i remember reading that Trotsky once met an anarchist (the first anarchist he met?) in prison where said anarchist was introducing his fellow captives to anarchism. trostky regales us that he asked said anarchist how the trains would run in anarchy. the anarchist responded to the tune of âwhy the hell would there be trains?!â (epic, btw), and that was the end for trotsky's fleeting flirtation with anarchism.
coupla things i want to point out here:
i started writing this a day ago, left it in drafts, and now I've forgotten most of what I wanted to say
it strikes me how much this is consumer-based as a level of questioning, very much similar to the recent discourse of âhow will insulin be created """under anarchy?"""â
while on the surface asking about what relations make transportation via train possible, thereby being a labor organization question, it actually asks how can trains be reliable and operational for the people using the them, thereby revealing a consumer-bias contrary to a worker concern.
and, it's interesting, no?
sex workers have constantly fought against anti-porn activists in part because the latter are so concerned with the pearl-clutching mentality of having porn exist, whilst the former ask that if you're concerned about porn, truly, then be concerned about the workers, the labor conditions, and the social and societal backdrop that might force one's hand to accept such work and such conditions.
Trotsky, and every other Leninist that employs unto this type of âgatchaâ rhetorical tricks, doesn't actually care. the honest and truest answer is that that's up to the train workers/insulin pharmacist/sex workers to decide. it's their work, their livelihood, their safety and expertise. it's a labor matter, not a consumer one. fuck the consumer, honestly.
was trostky a train conductor or railroad worker when he asked that question? did he have truly a vested interest in contrast to those that were? that are? he would've gotten along well with Adam Smith