Also from Innovator (Sep 1965): “I/t/a — Alphabet of the Future?”, an article by El Ray on “the exciting educational possibilities” of English spelling reform, based on a 44 character phonetic alphabet. Illustrated with a hand written quotation from Bastiat’s “The Law,” transliterated into the new system.

is digging through some old copies of the later issues of Innovator (ca. 1969 at the moment), including a short little article on ecology without/beyond statism, by “Ho Chi Zen” (one of Kerry Thornley’s counterculture alter egos).

is also missing Adrienne Rich today. 1929-2012. R.I.P. Today is a day for sad news, I guess.

“… [T]he very meaning of art, as I understand it, is incompatible with the cynical politics of this administration … [art] means nothing if it simply decorates the dinner table of the power which holds it hostage.” – Adrienne Rich, 1997

“… Crossing the bridge I need all my nerve to trust to the man-made cables.

The blades on that machine could cut you to ribbons but its function is humane. Is this all I can say of these delicate books, scythe-curved intentions you and I handle? I’d rather taste blood, yours or mine, flowing from a sudden slash, than cut all day with blunt scissors on dotted lines like the teacher told.” – Adrienne Rich (1968), “On Edges”

So do I. But of course the book is not a defense of "stateless capitalism." Certainly not if those quotation marks are supposed to indicate something that we actually said or wrote something in favor of, anyway.

My own view is that "stateless capitalism" is an incoherent and destructive goal. I'm for stateless markets, not … well, the title of the book is there for a reason. Of course, perhaps the arguments made in the book — that, liberated from state privilege, markets would be anti-capitalistic in their tendency, and tend to undermine rather than promoting the concentration of wealth, economic hierarchy, and social power — could always turn out to be wrong. It could be that stateless markets will produce capitalism, and that capitalism will turn out to be an incubator of asymmetrical power. (Actually I think capitalism just is a form of asymmetrical power.) But in any case, it does seem to me that those arguments should be taken on their own terms — not as arguments about "stateless capitalism," but as arguments about anti-capitalistic markets.
My recent post Shameless Self-promotion Sunday: This Really is the Final Straw

Well there is a reason for that. Here's the third paragraph of the essay. > The threefold structure of my argument draws from the three demands made by the original revolutionary Left in France: *Liberty*, *Equality*, and *Solidarity*. [FOOTNOTE: Of course, the male Left of the day actually demanded fraternité, “brotherhood.” I’ll speak of “solidarity” instead of “brotherhood” for the obvious anti-sexist reasons, and also for its association with the history of the labor movement. There are few causes in America that most 20th century libertarians were less sympathetic to than organized labor, but I have chosen to speak of “the value of solidarity,” in spite of all that, for the same reasons that Ayn Rand chose to speak of “the virtue of selfishness:” in order to prove a point. The common criticisms of organized labor from the 20th century libertarian movement, and the relationship between liberty and organized labor, are one of the topics I will discuss below.] I will argue that, *rightly understood,* these demands are more intertwined than many contemporary libertarians realize: each contributes an essential element to a radical challenge to any form of coercive authority. Taken together, they undermine the legitimacy of *any* form of government authority, *including* the “limited government” imagined by minarchists. Minarchism eventually requires abandoning your commitment to liberty; but the dilemma is obscured when minarchists fracture the revolutionary triad, and seek “liberty” abstracted from equality and solidarity, the intertwined values that give the demand for freedom its life, its meaning, and its radicalism. Liberty, understood in light of equality and solidarity, is a revolutionary doctrine demanding anarchy, with no room for authoritarian mysticism and no excuse for arbitrary dominion, no matter how “limited” or benign. . . . In any case, if you thought that the bits about "Equality" and "Solidarity" were intended to justify ethical collectivism, the welfare state, or the coercive redistribution of wealth, then you're mistaken. The bit about "rightly understood" is italicized because I thought it was important. And I spend a fair amount of time detailing what I mean by each of these terms in the sections of the essay which I entitled "Equality" and "Solidarity." As for "equality under the law," I don't care about that. Liberty calls on us to abolish laws, not equalize the burden of those under them.

Well there is a reason for that. Here's the third paragraph of the essay. > The threefold structure of my argument draws from the three demands made by the original revolutionary Left in France: *Liberty*, *Equality*, and *Solidarity*. [FOOTNOTE: Of course, the male Left of the day actually demanded fraternité, “brotherhood.” I’ll speak of “solidarity” instead of “brotherhood” for the obvious anti-sexist reasons, and also for its association with the history of the labor movement. There are few causes in America that most 20th century libertarians were less sympathetic to than organized labor, but I have chosen to speak of “the value of solidarity,” in spite of all that, for the same reasons that Ayn Rand chose to speak of “the virtue of selfishness:” in order to prove a point. The common criticisms of organized labor from the 20th century libertarian movement, and the relationship between liberty and organized labor, are one of the topics I will discuss below.] I will argue that, *rightly understood,* these demands are more intertwined than many contemporary libertarians realize: each contributes an essential element to a radical challenge to any form of coercive authority. Taken together, they undermine the legitimacy of *any* form of government authority, *including* the “limited government” imagined by minarchists. Minarchism eventually requires abandoning your commitment to liberty; but the dilemma is obscured when minarchists fracture the revolutionary triad, and seek “liberty” abstracted from equality and solidarity, the intertwined values that give the demand for freedom its life, its meaning, and its radicalism. Liberty, understood in light of equality and solidarity, is a revolutionary doctrine demanding anarchy, with no room for authoritarian mysticism and no excuse for arbitrary dominion, no matter how “limited” or benign. . . . In any case, if you thought that the bits about "Equality" and "Solidarity" were intended to justify ethical collectivism, the welfare state, or the coercive redistribution of wealth, then you're mistaken. The bit about "rightly understood" is italicized because I thought it was important. And I spend a fair amount of time detailing what I mean by each of these terms in the sections of the essay which I entitled "Equality" and "Solidarity." As for "equality under the law," I don't care about that. Liberty calls on us to abolish laws, not equalize the burden of those under them.

is flipping through some microfilms of his old campus newspaper, ca. 1961-1962. First impressions: the Plainsman of the early 60s may as well have been called the Auburn University Greek Activities Newsletter; most of the active debates in the editorial pages seem to be over some ongoing obscenity prosecutions against local newsstands and in loco parentis restrictions on Auburn women. And man, they used to run a lot of cigarette ads in college newspapers.

Maybe not. But it’s a matter of canon that Third-Age Eriador did have potatoes, and probably also tobacco. So post-Columbian-Exchange crops are not necessarily ruled out of the picture. The coconut does seem somewhat more out of place than the tomatoes, though.

Dear LazyWeb:

Anyone here have experience and/or advice to share on DCVS-Autosync? I’d be happy to find a replacement for Dropbox but my daily work does depend on the replacement being reliable and more or less seamless.

is leafing through some of Jo Labadie’s radical poetry (he calls them “Labor Songs” but I defy you to sing this stuff).

Possible candidates for the next Anarchist Classics Series booklet? It’d be, ah, a bit of a change of pace. I’d like to reprint “Doggerel for the Underdog” in its entirety, but that will probably take a format other than foldover booklets.