Bruce Baechler Writings
These are assorted
excerpts
from and full e-mail messages on a variety of topics.
Feel free to send any you
might have to carol@carolmoore.net.
| On
Process
Issues | On Economics
| On War Tax Resistance |
| On
Anarchism | On the Libertarian Party
| On Nonviolence |
July 1991 on "Libernet"
Men tend to use a hierarchical model, while women tend to use a
networking
model. I have noticed this even among groups of anarchist men and of
women
in powerful positions in hierarchies. Obviously there are exceptions,
but
it seems to be a cultural phenomenon.
We
also have to remember that "the marketplace" is not culturally neutral.
|It has been controlled by h-style players for a long time, primarily
men,
|and those in control have certainly used violence, government and
religion
|to maintain their position. The ideal market, upon which the theory of
the |market rests, has only been approximated at best in the real world.
July 1991 on "Libernet"
I was on [Peacenet internet service] for a while, but didn't find it
very
useful, and the expense was not worth it after a while.
One
interesting thing I noticed was that Peacenet is a centralized model of
electronic conversation, while Fidonet is a decentralized model.
Peacenet
did not seem to improve very much over the year or so I was on, in
terms
of making it easier to use, etc. There were no offline readers, (like
Silver
Express) for example, except to capture raw data. The structure and
procedures
seemed kind of clunky. Fidonet, on the other hand, is constantly
improving.
It seems like every month there is some new innovation.
I
attribute this to the difference between centralized and decentralized
models. Peacenet is an administered system, with a central staff doing
the decisionmaking. As a centralized operation, they cannot chance
innovation
too much, because it would affect everyone on the system. They must be
conservative with their experimentation. This is analogous to the
centrally planned economies, and has the same result: the net does not
progress very rapidly.
Fidonet
is decentralized, analogous to the market economies. Individual sysops
can experiment, and have incentive to do so. The result is innovation
and
greater overall "wealth" in terms of ease of use, etc. It is also
cheaper
for the participants, and probably would be even if the users picked up
the costs of phone bills, etc. that the sysops now fund.
One
thing Peacenet does that Fidonet doesn't is advertise. They will tell
you
how to hook up with their service, while getting onto Fidonet is still
somewhat of a 'figure it out yourself' venture. So Peacenet probably
gets
more people who are new to telecommunicating. I get the impression from
some participants that it is their _only_ telecommunication activity,
which
seems like a waste of a modem to me.
I'd
probably go back onto Peacenet if someone got a libertarian and/or
anarchist
conference going. But I didn't see anything like that kind of thing.
The
most recent debate, which you mention, is taking place on the 200th
anniversary
of Vermonts' becoming a state, and is being downplayed by officialdom.
I've been informed that a number of Vermonters' have "Republic of
Vermont"
license plates. Sure, it's a replay of the "Conch Republic" in a way,
but
secession is not a totally frivolous exercise to everyone, as you would
have it. Will aquire as much info as possible, and post if it's
interesting.
January 2000 Essay for
circulation
to left anarchists
In
those days [the Nineteenth Century] there were "capitalists" who owned
their own companies and had a major hand in running them. That is
generally
not the case today. "Capital" is owned by a much broader segment of the
population, and is not the direct cause of exploitation. "Capitalism"
has
turned into "Managerism" in that the managers of the corporations
control
the capital and run the corporations but usually do not own the capital.
Next,
we have to sort out the two kinds of things that managers get paid for.
One is the work of managing. This is a legitimate work task, and
someone
needs to do it in all but the smallest companies. It is a power
function,
of course, and so there need to be limits on it. For example, in some
of
the employee owned plywood factories the boss was the only non-owner
who
worked there. Or some democratic places move people through the manager
positions and back to the shop floor after a few years. Some of the
traditional
management functions can be moved from the manager to the broader set
of
workers. For example, hiring and firing can be done by a committee of
workers
instead of the boss.
But
managing the companies processes is a legitimate type of work, and the
boss needs to be paid for it. (I will leave aside the question of how
much
they should be paid.)
The
other portion of money paid them is a part of the company's surplus
value.
