Libertarianism and Liberalism: What Went Wrong
(posted by Kevin Carson)
Since the general theme of this blog is an anti-authoritarian entente–or even coalition–of diverse liberal and libertarian elements, one question that comes to mind is: “What are the most objectionable features of both establishment libertarianism, and establishment liberalism, from the standpoint of achieving such a coalition?”
1. The problem with mainstream libertarianism is its almost total departure from its radical roots. Early classical liberalism was a revolutionary doctrine, which declared war on the most entrenched class interests of its day. Even the most mainstream of classical liberals (like Adam Smith, James Mill and David Ricardo) displayed considerable hostility to the landed oligarchy and the politically connected mercantilists who dominated Britain in the early nineteenth century. And the classical liberal movement included, as well, a large radical wing represented by thinkers like Thomas Hodgskin, who saw the new capitalist system as a bastard fusion of partially free markets and industrialism with the old feudal class system. For Hodgskin, the new industrial capitalists were amalgamating with the old landed aristocracy to form a new ruling class. The capitalist system that was coming into existence was not a free market, but a new class system in which capitalists controlled the state and used it to enforce special privileges for themselves, in exactly the same way that the landed interests had controlled the state for their own interests under the Old Regime.
The significance of this radicalism increases when you bear in mind that Hodgskin’s radical wing of classical liberalism overlapped heavily with the early socialist movement, back when a major part of the workers’ movement still aimed simply at abolishing the special privileges of landlords and capitalists and building a market economy based on workers’ cooperatives.
The radical wing of the classical liberal movement did not by any means disappear, even when classical liberalism as a whole shifted rightward. It survived in the American individualist anarchism of Warren, Tucker and Spooner, and in the various offshoots of Henry George (e.g. Albert Nock and Ralph Borsodi), among other places. Nevertheless, it was relegated to the margin of the larger classical liberal movement.
For the overall movement, the transition came toward the middle of the nineteenth century, when the industrial capitalists had supplanted the landed elites as the dominant class in Britain. At this point, the main body of classical liberalism shifted its emphasis from an attack on entrenched privilege of the great land-owning classes and mercantilists, to a defense of the interests of industrial capitalists.
With the political triumph of the Third Estate, the mainstream of classical political economy–the generation after Ricardo and Mill–made the switch to what Marx called “vulgar political economy,” and took up the role of hired ideological prizefighters for capitalist interests.
From a revolutionary ideology aimed at breaking down the powers of feudal and mercantilist ruling classes, mainstream libertarianism has evolved into a reflexive apology for the institutions today most nearly resembling a feudal ruling class: the giant corporations.
A useful illustration of the shift is the contrasting positions of the early and late Herbert Spencer. The early Spencer was a disciple of Thomas Hodsgkin, who attacked the artificial property rights of the landed elites and regarded the rents collected by the great landowners as a species of taxation. The later Spencer (although still a more complex thinker than these remarks might suggest) was described by Benjamin Tucker:
It seems as if he had forgotten the teachings of his earlier writings, and had become a champion of the capitalistic class. It will be noticed that in these later articles, amid his multitudinous illustrations (of which he is as prodigal as ever) of the evils of legislation, he in every instance cites some law passed, ostensibly at least, to protect labor, alleviate suffering, or promote the people’s welfare. He demonstrates beyond dispute the lamentable failure in this direction. But never once does he call attention to the far more deadly and deep-seated evils growing out of the innumerable laws creating privilege and sustaining monopoly. You must not protect the weak against the strong, he seems to say, but freely supply all the weapons needed by the strong to oppress the weak. He is greatly shocked that the rich should be directly taxed to support the poor, but that the poor should be indirectly taxed and bled to make the rich richer does not outrage his delicate sensibilities in the least. Poverty is increased by the poor laws, says Mr. Spencer. Granted; but what about the rich laws that caused and still cause the poverty to which the poor laws add? That is by far the more important question; yet Mr. Spencer tries to blink it out of sight.
In other words, as Cool Hand Luke would say, “Them pore ole bosses need all the help they can get.”
2. Establishment liberalism, on the other hand, is all too true to its roots. Its origins lie at the turn of the twentieth century.
After the Civil War, American society was transformed by giant, centralized, hierarchical organizations: the large corporation and the large government agency. To these was eventually added the large charitable foundation and the university. All these large organizations shared a common organizational style, and a common managerial culture. Progressivism, which was the direct ancestor of twentieth century liberalism, was the ideology of the professional and managerial New Middle Classes that ran these large organizations. Especially as exemplified by Herbert Croly and his associates in the New Republic circle and the National Civic Federation, Progressivism sought to organize and manage society as a whole by the same principles that governed the large organization.
The managerial revolution carried out by the New Middle Class, in the large corporation, was in its essence an attempt to apply the engineer’s approach (standardizing and rationalizing tools, processes, and systems) to the organization of society as a whole. And these Weberian/Taylorist ideas of scientific management and bureaucratic rationality, first applied in the large corporation, quickly spread not only to all large organizations, but to the dominant political culture. The tendency in all aspects of life was to treat policy as a matter of expertise rather than politics: to remove as many questions as possible from the realm of public debate to the realm of administration by “properly qualified authorities.” As a New Republic editorial put it, “the business of politics has become too complex to be left to the pretentious misunderstandings of the benevolent amateur.” At the same time, the individual was transformed from the independent and self-governing yeoman of the Jeffersonian ideal, to the client of professional bureaucracies. He became a “human reource” who took orders from the Taylorist managers at work to whom he had alienated his craft skills, went hat in hand to the “helping professionals” to whom he had alienated his common sense, and expressed his “individuality” entirely in the realm of private consumption.
Conclusion. So what do we need? Libertarianism needs to move back to its radical roots. The elements of the libertarian movement that favor genuinely free markets as a matter of principle, as opposed to defending corporate interests under the guise of phony “free market” rhetoric, need to separate the sheep from the goats.
Liberalism, on the other hand, needs to move away from its managerialist roots (”The body of Leviathan and the head of a social worker,” in Joseph Stromberg’s memorable phrase) and become more genuinely left-wing. It needs to embrace direct democracy, self-management, and decentralism.
I think there is a huge, unmet demand in this country for a third alternative in politics. Right now, mainstream American politics consists of a Daddy Party and a Mommy Party. The Daddy Party, the Banana Republicans, want to turn this country into one giant dioxin-soaked corporate sweatshop, while acting as Pecker Police and making sure nobody catches a glimpse of Janet Jackson’s tit. The Mommy Party, personified by a 900-foot-tall nanny in kevlar vest and gas mask, has as its slogan “Momma don’t allow! Momma don’t allow!”
We need an alternative that appeals to everyone who finds both of the above distasteful. The third agenda would be something along the lines of the “Common Sense II” pamphlet put out by the People’s Bicentennial Commission thirty years ago, which promoted local self-government and cooperative economics. Its centerpiece would be reducing the power of both big government and big business, and devolving power to human scale political and economic organizations subject to direct democratic control. The overriding principle would be to eliminate privilege, and to eliminate all the ways that government currently stacks the deck in favor of the rich and big business, and then get out of the way as much as possible. Let workers keep the share of our product that’s currently consumed by useless eaters (landlords, usurers, bureaucrats, and licensed monopolists), and then do with it as we will.
