WHY IS MOLLY AN ANARCHIST ?:

Every once in awhile it is necessary to go back to basics, particularily in a forum such as this where the vast majority of readers don't share a given philosophical viewpoint. Molly is an anarchist. What does this mean ? It certainly doesn't imply a mindless liberal agreement with everything that is done by anyone who defines themselves as "anarchist". Molly believes that there is a real world and that words have meanings insofar as they describe real events. She is not a fan of the modern Stalinism of post-modernism which is nothing more than a pseudo-intellectual justification for the ideas that "definitions depend upon the number of tanks you have". That's OK. Molly is not an academic leftist nor a menber of a sect that depends upon distorting language. What then does Molly propose ?

The ideas are actually ridiculously simple. Molly is in favour of greater equality and envisions a society that holds to this ideal as the best society to live in. This doesn't mean that I don't recognize the differences amongst people but merely that I think that these should not lead to great economic disparities. Perhaps minor disparities but nothing like our present society where a coal miner earns so much less than the scum who contribute far less than he does. Is this possible ? Molly's reading of sociobiology (to be deliberately offensive to the left who have their own class interests) says that it is. Molly believes that she has objective justification for her ideals and that what she proposes is possible. I may be wrong, but this is where I stand today, and the contrarian arguments are pretty weak. This doesn't mean that Molly believes in some abstract concept of "equality"; merely that she believes in economic equality. Molly is too much of a realist to believe that different people have the same intellectual or emotional resources. Still, these differences can be "compensated" by methods other than economic inequality.

Molly is also a hard line believer in "freedom". This means that she has serious doubts about any attempt on the part of a well meaning government to legislate the equality that she takes as a value. The actual way that this works out is that the controllers of the state simply "pay themselves first" and they distribute the remainder to the "deserving poor"whose behavior they control as an industrial product. It's actually amazing how much clearer things become when you apply a 'Marxist' (or actually any analysis that recognizes class differences) to the favourite "causes" of the so-called left today. Those buggers benefit big time without having to go through the painful process of actually learning a skill. ANY government initiative towards equality (helping the poor in liberal speak) will inevitably be subverted by the class through which the money flows.

Molly's belief in freedom also extends to opposition to neo-conservative plots to increase the expenditure of the state by "slightly" decreasing funding to social control bureaucracies while at the same time increasing funding to more violent arms of the state-the judiciary, the police, the army, the prisons. It's a good scam, but people will eventually pick up on this corruption when they are presented with their next tax bill. There is one thing about modern "conservativism" that is pretty well obvious. It promises fiscal responsibility and never delivers, just as social democracy promises equality and never delivers. EVERY conservative government in the modern world has violated simple economics by overspending on their pet projects while at the same time giving tax breaks to their friends.Spend more and collect less. A great way to run a business !!!!Deficits are then put down to acts of God rather than the obviuous cause of transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.

Does Molly think this massive system can be challenged ? Yes she does, but not by play-acting at fighting cops. Only by a mass movement to take the economy back from the corporations. Only by a long term strategy of organizing co-ops and fighting piece by piece within the unions as they bargain (with the gradual enroachment of union funds on corporate control). This is definitely not romantic on the level of pretending you are some sort of "vanguard" in getting punched out by a cop 40 pounds heavier than you. It is still the only realistic strategy if you want to actually create libertarian socialism rather than show off.