Any (or most) viable company produces surplus value. It is a type of
synergy,
which means that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. You
have
workers, and consumers, and savers all contributing and getting their
wages,
prices and interest in amounts that satisfy them. What's left is the
surplus
value.
Usually
the surplus value is divided between the management and the workers,
although
in consumer coops the consumers get a piece of it and in capitalistic
enterprises
the savers get a piece. Surplus value is somewhat hard to pin down for
a company in specific terms, because for example a company may focus on
keeping prices low and so give part of it back to the consumer, or on
paying
good wages and give it to the workers, and neither of these will
actually
hit the company's books.
So,
in the companies that I see for the future, management will be just a
specialized
form of worker, the company's surplus value will be dealt with by the
workers
with attention paid to the consumers and to a less extent the savers.
Generally
the same rap goes for landlords. A landlord is generally a combination
saver and worker. Generally I want the saver amounts paid to be close
to
the general interest rate, and the worker rates to be roughly equal to
what they do. I don't really want to be a landlord -- I want to be able
to call someone else to fix my roof or whatever. I wouldn't mind
putting
up money to share a housing coop as long as I didn't have to do a lot
of
work with it.
Possessions
-- non capital items -- belong to people. You get stuff like envy and
theft,
but generally I've found anarchists to be better than others about
respect
for possessions. This surprises the hell out of right-wing
libertarians,
but it is true from what I've seen.
November 1997 on War
Tax
Resistance list
Right now we are in a relatively slack period, but eventually there
will
probably be another war. At that point we can expect the number of war
tax resisters to increase, and our work in promoting, educating and
networking
to increase too. If I am trying to encourage people to not pay for war,
I do not want to distract people from that by basically saying "war and
all this other stuff that we have decided is bad/moral equivalent to
war."
If some racist is pissed because his son is going to be drafted, and
wants
to stop paying taxes to protest, I want to welcome him as a war tax
resister.
I do not want to debate his racism with him. Most people have not
gotten
into macro-analysis of the causes of war and this stuff is going to be
brand new to them. And quite possibly more than they can deal with. I
want
to encourage direct action, not analysis. The real difference as I see
it, I guess, is that NWRTCC is at present somewhat of a support
committee
or affinity group, rather than (or in addition to) being an
organization
to promote war tax resistance. We like each other and we get along, and
partly that is because of the much broader shared perspective we have.
It is tempting to define ourselves in part along that perspective, but
I think it weakens the organization for future times.
November 1999 in a
personal
e-mail
Is your conscience's leading to resist war taxes more important and/or
mutually exclusive to family and health concerns? That is
to
say, if you ever had to choose between your war tax resistance and your
or a family member's health, what would you choose?
That has not come up for me. Partly this is because I don't have any
family
members to which I have responsibilities, but partly because I have
never
had wages garnished. I have had the IRS find an employer only once, and
that was after I had just finished a job (with a temp agency) at which
I had been working off and on for five years or so (different jobs,
same
temp agency employer). Other folks have had other experiences with the
IRS.
Just wondering, because I may find myself working for money over the
taxable
limit just to survive in Dallas (or Austin) and then some, money which
I couldn't afford to have garnished in order to be able support my
brother
through a major health crisis and possible job and insurance loss, or
perhaps
a similar situation for my mother. At some point, finding yet
another
job to avoid garnishment will be a problem for some employers.
This is too bad. If I had a situation where I had to work a straight
job
and couldn't get around paying the taxes and my brother or mother
depended
on me, then I would probably take the job and accept that I had been
placed
in a bad situation.
But life is generally not full of those kinds of choices. A lot of this
is seeing alternatives. For example, if you went to work with someone,
perhaps you could arrange things so you were technically a contractor,
responsible for your own taxes. Or find jobs you don't mind quitting on
two weeks notice. There are plenty of jobs out there.
Am I the only one who on some days finds that the WTR lifestyle seems
quite
unsustainable? I have to be honest and question my drive to lead
others to it.
Well, either way will open for you or way will not. There are many
people
who have quit WTR, but there are a number who sustain it. I've sort of
built it into my lifestyle, and I know a number of other folks have
also,
but many folks either can't do that or are very worried about the IRS.