March 13th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
What does this “direct democratic control” and a “human scale” all mean? Would you coerce the non-growth of, say, Microsoft to whatever staying within a human economic scale might mean?
March 13th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
I don’t think it requires coercion. All you have to do is eliminate “intellectual property” [sic], and MS will be as human scale as anyone could want.
The same principle applies in most cases IMO. The only thing necessary to scale down large corporations is to stop subsidizing large scale and centralization, and stop protecting them against market competition.
March 13th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Ah, well, I think copyright protection is utterly out of control, but I do not advocate eliminating all protection of intellectual property for a reasonable duration.
But I would end such corporatist nonsense as subsidies and in-bedness w/ government. I realize that it is because Disney has bucks that it was able to successfully lobby Congress for absurd extensions of copyright protections, but I do think an author or artist has a right to the profits from his/her work exclusively for some set , reasonable period. But certainly not extending beyond the expected lifespan of said author or artist!
March 14th, 2008 at 12:39 am
That would certainly be an improvement as a compromise position (say, repealing the DMCA and GATT IP provisions, and reducing copyright terms to what they were a generation ago).
But considering just how near unenforceable copyright is anyway, thanks to technological change, I think the future lies with alternative business models (like the way Phish and Radiohead distribute music, the way Linux distros sell customization services and tech support rather than proprietary software, etc.). Eventually writers and musicians are going to be selling their creations directly to their audience over the Internet, with next to zero overhead, and cut out the old corporate dinosaurs out altogether. And the main thing operating for long-term security of income will be that they charge a low enough price (all income being virtually free and clear, with overhead being so low) that there’s not enough potential profit from underselling them to justify the hassle.
March 14th, 2008 at 1:20 am
@ Carson
There is also the Jill Souble approach. It seems like gettings payment upfront is in the best interests of the artist (predictable income) and the market (music no one wants to pay for beforehand gets made.)
March 14th, 2008 at 1:20 am
ug, link went here: http://www.jillsnextrecord.com/
March 14th, 2008 at 1:22 am
Your description of the Mommy and Daddy party is dead on.
March 14th, 2008 at 7:43 am
Changing laws so that corporations are not treated as individuals would go a long way to moving them to “human scale”.
March 14th, 2008 at 7:45 am
I agree with that. The 14th Amendment, intended to provide legal equality for African Americans in the face of racist violence, has been perverted beyond recognition–”equal protection” for concentrated capital against individual workers and consumers.
March 14th, 2008 at 8:42 am
Excellent, Kevin. The time for the synthesis you’re calling for has come. When will the vulgarians see the point?!
March 14th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Great post, Kevin! As usual. Glad to hear someone but me has heard of the Peoples’Bicentennial Commission!
March 14th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Mr Carson, isn’t it arguable that liberal radicalism wasn’t simply the radicalism of the aspiring bourgeoisie? Kropotkin nicely documented the working class-bourgeois alliance that took place in the rebellious “communes” and how they fell apart. To paraphrase Albert Meltzer, any class may be revolutionary in its time but only a productive one can be libertarian.
Re: “devolving” the economy. If, as you have said, much of major manufacturing and technological innovation would not be feasible without the state to subsidise it and artificially create markets, wouldn’t we face an economic disaster?
Bottom line is, we DO want to “coerce” companies such as Microsoft. Don’t we? We don’t want to just let them be, just on a free market. We want to collectivise firms and expel the parasites — then “worker’s microsoft” will exist on a free market.
March 14th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
A note to Keith Preston: I see you never got back to me about “jews controlling the world”. Too bad.
I seriously doubt if the good folks of “The Art of the Possible” are interested in your knocked-off brand of neo-nazism, Mr Preston! Go back to Stormfront…
March 14th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Keith Preston is not a neo-nazi.
March 14th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
It is easy to be a radical when one is seeking to overthrow an entrenched class. When you and yours become the new entrenched class, well ,that’s another matter entirely. Then the new system is hunky-dory and the critics just whiners. Libertarianism/liberalism was just the ideological justification for overthrowing the Ancien Regime. Once this had been accomplished, the ideological pretensions were forgotten or left to cranks (libertarians) or apologists for the new overlords (the liberal/conservative duopoly).
March 14th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
I’ve encountered this claim a lot, and maybe someone here — or Kevin Carson could post — as to how this follows? Also, bear in mind that SCOTUS has not extended the legal fiction of corporate personhood in every area. For example. Acme, Inc. has no right against self-incrimination; the CEO of Acme, as an individual, however, does. But s/he he may not invoke it on behalf of the entity.
March 14th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Most of the comments will have to wait for later, but right now I want to second Dain: Keith Preston is most certainly not a neo-Nazi.
March 14th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
“It is easy to be a radical when one is seeking to overthrow an entrenched class. When you and yours become the new entrenched class, well ,that’s another matter entirely.”
As a scientist, I can probably be considered to be a junior member in the ruling class. I can look forward to a good job, a good paycheck, and a bit of influence, but no real power…yet I am increasingly radical.
Surprisingly or not, I look to my socio-economic peers to drive radical change in our society — not because we are desperate for change, but because we have the ability to take a chance on something new without putting ourselves at risk, and also because we have the luxury of having access to immense information and having time to consider what it means.
Unfortunately, not many of my peers are radicals, as you may have suspected–they are typically establishment liberals. Does that just mean that I’m a crank, or does the professional-class really have motivation to be radical?
I obviously think that there is a good reason for someone in my position to be radical — to make a smooth transition to a sustainable economic system. I may have it good right now, but if we face a serious political/economic disruption, my ass is likely to be toast.
I’ve become more radical in the past few years, as I’ve had to come to terms with the warmongering impulse in America. I wonder why so many people are incapable of distinguishing between national status and their own status. Like a typical liberal, I attribute their belligerence to ignorance, a lack of respect, and economic insecurity. Like a typical liberal, I’m afraid that their belligerence will destroy everything we’ve worked to build. However, I don’t buy into the typical liberal program of universal healthcare, universal schooling, and economic regulation–it just doesn’t jive with my understanding of economics, my understanding of my students, or my understanding of myself.
So I seek radical reforms. I look forward to the state “withering away”, and I hope that we can get to some sort of sustainability before I loose my comfortable and enjoyable economic condition.
March 14th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Joel — thanks for mentioning “jill’s next record”. Ever since I heard of Fundable.org I have been encouraging musician friends of mine to try to fund an album with patronage from fans. I’m glad someone got something like this to work.
March 15th, 2008 at 1:02 am
Mencius Moldbug has discussed just that (though from a very different and nearly reactionary monarchist viewpoint) here.
