarcho libertarian/the austrian school will juxtapose the plausible (in fact has already been happening) tyranny outcome above with the argumentation of 'the role of the government in the market' during the past century, which will sound more or less like this i suppose:
"The tyranny could only be possible to exist through means of protectionism, interventionism or any state action which interfere the rhythm of the free market. Without the intervention of the state in the market, this rate of dominations and shenanigans from only some specific corporations or institutions would never occur in the first place. In fact, if Woodrow Wilson were wise enough to refuse the sponsor of the banker assholes, this stupid fraudulent system which dominate the world wouldn't even take place. And who was Wilson representing when he pushed forward the central bank? You're right, the god damn state. That's why getting rid of it is something essential. We don't need to bother to find ways to avoid the tyranny if there were no state intervention in the market beforehand."
So they'll argue that this whole happening thing in the world is not the real capitalism, it's either corporate mercantilism or bankers imperium or socialism at its subtlest form. And i agree with this one whatsoever. Bitch this article is not a pure critic article, i'm merely whining on it.
Or no... it's communism, the international communism. This tyranny sounds a lot like a highly developed and sophisticated communism to me. Call it stalinism or leninism, i say it's communism from one point and another, especially about the the fucking poor and hungry side of society. Knock it off lefties, i'm on your side now, although i don't think we share the same role models.
The language used to write this post sounds kind of marxist isn't it? Yeah gotta admit that the arguments from Chomsky shared the same foundations, that's why it belongs to left. But the approach to the solution is howsoever different, fundamentally. The one principle that Chomsky advocates is "there's a better value to hold on to for society beside making profit, it's sympathy. A society that cares for each other." And that kind of society is ideally to be attained through the real democracy, not this illusionary democracy. The real democracy where public opinion and policy is not very sharply disconnected.
Okay back to the frame of the post. So this is where i get more lost in comprehending the austrian school, this very question: "how's privatization gonna work without harming one of the very fundamental principles of libertarianism itself: the liberty? And what does the doctrine propose on how to get out of the current condition?"
This post is now too long and the next part is super complicated to write it involves a lot of philosophy and coffee and cigarettes and chips and masturbations. Now if you excuse me for a while, give me some time to finish the topic a bit later aight. Chomsky is a hell of an enlightening figure, i suggest you to put a deeper attention to his thoughts.
You'll laugh very loud after knowing how naive we truly are.
I still laugh whenever i look in the mirror.
And i cry afterward,
on the inside, of course, not literally shedding tears.
God this place is fucking awful.
0 comment(s):
Post a Comment