The IRS is not really something to be worried about that much.
Especially
if you don't have much money.
Also, I will soon be at a young adult gathering doing this very thing
and
faced with the question, "How do you resist while going to school/grad
school and keeping financial aid?", and have no idea how to answer it.
This should not be a real question. There is no link-up between the
schools
or the FAFSA and the IRS. There is one between FAFSA and the Selective
Service, so draft resistance could be a problem. But I don't think you
have to worry about the IRS in school. People in school don't make
enough
for the IRS to worry about them.
February 1991 on
"Libernet"
[Replying to assertion an “anarchist” started WWI]
Oh? How did that happen? I thought WWI was between *states* and I know
of no state run by anarchists. Or do you mean that the assasination
that
was used as an excuse for the politicians to start WWI was committed by
an anarchist? I don't know the facts in that case, but the point
remains.
*Politicians*, not anarchists, start wars. I do know, from personal
experience,
that virtually every 'bad' trait that is prevalent in the general
population
is also present among anarchists. But so what?
January 1999 on the War
Tax
Resistance list
Someone wondered why the NWTRCC
[national
war tax resistance group] should "welcome" anarchists.
I,
and I imagine most anarchists here, am an anarchopacifist. I am an
anarchist
because I am a pacifist. I will not support an institution that has at
its base the claimed right to kill people, as does the state. Whether
it
kills people in wars, or kills people in the gas chamber, or guns them
down on the streets is of very little consequence to me. The essence of
the state is that it claims the right to kill people. I do not believe
that a morally legitimate institution has the right to kill, and so I
do
not believe the state is a morally legitimate institution. I am,
therefore,
an anarchist.
Anything
the state does has violence to back it up. If a law is passed, it is
enforced
by people with guns. They may or may not bring out the guns at first,
especially
when the offenders are middle or upper class folks who will be scared
into
obeying with other tactics. But they are there, and they will be used
if
it becomes, in their opinion, necessary. (One of the advantages that
pacifists
have that some others do not is developing an attitude of not being
afraid
of the guns, or at least not so afraid as to keep us from acting. King
and the firehoses, the Freedom Riders who got beaten, etc.)
I
live my life in such a way as to not support the state with my money or
my adherence or my labor. This seems to me to just be the most very
basic
thing to do, to not support such an evil institution. Its sort of like
the doctors oath, "first, do no harm". The main reason I have for not
paying
is war, because it is the biggest form in which state violence is used
today. But the other types of state violence are there too, and I won't
support them either, if somehow war was eliminated while the state
still
killed people in other ways.
By
far, most anarchists in the world are not pacifists, in my experience
anyway.
They will not renounce killing people. They don't want the state doing
it, and many if not all of them pretty much renounce first use of
violence,
but they will accept the idea of defensive violence and perhaps other
types
as well. They do not belong in NWTRCC, and the statement of principles
should not be written in such a way to let them join. But those of us
who
are both anarchists and pacifists should not be dumped on by others in
the movement and, essentially, "black-baited".
February 1996 e-mail on the Texas Libertarian Party getting involved with Republic of Texas group. [When its members seemed rational, before they kidnapped some neighbors and got in a standoff battle with police over a warrant related to charges of finanical fraud against some members. Several of them are doing long or life terms in prison now.]
This is, potentially anyway, a highly significant event in Texas
political
history. At this point we are just getting information and giving our
members
and convention attenders information about it. We are already on record
in the platform as calling for a plebescite on the question of Texas'
relation
to the US, and this is certainly relevant to that.
It
is a strategic and political issue, in that an independent Texas may be
easier to keep on libertarian principles than a continental government.
However, we will still need a Libertarian Party of Texas to promote
libertarian
principles in Texas, at least as long as we have a state.
We
are giving these folks a forum to present their views, not endorsing
their
cause or them. Specifically, we have invited a recent past chair of our
organization, Roger Gary, to speak to us in convention. Roger is not a
nut or a crank -- he is or was recently an elected commissioner of the
San Antonio River Authority. So I'm not concenred with negative
publicity.
OTOH showing support at a time when they are apparently getting little
elsewhere is a friendly act and should give us benefits from those who
support their efforts.