March 15th, 2008 at 8:23 am
@Daniel Owen
One has only to read Preston’s writing to utterly dispense with your accusation.
March 15th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Great post Kevin. Anyone interested in a fruitful and humane combination of what’s good in libertarian and liberal thought (and excluding the rest) is indebted to your work. Just quick notes on intellectual property and corporate personhood. I agree with Mona’s comments. That there are problems with the details of the “intellectual property” regime is certainly insufficient to establish that IP *as such* is unjustified. Kevin, I’m glad to see in your later comments in this thread that you back away from the absolutist view on this matter hinted at in your first comment. (In your later comments you imply that musicians ought as a matter of law to have certain controls over access etc to their works.) Also, that “the corporations” do some bad things in the world, and that those things would be impossible but for corporate personhood, is surely insufficient to establish that corporate personhood *as such* is unjustified. (I’m responding now not to Kevin, but to points raised in the comments.) The observations are often made (as if simply making them counts as making *arguments*) that corporations are viewed by the law as *persons* and that they enjoy under the law certain *fundamental rights*. True. But so what? As has been noted elsewhere in comments on this blog, personhood is what allows corporations not only to own property, but also to be *held liable* for damage done by their (say) environmentally polluting property; not only to enter into contracts, but to *be bound* by contracts; not only to sue, but to *be sued*; etc. And corporations have certain fundamental rights, but not all fundamental rights. (Mona’s observation here too is correct: the Court has not extended all fundamental rights to corporations–not even all the fundamental rights in the 14th amendment. For example, 14th amendment “privileges or immunities” of citizens of the US have been explicitly deemed to extend only to humans not corporations.) And that corporations enjoy *some* fundamental rights ought not to be seen as itself problematic. The Constitution prohibits government from depriving me (a human) of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Suppose now I start a business with a friend–a (horror of horrors) “corporation”–and put my assets into it, and use those assets to conduct business. Merely because the assets (”property”) are now held not by “me” but by the “corporation”, should the government be able take control of them or do what it wants with them without due process of law? Of course not. That’s the kind of work that extending fundamental rights to corporate personhood does. To be sure, there might be some rights that corporations shouldn’t have (perhaps, the “free speech” right to donate to political campaigns), and there may be problems in the details of corporate rights jurisprudence; but those problems need to be raised and addressed directly. There is nothing inherently unjustifiable about intellectual property, corporate personhood or corporate rights. Being opposed to *abuses* of a legal regime that recognizes intellectual property and corporate personhood and rights is one thing; but to suppose merely because such abuses exist that therefore intellectual property and corporate personhood *as such* should be done away with, is absurd.
March 15th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Mona,
I can’t speak for Michael L. For myself, I’m pretty unclear as to how you’d draw the line between corporations having the rights of persons, and persons exercising their rights contractually by forming corporations. I suspect Robert Hessen was right that corporate entity status and second-party limited liability (i.e. against creditors, not involving torts against third parties) could conceivably be negotiated by private contract. But the state makes that method of organization a lot more prevalent, artificially lowers the transaction costs, and reduces the bargaining power of creditors and other stakeholders, by providing a ready-made and automatic process for incorporatiion and making it the standard form of organization. Otherwise, as Vinay Gupta argued, those incorporating might be required (say) to take out default insurance. By making the limited liability form standard, the state in effect subsidizes the corporation to the amount such default insurance would cost.
Brutum Fulmen,
If I gave the impression that I compromise on IP in principle, I didn’t mean to do so. I’m totally opposed to it in principle. But I would welcome a partial scaling back as a step in the right direction.
Daniel Owen,
I agree that through the early nineteenth century workers were part of the classical liberal coalition. It didn’t decisively shift to being a movement of industrial capitalists until the latter won their political battle against the Old Regime (and even then, the latter preserved a lot of continuity with the OR and amalgamated with the old landowning class instead of supplanting it). Hodgskin is a good example of a classical liberal who saw his primary constituency as workers.
March 15th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Brutum Fulmen,
To follow up on IP, here’s how I summarize the distinction between natural and artificial property rights:
Natural property rights reflect scarcity, while artificial property rights create it.
Natural property rights secure the indivdual’s right to his own labor product, while artificial property rights enable the privileged to collect tribute from the labor of others.
Natural property rights reward contributions to production, while artificial property rights enable their holders to collect tribute for not impeding production.
Tangible property rights are a direct outgrowth of possession. They result from the physical necessity of two people not being able to occupy the same space, or possess the same object, at the same time. My possession necessarily entails, by the very act itself, excluding you from possession. And I can call on my neighbors to aid me in maintaining possession against any aggressor, which is the basis of property as a natural right.
On the other hand, intellectual creations can be replicated infinitely at zero marginal cost, so there is no natural limit on simultaneous possession. And my enforcement of “intellectual property” requires, not just continued possession and expulsion of invaders, but the invasion of the property of others to make sure they’re not using their own tangible property in ways that violate my so-called “property” in the right to combine ones and zeros, or the letters of the alphabet, in a particular pattern.
One of the reasons I’d go a long way toward being satisfied with a repeal of the DMCA and GATT IP provisions is that, without such intrusive surveillance and draconian restraints on the technical characteristics of hardware, copyright law would be virtually unenforceable. Likewise, even though I oppose drug laws in principle, in practice it wouldn’t matter if we had the substantive drug laws of Turkey or Singapore, so long as there were strict procedural guarantees that forbade no-knock warrants, civil forfeiture, coercive plea bargaining and perjured testimony by jailhouse snitches, warrantless roadblocks, etc. The procedural restraints on law enforcement matter far more than the substance of the law itself.
March 16th, 2008 at 12:05 am
Kevin, I’m going to ponder your natural/artificial distinction (thanks for it). But for now allow me to share my immediate impression. It’s not an illuminating distinction. If IP is “artificial”, how is it that it *creates* scarcity in anyway other than how other kinds of property rights do? And how do you square your claim that IP doesn’t reflect scarcity with the obvious scarcity of *valuable ideas*? (Remember, in order to enjoy intellectual property protection, your idea has to be novel, useful, etc.) I’m not sure how exactly you’re defining “reflection” and “creation” (or “naturalness” and “artificiality”) for the purpose of your distinction, but I have the feeling that any kind of property right can be seen in one sense or another to both “reflect” and “create” scarcity depending on how you want to look at it. The second and third distinctions also strike me as arbitrary and dependent on loaded definitions. With respect to your later points, let me concede that any enforcement of IP that necessarily entails violating others’ property rights is on that account, wrong. But two points. First, it’d be the enforcement that’s wrong, not intellectual property *as such*. Second, enforcement of IP simply doesn’t necessarily entail violating others’ property rights. Lastly, your observation that countless persons can simultaneously “possess” the protected work without infringing on existing possessor’s rights might support the idea (not expressed in this thread) that the state’s exercise of its “taking” power is more easily justifiable in the case of intellectual property. But it doesn’t show that intellectual property *as such* is problematic unless you assume (along with other premises) that *possession of goods whose enjoyment necessitates excluding others* is the sole root of *property*. That’s far from uncontroversial.
