"Left" Anarchy?

I linked to http://c4ss.org/ the other day, and then came back for a closer look.  I was mystified as to how an anarchist could be leftist, or rightest for that matter, and then learned how.

The site is curated by some of my heroes, and some not.  But it is quite anarchic in there are many views on any given topic.  Anarchic!

Some of it shows its age, from 1975:

We can no longer attack subsidies for the poor while supporting even greater subsidies for the rich.

Is this where it is leftist?  Does that sentence mean continue subsidies for the poor as long as there are subsidies for the rich?  Certainly end subsidies for the rich first (first in first out) but all subsidies are violence-backed advances in lassitude.

So I dive in deeper to an essay, to see if I can glean "left." First, this essay gets it facts partly right:

And where do the Somebodies get their power? From monopoly. Here, as usual, the State is the chief of sinners. Usury rests on two great monopolies, – the monopoly of land and the monopoly of credit. Were it not for these, it would disappear. Ground-rent exists only because the State stands by to collect it and to protect land-titles rooted in force or fraud. Otherwise the land would be free to all, and no one could control more than he used. Interest and house-rent exist only because the State grants to a certain class of individuals and corporations the exclusive privilege of using its credit and theirs as a basis for the issuance of circulating currency.

You see the error?  Property rights abuse is a different sin that usury.  Real property title is a common end of usurers, but charging rent is not usury.  And exchange in trade is not lending nothing for something, so another fail.

There are three forms of usury: interest on money, rent of land and houses, and profit in exchange. 

On the other hand, it is refreshing to read other anarchists who get "usury" as the heart of the problem. Bravo!  Now to solutions:

The usurer is the Somebody, and the State is his protector. Usury is the serpent gnawing at labor’s vitals, and only liberty can detach and kill it. Give laborers their liberty, and they will keep their wealth. As for the Somebody, he, stripped of his power to steal, must either join their ranks or starve.

OK...  but in an essay dedicated to asking "who is who that gets the surplus wealth?" who is the power that will "give" laborers their liberty?  True, usurers seek their monopoly, but 99% of usury's victims subscribe to it, like the relationship between crackheads and crack.  The heart of the problem is not sought power, but the unsought power victims give their masters.

Monopolists do not give up without a fight, because they neither want to join ranks nor starve.  So, by implication, and effort to give laborers their liberty means violence, and that gets you no where.

The solution is to stop enforcing usury contracts and those same victims will just as perfidiously not pay usury, ending the practice.

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post