I
will point out that while the party is neutral on the subject of
independence,
(calling for a plebescite but not favoring either side) there is a lot
of pro-independence sentiment in the LPT. One year we could not find a
speaker in the party who would take the anti- side in a debate on the
subject,
and had to bring in a college professor from outside the party.
I
have heard no proposals to do anything other than invite a former chair
to speak at convention. Any other actions would be up to the convention
itself, or possibly the Executive Committee. To my knowledge none have
been proposed. Come to the convention as a delegate if you are
concerned.
October 1996
Went to the [1996 Third Party Presidential] debates last night. About
500
or so people altogether between Nader, Perot, Phillips and Browne. We
had
about 50, from Mass, Conn, Texas and Arizona. Usual chanting and
whatnot.
I
was a little embarrassed because the LP kind of horned in on a lefty
coalition's
organized rally, and didn't make any effort to relate Harry's issues to
theirs. The thrust of the rally was military spending, with other
issues
like Cuba embargo, gay marriages, and harrassment of immigrants, that
we
could have supported. Instead many LPers made a point of finding areas
of *dis*agreement and arguing with the lefties.
I
know a number of the people involved in the rally, including the chief
organizer (who is a Quaker and did some support for me in the past) and
I know I have always hated it when my rallies have been horned in on by
the Trots etc. So I was embarrased.
Fortunately
there were only a dozen or so LPers at that point, and we wandered over
toward the Perot rally, which involved quite a hike since the streets
were
all fenced off. The lefties then marched over, so there was a big mob
of
various persuasions.
Then
the Perot people (including Verney and Fulani -- what an opportunist!)
left for their party at the Polish Club and we started wandering around
to the other side. There were the Howard Phillips people with their
dead
fetus signs. Eventually the Boston contingent of LPers showed up, which
bolstered our ranks. We got into chanting contests with the Perot folks
who were there -- "Clinton's gotta go, vote for Perot" vs "Clinton's
going
down, vote for Browne".
As
far as I can tell there was zero media coverage of the protests. Not
surprising
-- Hartford's "civic leaders" have been salivating like a crazy over
the
debates and probably had the TV stations convinced not to cover
anything
that would mar their spectacle. National media was all safely tucked
away
inside.
I
got into an argument with one guy (a Browne supporter) who was
defending
Ross Perot because he is rich, and thought that it didn't matter how he
had made his money. I haven't seen that kind of attitude in the LP in
recent
years, so it kind of floored me.
Overall
the experience made me realize that we definitely need an organized
left
presence in the LP, to be able to relate to and cooperate with the
organized
left as possible, to educate the LP about some of the issues and
counteract
the kneejerk conservativism that sometimes is evident, and to raise
consciousness
about the differences in culture that are compatible with a libertarian
society. Things like voluntary communalism and the gift economy are
totally
foreign to most Libertarians, from what I can see, and are actively
opposed
by some of the Randians.
April 1999 in personal
message
Basically, I am two things in this situation. I am a WTR/peace
activist,
and I am a LP member. I am very slightly involved in the WTR stuff, and
not at all involved (yet) in the LP stuff. Actually I'm also an IWW,
and
have been involved in peace stuff on that basis, too.
So,
basically, when I go to a general purpose demonstration (such as the
peace
demonstrations) I go as an individual. I care about what the LP does,
but
I am not willing to hold a leadership position in the local party at
this
time (and that is what representing the LP would be).
Frankly,
I am interested in developing some of my other connections, so I would
probably be more interested in going as the IWW rep. That isn't because
my interest in the party has diminished at all, but I want to keep my
hands
in on other groups, too.
To: "National Platform
Committee"
Biography April 2000
for July National Convention
Here's
a little bio info on me. I joined the party in (I think) 1984. I had
been
doing anti-draft work in Dayton OH and had had some contact with the LP
on that. I am an pacifist (a Quaker) and that seems to me to lead
consistently
to libertarianism. I did a little volunteer work for the party in Ohio
and did a booth at their convention (among other things selling
anti-draft
buttons for 50 cents cheaper than the official party booth).