March 16th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
“One has only to read Preston’s writing to utterly dispense with your accusation.”
One has to only look at his friends to see beneath the sugar coating. Keith Preston is a Third Positionist, which evolved out of classical fascism. Keith Preston’s “national anarchist” buddies promote causes as varied as anti-miscegenation, holocaust denial, and “anti-Zionism” (antisemitism posing under the banner of those who justifiably criticise the terrible Israeli regime).
Mr Preston is, in short, a neo-nazi — a racialist national-socialist.
March 16th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Adam Ricketson — I don’t think scientists can be counted as “ruling class.” Far from it. Anyway, people don’t revolt because they have trouble between pay-cheques. People fight and die for FREEDOM — which is something I’m sure plenty of scientists lack.
March 16th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Daniel Owen: Before I’m prepared to believe that someone is a Nazi — especially when so many astute others deny he is — I would expect some links to positions Mr. Preston has stated which would support the charge.
March 16th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Daniel,
I’d agree that Keith is racialist, but not racist, which is more than one can say about even many black nationalists, whom most would hardly call neo-nazi in orientation (and for whom Keith has much sympathy).
Keith chooses to associate with racial and nationalist types out of a sense of anarchist conviction that is definitely different than the mainstream, but again hardly nazi, or even fascist, as both are political outlooks that posit a strong state - not anarchism.
I’ve seen no evidence on Keith’s forum (which I frequent) for advocacy of holocaust denial on the part of any of its contributers. Anti-miscegenation? Seen none of that either, but seeing as how even Marcus Garvey was a proponent yet still contributed much of interest to political discussion I wouldn’t expel anyone from the roundtable for having such a view.
As for anti-zionism, is it not accepted that zionism was a statist doctrine from the outset? Perhaps not, I don’t know. But the charge that anti-zionism = anti-semitism was the recent subject of discussion for a new State Department report, much ridiculed by Jim Lobe at Anti-War.com just the other day:
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/03/14/state-dept-criticism-of-israel-anti-semitism/#comment-140858
Keith’s thought isn’t my “cup of tea” exactly, but his perspective is provocative and worth considering.
March 16th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
kevin carson: mainstream libertarianism has evolved into a reflexive apology for the institutions today most nearly resembling a feudal ruling class: the giant corporations
I’m wondering if you could provide some examples of what you mean by this. I can think of what “apologists” for “giant corporations” would look like, but I can’t actually think of anyone who fits such a caricature. Thanks.
March 16th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
I happen to be pro-Zionist, but I recognize that anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism. There are jewish anti-Zionists and anti-Zionists that criticize jewish anti-Zionists for anti-Semitism!
I thought Keith had gotten his start as an anti-apartheid activist and since then just become a more radical anarchist. He’s comfortable hanging out with people quite different from him and not very respectable, and that’s one thing I like about him. I didn’t know he had a forum though. Could you link to it, Dain?
March 16th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Sure thing TGGP (I dig your writing by the way, heady stuff):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/attackthesystem/
March 17th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
@Daniel Owen
Now I am a market anti-nationalist anarchist. This means I feel any state, without qualification, is a violent repressive and self-interested institution. Given that as my general rule we can state that there’s nothing inherently anti-semitic about it. If nothing else. the application of this principle to the state of Israel would render me opposed to it. Does the fact that my principle conflicts with the desired objectives of a particular group of Jews mean I’m opposed to all Jews? No of course it’s absurd, it would be like me saying I’m anti-semitic for not preferring to use a brand of screwdriver that is owned by Jewish investors, for no reason other than it feels like a cheese grater in my hand. If the principle is formulated in the absence of even “jews” as a collective concept, I don’t see how it could be anything but neutral. It seems like you need to explain how you reconcile my not wanting a state at all with your equation that if I don’t want that if I don’t want the state as an organizing principle for any part of society, that it’s anti-semitic because it cramps the style of a few Jews half a world away.
March 17th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
@Dain
But doesn’t racialism inherently lead to racist notions, no matter how “moderate” they may be?
March 17th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Joel — I’m as against the State of Israel as you! However, Preston’s comrade-in-arms Peter Topfer attended the Tehran holocaust denial conferences. The Portuguese “National anarchists” are against “race mixing.” Another of Preston’s comrades, Troy Southgate, an English fascist who is ex-NF, calls himself an “anarchist” as well but is a devotee of the nazi philosopher Julius Evola (who worked for the SS and critiqued Hitlerism from the right as “too popularist”). Mr Preston is also friends with Bill White, the openly nazi web master of the notorious “overthrow” website.
I just think this is important, as anarchism is currently being infiltrated by the far-right and Keith Preston is holding the door open for them.
“Recently, a right-wing fascist movement known as the 3rd Positionists has used the strategy of using left-wing symbols and images while pushing a right-wing social agenda.”
http://flag.blackened.net/antinat/
March 17th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Brutum Fulmen,
Ideas are not scarce in the sense that they can be replicated indefinitely at zero marginal cost, as opposed to tangible property which cannot. IP creates artificial scarcity in the sense that it attempts to make it possible to charge a price for such replication.
While theoretically IP might be enforceable to some extent without invasion of other people’s property, in practice such invasion plays such a large role in digital copyright enforcement that I think it would be a dead letter without it, in the same way the drug war would be a dead letter if an absolutist version of common law “due process” and “search and seizure” provisions were enforced.
Jon,
I see it in at least half the stuff that appears at Cato and Mises, and probably 90% of the material at the Adam Smith Institute.
Daniel,
If Keith could be labelled ideologically according to the people he associates with, he’d be most accurately classed as suffering from multiple personality disorder. He associates with right-wing racialist groups far more than I’d feel comfortable with, or feel advisable; but he doesn’t do so out of any necessary affinity with their racialist views. He associates with a wide variety of secessionist movements, including racialist ones, because he sees the practical harm they can do as extremely limited in a panarchy of self-governing secessionist communities, compared to the need for a common front of all secessionist movements against the Empire.
March 17th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
i may just be deeply misinformed here - entirely possible - but i don’t see the difference between a “natural” and an “artificial” property right, since both - to me - are social constructions.
does natural = uncoerced? and artificial = coerced?
March 17th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Kevin, Thanks for the clarification. I see that by a “scarce” good you mean to refer to goods whose enjoyment necessitates excluding others. My sense is that’s a non-standard use of the term “scarcity”. At any rate, I think we agree that *valuable ideas* are scarce as a “natural” matter, and the IP rights regime makes the *enjoyment* of others’ valuable ideas not available to everyone. But again: that’s only a moral problem for IP as such if one’s view is that property rights are only justifiable if necessary to secure the possibility of the enjoyment of goods whose enjoyment necessitates excluding others. That’s not the only end towards which property rights are commonly seen as justifiable. For example: A person might have a right to a say in determining who can enjoy her ideas as an extension of her right of self-ownership or interest in her own personality. That is, a person has a right to a say (perhaps not a conclusive “say” but at least *a* “say”) in who can access and use her idea simply for the reason that it was *her* idea.
