Words to Know: Anarchist’s Dictionary Edition #1
By Giania • Nov 5th, 2009 at 1:58 am • Category: WTK| Hot: |  |  | | | |
First up on this WTK is the opposite of wealth. That term is “illth” and was coined by John Ruskin as a way of giving simple voice to the concept of possessing damage, discontent, or general ill health (physically, economically, spiritually, etc). In Ruskin’s case, and in several applications, this is largely applicable to the people (and actions by those people) who are generally considered wealthy.
Wealth, therefore, is ‘The possession of the valuable by the valiant’; and in considering it as a power existing in a nation, the two elements, the value of the thing, and the valour of its possessor, must be estimated together. Whence it appears that many of the persons commonly considered wealthy, are in reality no more wealthy than the locks of their own strong boxes are, they being inherently and eternally incapable of wealth; and operating for the nation, in an economical point of view, either as pools of dead water, and eddies in a stream (which, so long as the stream flows, are useless, or serve only to drown people, but may become of importance in a state of stagnation should the stream dry); or else, as dams in a river, of which the ultimate service depends not on the dam, but the miller; or else, as mere accidental stays and impediments, acting not as wealth, but (for we ought to have a correspondent term) as ‘illth,’ causing various devastation and trouble around them in all directions; or lastly, act not at all, but are merely animated conditions of delay, (no use being possible of anything they have until they are dead,) in which last condition they are nevertheless often useful as delays, and ‘impedimenta,’ (Unto this Last, 1860)
~ emphasis mine, quote boosted directly from the wikipedia article on illth
Here also is a much more concise description of the difference between wealth and illth from the late Robert Anton Wilson:
Wealth is best conceived as all the changes in the “natural” (prehuman) environment that are to the benefit of humanity and/or other life forms. A bridge that gets you across the river without your having to stop and build a raft is wealth in this sense. So is an airport. So is the furniture in your house. Think of ten other examples.
Illth, a term coined by John Ruskin, can be conceived as all the changes in the environment that are detrimental to humanity and/or to life itself. Weaponry, then, should be classed as illth, not wealth. Think of ten other examples.
~ from a very good article featuring several such concepts on nolanchart.com
Here is, for example, Robert Kennedy Jr speaking about the illth generated during the previous President’s tenure in office. (via NewIlluminati)
During the course of of his speech(es), he mentions fairly regularly that the kind of environmental shenanigans that the Bush Administration was getting away with, that the corporate capitalists were/are getting away with, would not fly in a true free market capitalist system, which he seemed to convey with passion was generally self-regulating.
Which brings us to the next WTK term Laissez-faire Capitalism, coming from the the French for “let it be”, pronounced roughly as lah-zeh fair. It in this case referring to the market and its participants. (This was not coined The Beatles, though the general “laissez-faire” attitude appears to have perhaps had some influence on them.)
Generally speaking, the term means “let business run unrestricted by government interference”. While this is nice in theory, it of course produces a surfeit of unique challenges. Most of these challenges, this author would suspect, center around the need for a non-passive consumer base. As with any theory of business, government, and economy, there are a variety of different opinions on what exactly laissez-faire in the context of economic theory really means. The wikipedia article alone points to several branches of thought around the theory in general, and the theory as it relates directly to historical events or other philosophical standpoints.
To provide better context, it also helps to understand the basics of capitalism itself.
Capitalism is an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned.[1][2] Through capitalism, the land, labor, and capital are owned, operated, and traded, without force or fraud, by private individuals either singly or jointly,[3][4] and investments, distribution, income, production, pricing and supply of goods, commodities and services are determined by voluntary private decision in a market economy.
~ Note: There are no references attached to what appear to be footnote numbers in that definition. Which while irksome does allow me to link to the referring page on nolanchart.com, which has several articles from persons of differing opinion regarding the concept of capitalism in its various forms.
These are complicated ideas, fraught with intellectual and philosophical pitfalls. Perhaps the best phrase to concern yourself with? Laissez les bons temps rouler!