I
dropped out, and eventually moved to Texas. I got the LP going in the
Rio
Grande Valley (very south Texas) and then moved to Austin. I attended
the
local convention in 1984, and in 1986 took part in the ballot access
drive
which won Texas ballot status we have never given up. I was elected
state
chair in 1988, and held a variety of vice chair positions in 1990-96.
In
1996 I went petitioning in the east, working NC, VA, DC and NY.
In
1998 I managed Barbara Howe's campaign for US Senator from NC. That
showed
me how much I didn't know about campaigning in a real world,
professional,
win-rather-than-convince mode. So I enrolled in an MA program at the
Graduate
School of Political Management at George Washington University. I'm
about
half way through the program now. It is teaching me a lot about real
world
campaigning and how to apply it to LP campaigns -- and what things
can't
be applied.
I
was on the Platform Committee in 1991 in Chicago, and volunteered as an
alternate this year. I wanted to be an alternate because I am also on
the
Bylaws Committee and feel that is my primary responsibility. I have
served
on the Bylaws Committee in 1998, and as an alternate to the Credentials
Committee in 1998. I have also been elected a member of the Judicial
Committee
for about the past 5 conventions but we have not, fortunately, had to
meet.
I
am a member of the Poverty Caucus, and of the Quaker Libertarians. I
run
the newsgroup for the LP of Texas and for a Libertarian proportional
representation
group.
See Bruce Baechler
letters
on an important Libertarian Party Bylaws Debate at
http://www.jacobghornberger.com/bylaws.htm
Should We Nominate by
Primary
or Convention? by Bruce Baechler
We have a choice about the
proper method for the Libertarian Party to nominate candidates in the
year
2000. Some say that a primary is mandated. Others say that we can
nominate
by convention. What is our situation? How will our situation change?
How
will the situation change the mechanics of nomination?
See whole article at: http://www.lpnc.org/pubs/tarheel/articles/april_1999/baechler.html
July 1991 on "Libernet"
Societal pressure is going to exist. The question for libertarians is,
will it involve the initiation of physical coercion or not? There are
many
kinds of social pressure that do not involve the initiation of physical
coercion, such as strikes, boycotts, shunning, etc.
I
don't know of any contemporary anarchists, particularly in the United
States,
who advocate violence, except possibly in a very theoretical setting,
or
in, eg, a colonial or authoritarian society. Can you name me one?
The ways we relate to each other on the individual level help shape the
ways we relate to each other on the larger scale. If we tend to relate
to each other in authoritarian ways, we will tend to accept
authoritarianism
more in general. If we get used to "obeying our superiors" in the
hierarchy,
we will be more prone to obey the government.
January 1996 on LPUS
[H]andguns should be treated like any other thing that is contraband
for
prisoners but not for visitors. If and only if they make visitors give
up their cash, tobacco, etc before visiting should they be allowed to
force
visitors to give up guns. Should make the hacks more respectful of
visitors,
if nothing else.
For that matter, I can make a case for allowing prisoners to be armed.
Weapon control in prison does the same thing as on the street: it means
only the bad guys have them, and the others are their victims. IMO a
very
high percentage, if not a majority, of prisoners are morally the
victims
of kidnapping, (ie, in for drugs, etc) and this means they have,
IMO, all the same rights as anyone else.
I support efforts to teach prisoners methods of nonviolent conflict
resolution,
although I think that those efforts are better aimed at the elementary
and secondary schools if we want long term reductions in violence.
Prisoner rights is kind of a hot button for me. Last night I saw a very
good HBO special "Prisoners of the Drug War" which showed all these
folks
in prison talking about what they did and how they got there and what
life
was like for them. I think it helps put a human face on the 15-life,
etc
sentences. A good piece for a "fiscal conservative" anti-drug-law
campaign
(ie, "we can't afford the drug war").
Soapbox off
February 1998, to
LPUS
I am not sure that all libertarians support civil disobedience,
particularly
"of all sorts". I can think of some civil disobedience demonstrations
that
I would not support, although I am and have been a practitioner of
civil
disobedience for several decades.