March 17th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
kevin_carson: I see it in at least half the stuff that appears at Cato and Mises, and probably 90% of the material at the Adam Smith Institute.
“It” is apologies for corporations. I’m not familiar with the latter, but I’m not sure you’re reading Cato/Mises right if you see them as apologists for corporations. Perhaps some examples would be helpful (and easy to provide, if it’s so prevalent at said organizations).
Caveat: not sure I’d call LvMI part of the “mainstream” libertarian movement, but I guess that’s your prerogative.
March 17th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Thanks, Dain, for the link. I guess I’ll see you there later.
I pointed out an example of “vulgar libertarianism” from the Mises blog here.
I dismiss the idea of “natural rights”, though I consider IP undesirable and quite difficult to enforce. I have written a preface for a republished edition of L.A Rollins “The Myth of Natural Rights”, coming soon from Nine Banded Books.
March 17th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
@Joel
Inherently? I don’t think so, though in practice the difference between racialist thought and racist thought might be so slim as to be meaningless.
I can think of at least one way it doesn’t: the assertion that “white people can’t possibly know what it’s like to be black in a majority white world”. That’s a racialist statement, and I’d say a pretty uncontroversial one.
March 17th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
@Daniel Owen
My apologies I think I misread your previous post.
“Recently, a right-wing fascist movement known as the 3rd Positionists has used the strategy of using left-wing symbols and images while pushing a right-wing social agenda.”
Isn’t that a bit redundant considering co-opting leftist rhetoric and symbols by the right seems pretty the definition of fascism, just maybe their brand a tiny bit more of a “libertarian” aftertaste. Especially if what you say is true, he must not be all that opposed to authority in principle if he idolizes the Third Reich.
@Dain
Well, I happen to specialize in conversing about the uncontroversial, so I think I’ll give this one a good whack or two.
Saying “You don’t know what its like to be a black man in America” is basically throwing people into collective identities you’re dehumanizing them. Instead of labels being labels they become the same as the definition of the label. For example one can’t be “white” and “black” they can only be half-white half-black, and you can take your pick of labels for that, but it will always lack anything nearing the granularity you see when you look at the social and genetic levels.
The statement implies that everyone who is black has some unifying experience. It can’t be that they just run into the same superstitions, they have to all have some common unidentified “bond” that is only had by people of the skin color. Sort of a “no homers club” of nationalism (except I think the no-homers explained their rules of association a bit more objectively.)
It places people in categories which rob them of any meaningful identity. I don’t equate racialism and racism completely because I guess it is possible to put everyone universally into these categories and have the definition of these categories be neutral, but it seems to me a pretty simple matter of just jerrymandering the racialist categories until one could argue the superiority of one over the other pretty easily. So easy in fact, I see the racialists doing it without them even being aware they are, especially since by definition they have already suspended a good deal of skepticism on the matter.
The fact this is so easy, and the fact that it has no rational basis, leads me to believe people with this worldview will eventually let their interpretation of their experience ascribe attributes (some negative, some positive) to collective identities that don’t objectively exist.
So whittling it down to single sentence: I disagree with the notion of collective identities in principle, so I would say that the statement is offensive to a small degree, due mostly to its sweeping nature.
March 17th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
seems my response to daniel was missing a few “has”-es and “is”-es
March 18th, 2008 at 12:43 am
Jon,
I confess it’s a little more like work than I want to do for a four-day-old comment thread, when I’ve got new stuff to write. But my earlier post “Libertarian Self-Marginalization” was about a specific example at the Mises blog. Most of what appears there on Wal-Mart is a celebration of that company as embodiment of the “free market.” At Cato, likewise, just about everything that appears on trade issues manages to conflate corporate mercantilist trade agreements like NAFTA, CAFTA, etc., with “free trade.”
If you go to the topical heading “Vulgar Libertarianism Watch” at my blog, you can find three years worth of specific examples.
dhex,
I base the distinction largely on Thomas Hodgskin’s argument in Natural and Artificial Rights of Property Contrasted. Possession of land and moveable objects follows directly from the individual’s self-ownership and ownership of his labor product. The concept of “mine,” in the context of possession, is as old as human history. Copyright, on the other hand, is just a few hundred years old and started out as one of the monopolies granted by the Stuart monarchs.
Brutum Fulmen,
The problem I have with the idea of an enforceable property right in someone’s idea is that it requires invasive monitoring and restrictions on what someone else does with his hard drive, pen and paper, guitar, etc.
March 18th, 2008 at 1:48 am
Some of you might be interested in the criticism of patents and how they are distinct from property rights in land at http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2008/03/costs_and_benef.html
March 18th, 2008 at 9:53 am
Joel Davis — I’m not sure exactly what you meant. But I invite you to check out “national anarchism”. On at least one “national anarchist” forum they referred to themselves as fascists.
There’s an article on them from “Green Anarchy”, who are similarly contemptible people but at least not racist, here:
http://www.greenanarchy.org/index.php?action=viewwritingdetail&writingId=150
At the bottom are links to “national anarchist” websites.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:18 am
“One has to only look at his friends to see beneath the sugar coating.”
Well, I’m a friend of his. We disagree on some things and agree on others. I defy you to draw any conclusions about my beliefs simply because we’re friends.
It’s not just wrong and insulting; it’s intellectually lazy. I do so enjoy your writing when you’re not making wild, unsupported accusations of guilt by association.
March 18th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
The Bay Area National Anarchists site recently proposed a tour of Vietnam, the idea being to live among the rural population there for a short while and give at least rhetorical support to their efforts to resist globalization and other upsets to their traditional lifestyle.
This hardly seems to suggest fascism, and especially nazism. (Yes I know the Nazis had a particular affinity for India, but that was rooted in the Aryan superiority complex and its ancient “homeland”.) In fact it sounds exactly like the agenda of a third-world celebrating anarchism of the common sort. Of course the crucial difference is that North American anarchists don’t typically assign much respectability to their own white heritage. These folks do.
Yes it’s all very collectivist, wrong in its notion of cultural “preservation”, etc., but I would echo Kevin Carson’s point above about strategic alliances for decentralization.
March 18th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
@Daniel
IF they are referring to themselves as Fascists then you’re on point, and I take it all back. And I damn them for muddling up the terms “Fascism” and “Anarchism”.
March 18th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Owen:
“One has to only look at his friends to see beneath the sugar coating. Keith Preston is a Third Positionist, which evolved out of classical fascism.”
Oh, THE HORROR! And the F-word too.
” Keith Preston’s “national anarchist” buddies promote causes as varied as anti-miscegenation, holocaust denial, and “anti-Zionism” (antisemitism posing under the banner of those who justifiably criticise the terrible Israeli regime).”
Ah yes, and we all know that your complete mindset can be known from fragments of the mindsets of only some of your acquaintances, right?
