Comments on: Why Would a Libertarian like Thiel Support an Authoritarian Candidate like Trump?

By: NotNZFarmer

Thu, 20 Oct 2016 07:37:55 +0000

By: David Ronfeldt

Thu, 13 Oct 2016 19:49:02 +0000

Good points about varieties of totalitarianism — I’m pleased and interested to see them. First I’ve heard about a possible “totalitarianism of the commons”. But it makes sense, for P2P theory as well as TIMN theory emphasize the limitations of their respective forms/models and the need for balances among them.

From a TIMN perspective, I would note that both Soviet communism and Nazi fascism both expressed state (i.e., I-centric) totalitarianism. Their differences lay in that the Soviet system eliminated the +M/market form and subdued the T/tribal form, while fascism exalted T/tribal feelings and required a suborned +M/market system.

Yet my main reason for wanting to leave a comment is to add that “tribes” may take on totalitarian forms as well — there can be a totalitarianism of the tribe where no one is allowed to think or act differently from others who belong. I have worry that some extreme right-wing conservatives here in America (and maybe Europe as well) have turned so tribal, and so intent on tribalizing others, that some kind of totalitarianism is being risked.

Again, I’m sorry to be so late with this comment, but I’m still this far behind in catching up on blog feed readings. Onward anyway.

]]>

By: Michel Bauwens

Wed, 03 Aug 2016 04:19:40 +0000

dear David, I have not yet found the time to read Communards, but will do so soon

I have asked Stacco to make sure we give it an adequate treatment in our 2 blogs,

Michel

]]>

By: Michel Bauwens

Tue, 02 Aug 2016 07:50:58 +0000

dear NZ farmer, I could cite you very specific statements by ancaps that decry democracy and democratic governance, for example on the p2p facebook group , which is unfortunately difficult to search (see for example the statements of chris and amber north with explicit calls for more inequality); and see how nearly every ancap design is based on purely individualistic dynamics and explicit attempts to remove democratic decision-making. Of course the intensity of the aspect will vary; but critiquing a movement does not mean that there is no common ground, for example, around the creation of open source commons; at the same time, to make these tools inclusionary would almost always mean redesigning some elements of it (bitcoin has a higher gini coefficient than sovereign monies, as you must know and is concentrating ever more, as is the mining of it); so as long as people know that they are dealing with right-wingers as you say, who believe walmart represents freedom but an association of workers represent oppression, then by all means, we can look pragmatically for common ground in the specific construction of commons, but not by obfuscating the anti-democratic and anti-egalitarian premises; that would be misleading youth

]]>

By: David de Ugarte

Mon, 01 Aug 2016 18:22:35 +0000

I find in your remarks Michel, a truly valuable and brave statement against the three totalitarisms you describe in this post. Thanks!!

]]>

By: nzfarmer

Sat, 30 Jul 2016 11:07:40 +0000

I am sorry, but your article lost me with this statement: “It (Anarcho Capitalism) is based on a distrust of democracy”

It is based on far more than this – the sovereignty of the individual, the right of privacy and protection of private property, the right of free association etc.. And it is not against “Democracy” per se, but of the abuse of state (military enforced) power – power that seeks to disenfranchise the individual at every turning point, to render them as mute pawns in some orwellian distopia.

Yes, there are flaws. The move towards market monopolies is one. It likely requires a regular purging of the system. Another problem is environmental – where resources as shared and cannot be privatised.

But the solution is not to dismiss Anarcho Capitalism as the enemy, rather to find those areas that are in common with your own goals – to find a middle ground.

Us mainly senior libertarian right wingers have been around a bit, and have much to offer to the debate on a future political system. We are not all oligarchs in the making, and many care deeply about the need to redress centralised power with stronger peer to peer networks.

Reading these p2p pieces gives me the impression that I am reading the thoughts of naive intellectuals who are instilling unrealistic ideas into young people – intellectuals who should know better, and who should study history, and perhaps take a plane ticket to Venezuela to see first hand how socialist dreams unravel.

Andrew

]]>