Of
course there are different types of civil disobedience. Most
libertarians
would be supportive of people not paying taxes or not registering for
the
draft, for example, because those are laws that should not exist in the
first place.
I
think there would be differences within the party over people
trespassing
on private land, as happened with some anti-nuclear protests. There the
laws that are being broken are not in themselves wrong, but breaking
them
is a tactic that has been decided on by the demonstrators for some
other
purpose.
Mar 2000 12:32:39 -0500
From: Bruce Baechler
<baechler@mindspring.com
I hope people aren't into doing stupid stuff like randomly trashing
windows.
Personally I think that even trashing name-brand corporate windows is
not
a good thing to do, for various reasons, but I accept that this may
indeed
happen.
But as I understand it in Seattle ONLY name brand windows were
smashed,
and windows that belonged to small shops were consciously left
alone.
One person who was there mentioned a souvenier shop that had all
sorts
of pro-WTO crap in the window, but which was not smashed (as were
corporate windows around it) because it was obviously a one or
two
person operation. I hope folks here will have at least that much
respect
for ordinary people's stuff.
June 2000
You have two groups of people. One is committed to satyagraha, and the
other is just committed to demonstrating their disgust with
<whatever>.
(Actually there will be a lot of folks in the middle, too). The
satyagraha
group is disciplined in nonviolence, but the other group sees
nonviolence
as only a tactic, not an underlying principle.
How
do you get the two groups to interact so that an action can come off
that
is seen as pretty much united, not two small groups each doing their
own
thing, while respecting the strategic and tactical orientation of each?
You
can't really just say "No violence" because that just ticks off the
ones
who believe it is ok to, for example, confront the police with violence
when violence is done to them. They may decide to leave and set up
their
own operation, which will tend to be even more prone to violence. At
the
same time, the satyagraha folks don't want to be associated with the
violence
of the other folks.
There
are larger considerations, such as transport, housing, group
interaction
when the action is over/in recess. These kinds of things are better
done
as a single large group than as a set of smaller groups. Overall the
whole
action will be seen as one on the TV, which is where most Americans
will
get their entire knowledge of it.
I
think it is better to set things up as a larger group, and to have
different
and distinct demonstrations for the various types of groups, with the
understanding
that not everyone agrees with each other's tactics.
I'll
note that similar situations existed in the early 70's, with the get
arrested
/don't provoke them as the two poles. That seemed to work out ok,
though
I was pretty new at the time.
June 2000 Response to
Comment
to Criticism Working with Violent People Means You Condone Their
Violence
I am sorry you have declared me a violent person. I have not used
violence
since junior high school, and have no intention of starting now. But, I
do believe that it is important to work with a broad spectrum of people
who share my goals, not just people who have a belief in nonviolence.
I
will note that at least one group you work with, the Libertarian Party,
does not have a nonviolence position and has many people in it who
would
not have a theoretical problem with fighting back if attacked by the
police.
The LP does not believe in the initiation (first use) of force, but
they
do not take a position on defensive violence.
I
also work with the LP. I work with other groups, in particular, in the
DC situation, the IWW. The IWW has an old policy that violence is not
in
the workers interest, but many in the union are willing to hit back
(not
me). People I work with in the IWW were involved in the Black Block,
and
had had problems with some of the nonviolence folks, including you.
My
attitude is to maintain friendly relations with all, and try to
convince
all that the nonviolence method works best, but if they disagree to
continue
to work with them as far as I am able. This has not been a problem for
me with any libertarian or anarchist group I have dealt with -- they
respect
my views as a pacifist.
August 2000 on War Tax
Resistance
List
I agree that there did not seem to be a sense of satyagraha [in August
2000 protests where several hundred youth went on a rampage] in
Philadelphia.
Rather, it seemed to me that there was not-violence rather than
nonviolence.
That is, nonviolence was a tactic, but the concepts of nonviolent
struggle
did not seem to be there.
Now,
I was sick for most of the time, and in bed for most of the convention.
But this is what I felt from the stuff I participated in and from
talking
with others.
I'm
not sure of the cause for this. Perhaps the training has gotten too
much
into the mechanics of nonviolence and has not been also giving the
philosophical
foundations? You need both.