“Mr Preston is, in short, a neo-nazi — a racialist national-socialist.”
Lay off the drugs when you post on public forums, it’ll save you some egg on the face.
March 19th, 2008 at 4:25 am
Kevin,
Your part on libertarianism’s fall from non-vulgarity leans pretty heavily on the Ricardians and seems to posit that things went wrong after the abandonment of the labor theory of value. Wouldn’t it still be possible for libertarians coming from the more predominant Austrian School to still arrive at the similarly anti-plutarchic conclusions, even without rejecting interest, profit and rent per se? I was wondering whether you think that suggests a different in kind between mutualists and Austrians, the latter being inherently vulgar due to their “capitalist” rather than “socialist” economic views.
I’m sure you’re aware of Rothbard’s detente with the New Left, as well as the really brilliant analyses coming from him and Hess during this period. And modern left-Rothbardians and Agorists often apply their ideas to similar arguments, critiquing rent-seekers in ways atypical of the average Catoite. To the extent that vulgarity prevails among Austrians, I think it has more to do with cultural biases with the libertarian movement than anything essential to Austrian economics.
March 19th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Peter Bjorn Perlso — “By his friends shall yee know him.” The fact that he hangs out with fascists and not, say, Maoists shows he’s not just particularly thick “big tent” proponent.
This conversation grows tiring though. Read the Green Anarchy article. ‘National anarchism’ is a recruiting front for fascism. At most, Keith Preston is an unwitting dupe.
Dain — Yes, the Bay Area lot seem to have brought together the two most disgusting ideologies that parade under the name of “anarchism” — primitivism and the Third Position.
March 19th, 2008 at 9:42 am
Joel — just read your reply. You may be friends with Keith Preston. So what? Look at the links section on the American Revolutionary Vanguard website. Shows what ideological milieu he’s in!
I enjoy his critiques of “cultural Marxism” and the New Class. He’s probably a nice guy. Again, so what? The issue isn’t him as an individual — it’s the wider picture of attempted infiltration and hijacking of anarchism by fascists.
Cheers,
March 19th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Primitivism is disgusting? Hm, not my thing but let em have at it.
Harsh words for those who desire a different system FOR THEMSELVES.
March 19th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
They have an unfortunate tendency to foster charming individuals such as Unabomber. The deep anti-human bent of their thought is “disgusting” — no other word adequately fits people who have cheered on AIDS, the Tokyo sarin gas attacks and the Oklahoma City bombing, as well as coming out with things like all meat-eaters should “die in the most terrible anguish.”
But we digress.
March 19th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
“They have an unfortunate tendency to foster charming individuals such as Unabomber. The deep anti-human bent of their thought is ‘disgusting’ — no other word adequately fits people who have cheered on AIDS, the Tokyo sarin gas attacks and the Oklahoma City bombing, as well as coming out with things like all meat-eaters should ‘die in the most terrible anguish.’
But we digress.”
Ouch, ok then. So then they’re not anarchists as far as I’m concerned. I was thinking more along the lines of a hippie commune committed to bare, organic living.
March 19th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Are there any laidback, non-violent primitivists?
Also, I fully admit to linking to racists, fascists/authoritarians, fundamentalist Christians, Stalinists and so on. Make of it what you will. If you know of a good radical Islamist blog a westerner can easily make sense of, point it out to me.
March 19th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
“Are there any laidback, non-violent primitivists?”
Burnt out crust punks?
March 19th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
TGGP — huh? Presumably you link to such for educational purposes rather than out of ideological affinity?
March 20th, 2008 at 8:09 am
Do I believe Jews control the world? Here’s your answer:
http://attackthesystem.blogspot.com/2008/01/do-i-believe-jews-control-world.html
My views on race?
It’s a matter I’m mostly indifferent to on a personal level. Politically, I’m in favor of “separation of race and state” along the lines of present day separation of religion and state. I see neither racial separatism or racial integrationism as an ideal unto itself. I’m simply for removing the state from race relations and letting the chips fall where they may. I’ve written about this issue elsewhere:
http://www.attackthesystem.com/libertypopulism.html
http://www.attackthesystem.com/race.html
As for the national-anarchists, I share their emphasis on decentralized autonomous communities spanning conventional ideological, cultural or national boundaries as an alternative to the global system and US imperialism. Are they fascists? As a general rule, no, they are not. In fact, many of them are closer to being genuine anarchists than many in the anarcho-leftoid milieu are. I’ve encountered a few individuals in the N-A milieu who carried some residual “fascist” influences just as I’ve encountered left-anarchists with residual Bolshevik influences, but that’s about it.
As for the views on racial miscegenation, holocaust denial, etc. some of them are into, it’s a matter I’m indifferent to as well. I see this as no more significant than Black Muslim opposition to pork or alcohol, conventional Christian opposition to adultery or abortion, feminist opposition to pornography, or Noam Chomsky’s downplaying the atrocities of the Khmer Rouge.
Am I a dupe for N-As? Maybe. Or, LOL, maybe they’re dupes for me! Or maybe we’re simply able to look past all this secondary stuff and focus on the real issue at hand: resistance to the empire.
Btw, there are indeed Maoists and other leftwing “extremists” in my circle. In fact, one of my very best friends of 20 years is an unreconstructed commie who participated in the May-June ‘68 Paris uprising and was a Maoist in France in the 70s.
I have political associates from the Christian Exodus Project but anyone who knows me knows I’m about as much of a Christian as Friedrich Nietzsche. I have many black political associates whom I’ve collaborated with on various projects. I count many blacks, Jews and other “non-whites” among the ranks of my personal friends. Just as I have Christians and Muslims among the ranks of my personal friends.
As for Bill White, I was a peripheral associated of his during his Utopian Anarchist Party and later N-A phase, but I ceased all contact with him when he became a Hogan’s Heroes Nazi.
Daniel Owen,
You remind me of myself during my leftoid phase. You make the kinds of claims and arguments I would make if I were still of that mindset. I invite you to further discussion of these matters.
March 20th, 2008 at 9:13 am
Daniel,
With all respect, you seem to have trouble mustering up the required attention span to actually find out about the things you rail against, before you dismiss them as “fascist” or “contemptible” without any serious discussion as to why. For instance, you claim that Green Anarchy has supported Timothy McVeigh, the Aum sarin attacks, AIDS, etc, etc but this is inaccurate - you are thinking of the British publication Green Anarchist, which ran an article in the mid-90s supporting terrorist atrocities like the aforementioned (incidentally, the author has since retracted his views). I too am less than keen on both Green Anarchy and Green Anarchist, but this is because they retain their irrational leftist dogmatism.
All of this said, I find it interesting that you say these are ‘contemptible’ people but they are ‘at least not racist’. So, it’s less ‘contemptible’ to espouse mass murder, terrorism and the like provided they aren’t ‘racist’? This is characteristic leftist thinking - the crime of racism outweighs all other thought-crimes.
