learned while // Pynchon's imputed politics

[Cometman]

--- defining terms, David Morris  wrote:
> I guess extreme libertarianism is pretty close to non-violent
> anarchism.  Both are essentially anti-Authoritarian.  But neither are
> what one would call "liberal" or "progressive," mostly because
> neither would support anything achieved through taxes, coerced 
> financial support of government services.  

this is a useful distinction...I want to further 
note that pure liberalism, progressiveness, libertarianism
and anarchism all live in the Empyrean realms of theory.

...and that maybe another useful distinction is between
theory and practice...

for instance, much of the anti-statist rhetoric
of Mises and Rothbard rings true, per se -
 
yet, instead of the hypothetical entrepreneur 
whom these theorists have described,
libertarian political movements find themselves
working with real-world (Vibe-style) billionaires whose wealth 
in reality issues from and is protected by government. 
Their business activities are geared toward monopoly,
putting the thumb on the scale of free market, 
and their support of libertarian movements 
is designed to undermine any government checks
on their dominance -- YET, those curbs have arisen
because the pent-up demand for protection against
robber barons (which is balked by government protection
OF the Vibes of the world) has - with the help of
muckrakers and progressive politicians -
empowered political movements within the state

-- so you could make a case that there is an overlap
between the market and government, since
a) power relations, unfortunately, cannot be ignored
when describing real-world markets
and b) the actions of people within government
still follow the "human action" guidelines proposed
and detailed by Mises 

anarchist rhetoric is also helpful in learning to
identify and cast out abusive interpersonal tendencies

-- but again, anarchist praxis has been traditionally
undertaken by those to whom that rhetoric appeals.
That subset of people has in many cases included those
with grievances and the willingness to prosecute them
outside the legal system (since they don't believe in 
the legal system) - the Webb Traverses of the world!

The difference between political theory and praxis, then,
being quite similar to that described by P in AtD happening
at Candlebrow - the lecturers chalking equations (I wish there
were a way to work in the phrase "ideal gas" here) and the
tinkerers going out to build stuff.

>So is Pynchon a Liberal?  I know
> many
> here would vigorously assert that he is, but that is hard to square
> with Anarchism...

It's safe to say that what has moved OBA enough for him to make
a career of it is the particular branch of theory known as
literature, which is like, "modelmaking" kind of - so it combines
heavy knowledge of theory with the opportunity to practice
some praxis as well, in a mostly consequence-free environment.

Within the realm of theory, I think anarchism may hold some appeal
for him but (as I have yawped before) I think what really moves
his books is ethics/morality rather than politics...

Within the realm of practice, I would venture to say
he probably approves more of today's liberals than of
today's conservatives - or, better, DIS-approves less...
since almost everyone in politics falls short ethically,
and since power corrupts, the Left currently owning less of it,
they are currently less corrupt...




"Benny. How is the pimping business, hyeugh, hyeugh." - Pig Bodine

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com