March 20th, 2008 at 9:31 am
I made a lengthy reply to you on your “Do I Think Jews Control the World?”. I finished with an observation which I’ll share here:
“Apparently you were a member of the Love & Rage Federation? Everything I’ve heard about it sounds terrible. White guilt, sub-Trotskyism, etc. But you seemed to have had some kind of knee-jerk reaction against so-called “left-anarchism” and become the mirror image of Chuck Munson. (Seriously, you’re both “Big Tent” strategists — he’s more open to eco-terrorists, paedos, and drop-out parasites, and you’re more open to neo-nazis, post-fascist “Third Positionists”, etc.)”
Keith Preston: “As for the views on racial miscegenation, holocaust denial, etc. some of them are into, it’s a matter I’m indifferent to as well. I see this as no more significant than Black Muslim opposition to pork or alcohol, conventional Christian opposition to adultery or abortion…”
I guess there we differ. 6 million people seems significant to me. I think the denial of the holocaust is reason enough for a severe beating or worse. Nuff said. If you’re really that “broad church” you’re just a demagogue with no moral standards or basic humanity. I think there’s a great deal of naivety and “playing politiks” in your attitude, because for me people who worship Julius Evola are people who worship one of the strategists behind the “strategy of tension” in Italy that killed many anarchists — many, I’m sorry, individuals. The people that died in the holocaust were real — not something you can ignore to further “political alliances.” People going on about the evils of “race mixing” are relating their theories to real people — people who may be physically harmed by those that hold these racist ideas. You’re just like the Trotskyists who “critically support” murdering thugs in Third World countries because of “in the greater dialectical picture” it furthers “the development of the means of production” so as to one day “free the proletariat”, or some such bollocks.
I’m not a lefty, Mr Preston. I agree with your critiques of how New Left “cultural Marxism” has subverted anarchism. I’m not some little berk whose picked up Emma Goldman and decided I was an anarchist — I’m a third generation socialist and a second generation anarchist and I’m proud to say that three members of my family died in WWII fighting fascism.
Keith Preston: “maybe we’re simply able to look past all this secondary stuff and focus on the real issue at hand: resistance to the empire.”
Take a fucking hike you lefty demagogue.
March 20th, 2008 at 9:35 am
Luke — no, I know the difference between the American and UK “green anarchists.” It’s just that they’re one big happy family and don’t see support for mass murder as justifying an end to friendly relations.
“All of this said, I find it interesting that you say these are ‘contemptible’ people but they are ‘at least not racist’. So, it’s less ‘contemptible’ to espouse mass murder, terrorism and the like provided they aren’t ‘racist’? This is characteristic leftist thinking - the crime of racism outweighs all other thought-crimes.”
No, I meant I’d kick Steve Booth in the bollocks if I ever met him but as far as an expose of “national anarchism” goes they are reliable as they, for all their other huge faults, not actually racist (though some of their stuff on population would indicate that a minority of them are).
March 20th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Daniel, it is precisely this utopian, “holier than thou” attitude that does so much more damage to the anarchist movement than any denial of a historical event. I think you’re far too authoritarian an anarchist for my taste. I simply didn’t realize you claimed a monopoly on authentic resistance - my bad.
March 20th, 2008 at 10:59 am
If anyone cares, here’s Daniel Owen’s post on my blog and my responses:
“Ok, Mr. Preston, but there is a tad of a difference between recognizing Zionism as a powerful and negative force and going on about “the Jews.” Note that many of the best anti-Zionist scholars and activists are Jewish. Many Jewish fundamentalists see Zionism as heretical.”
Absolutely! I, for one, am a big fan of leftist anti-Zionist writers like Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein and am very sympathetic to the Neteuri Karta. So, I might add, are many in the N-A milieu.
“But your emphasis on Zionism seems to go beyond mere support for the Palestinians.”
You’re damn right it does. This is a situation where US foreign policy in the Middle East has been hijacked by a foreign state.
“Oil companies, neocon geopolitical think-tanks, old-guard Colonel Blimp types, Christian fundamentalists, ex-Trotskyists, etc. also have their say in the running of the American state. ”
Agreed. These are in fact the allies and accomplices of the US Zionist lobby.
“The fact that you’re mates with Troy Southgate says it all. He’s ex-NF, supports “left Nazis” such as the Strasser brothers, and has a major hardon for Nazi mystics like Julius Evola (who worked for the SS). ”
Troy is probably a purer anarchist than I am, having opposed the Ron Paul campaign on anti-electoralist and anti-reformist grounds while I supported Ron Paul. Troy can speak for himself, but as one who has read many of his writings, I find him to be a much more sincere as well as practical anarchist than what is frequently found in the anarcho-leftoid milieu. I’ve also found him to be a tolerant person who welcomes gays like the late Alisdair Clarke into the N-A circle. Not a Nazi at all.
“Your mate Bill White isn’t exactly friendly towards non-Zionist jews — unless his astute reading of “Mein Kampf” told him otherwise. ”
I supported Bill when he was an anarchist. When he renounced anarchism for George Lincoln Rockwell Nazism, I stopped supporting him. That’s all there is to it.
“Apparently you were a member of the Love & Rage Federation? Everything I’ve heard about it sounds terrible. White guilt, sub-Trotskyism, etc. ”
I was at their founding conference but disassociated myself from that project afterwards.
“But you seemed to have had some kind of knee-jerk reaction against so-called “left-anarchism” and become the mirror image of Chuck Munson. (Seriously, you’re both “Big Tent” strategists — he’s more open to eco-terrorists, paedos, and drop-out parasites, and you’re more open to neo-nazis, post-fascist “Third Positionists”, etc.)”
Munson holds me in no higher regard than you do, and I’ve certainly had my criticisms of him, but I would agree with him on his question.
“Your stuff on “cultural Marxism” isn’t bad, but you’ve picked some mighty dodgy friends. I’m also critical of multiculturalism, but from a different angle. Check out these articles:
http://libcom.org/library/seperatism-accident-or-design-red-action
http://libcom.org/library/redistribution-recognition-left-critique-multiculturalism-aris-shivani
http://libcom.org/library/multiculturism-or-the-cultural-logic-of-multinational-capitalism-zizek
http://libcom.org/library/time-dump-multiculturalism
http://libcom.org/library/race-attack-red-action-multiculturalism”
Thank you
“p.s. I’m not Irish. I’m English. I have celtic ancestry.”
My mistake
March 20th, 2008 at 11:35 am
“I guess there we differ. 6 million people seems significant to me. I think the denial of the holocaust is reason enough for a severe beating or worse. Nuff said.”
Daniel, whenever I encounter people like you I’m reminded of Alexandra Kropotkin’s observations about all of the Bolshie-wannabes among the ranks of the Russian anarchists.
While not personally sympathethic to so-called “holocaust denial”, I believe all historical questions should be open for investigation, inquiry, debate, disagreement, revision, etc. and I most certainly do not believe in assaulting or killing people for getting historical facts wrong.
“If you’re really that “broad church” you’re just a demagogue with no moral standards or basic humanity.”
I’m a moral skeptic in the tradition of Machiavelli, Hobbes, Stirner, Nietzsche and the Social Darwinists. Life is war. Survival of the fittest is the law. Period. Sorry if that shatters your illusions.
“I think there’s a great deal of naivety and “playing politiks” in your attitude, because for me people who worship Julius Evola are people who worship one of the strategists behind the “strategy of tension” in Italy that killed many anarchists — many, I’m sorry, individuals.”
Well, I admire Thomas Jefferson. Maybe I’m just a closet wannabe-slaveholder.
“The people that died in the holocaust were real — not something you can ignore to further “political alliances.” People going on about the evils of “race mixing” are relating their theories to real people — people who may be physically harmed by those that hold these racist ideas.”
Well, you might have a point if National-Anarchism were about building gas chambers and crematoria, which it is not. Instead, it is a nativist movement interested in preserving indigenous European identity, in the same way as indigenous peoples’ movements all over the world.
” You’re just like the Trotskyists who “critically support” murdering thugs in Third World countries because of “in the greater dialectical picture” it furthers “the development of the means of production” so as to one day “free the proletariat”, or some such bollocks. ”
I am for supporting the independence of Third World countries from imperialism. Nothing more, nothing less. How they organize their own societies is none of my business. While not agreeing with Trotskyism as an ideological system, I know a few Trots who are decent people.
“I’m not a lefty, Mr Preston. I agree with your critiques of how New Left “cultural Marxism” has subverted anarchism. I’m not some little berk whose picked up Emma Goldman and decided I was an anarchist — I’m a third generation socialist and a second generation anarchist and I’m proud to say that three members of my family died in WWII fighting fascism. ”
Good for you and good for them.
“Keith Preston: “maybe we’re simply able to look past all this secondary stuff and focus on the real issue at hand: resistance to the empire.”
Take a fucking hike you lefty demagogue.”
So, first I’m a fascist, and now I’m a lefty. Daniel, you simply don’t make any sense.
March 20th, 2008 at 11:43 am
If anyone cares, here’s Daniel Owen’s post on my blog and my responses:
“Ok, Mr. Preston, but there is a tad of a difference between recognizing Zionism as a powerful and negative force and going on about “the Jews.” Note that many of the best anti-Zionist scholars and activists are Jewish. Many Jewish fundamentalists see Zionism as heretical.”
Absolutely! I, for one, am a big fan of leftist anti-Zionist writers like Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein and am very sympathetic to the Neteuri Karta. So, I might add, are many in the N-A milieu.
“But your emphasis on Zionism seems to go beyond mere support for the Palestinians.”
You’re damn right it does. This is a situation where US foreign policy in the Middle East has been hijacked by a foreign state.
“Oil companies, neocon geopolitical think-tanks, old-guard Colonel Blimp types, Christian fundamentalists, ex-Trotskyists, etc. also have their say in the running of the American state. ”
Agreed. These are in fact the allies and accomplices of the US Zionist lobby.
“The fact that you’re mates with Troy Southgate says it all. He’s ex-NF, supports “left Nazis” such as the Strasser brothers, and has a major hardon for Nazi mystics like Julius Evola (who worked for the SS). ”
Troy is probably a purer anarchist than I am, having opposed the Ron Paul campaign on anti-electoralist and anti-reformist grounds while I supported Ron Paul. Troy can speak for himself, but as one who has read many of his writings, I find him to be a much more sincere as well as practical anarchist than what is frequently found in the anarcho-leftoid milieu. I’ve also found him to be a tolerant person who welcomes gays like the late Alisdair Clarke into the N-A circle. Not a Nazi at all.
“Your mate Bill White isn’t exactly friendly towards non-Zionist jews — unless his astute reading of “Mein Kampf” told him otherwise. ”
I supported Bill when he was an anarchist. When he renounced anarchism for George Lincoln Rockwell Nazism, I stopped supporting him. That’s all there is to it.
“Apparently you were a member of the Love & Rage Federation? Everything I’ve heard about it sounds terrible. White guilt, sub-Trotskyism, etc. ”
I was at their founding conference but disassociated myself from that project afterwards.
“But you seemed to have had some kind of knee-jerk reaction against so-called “left-anarchism” and become the mirror image of Chuck Munson. (Seriously, you’re both “Big Tent” strategists — he’s more open to eco-terrorists, paedos, and drop-out parasites, and you’re more open to neo-nazis, post-fascist “Third Positionists”, etc.)”
Munson holds me in no higher regard than you do, and I’ve certainly had my criticisms of him, but I would agree with him on his question.
“Your stuff on “cultural Marxism” isn’t bad, but you’ve picked some mighty dodgy friends. I’m also critical of multiculturalism, but from a different angle. Check out these articles:
http://libcom.org/library/seperatism-accident-or-design-red-action
http://libcom.org/library/redistribution-recognition-left-critique-multiculturalism-aris-shivani
http://libcom.org/library/multiculturism-or-the-cultural-logic-of-multinational-capitalism-zizek
http://libcom.org/library/time-dump-multiculturalism
http://libcom.org/library/race-attack-red-action-multiculturalism”
Thank you
“p.s. I’m not Irish. I’m English. I have celtic ancestry.”
My mistake
March 20th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
“TGGP — huh? Presumably you link to such for educational purposes rather than out of ideological affinity.”
I’ll venture an answer on his behalf: Hell Yes. I myself have been fascinated by people ranging from Carl Schmitt (christ lord almighty!) to Slavoj Zizek (holy hell on wheels!).
March 20th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
@ Daniel Owen
No, can’t say as that I’ve actually ever even done as much as talked to him online. It looks like he’s posting here now, so he’ll be able to confirm that.
But if you say he’s a racialism and I say there’s very little difference between racialism and racism, how do you read that I would agree with him or be one of his compadres?
Also, for the comparison of right-wing libertarianism with the Third Reich, I was thinking of something along these lines:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r78Ib1n69MM
March 20th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
“I guess there we differ. 6 million people seems significant to me. I think the denial of the holocaust is reason enough for a severe beating or worse. Nuff said.”
And the denial of the excesses of the Cultural Revolution? A punch in the gut and slap in the face, or perhaps half a slap? How about denial of the Islamic contribution to the slave trade? Stomp on the foot?
March 20th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Jeremy — Boohoo. What anarchism really needs is Third Positionists. I’m a sectarian in the tradition of Albert Meltzer.
Keith Preston — We in Europe have a “No platform” policy as regards fascists, which sees ethno-nationalism as beyond the pale. Not having experienced fascism, Americans can be as wishy-washy as you like. I use “lefty” in an ironic manner — as the average boots n braces neo-nazi at least has the guts to hold to certain principles.
Dain — Yeah. I’ve argued elsewhere that psychical-force antifascism should be extended to apologists for mass murder under other banners , such as Stalinists and Maoists.
Anyway
Keith Preston: “As for the views on racial miscegenation, holocaust denial, etc. some of them are into, it’s a matter I’m indifferent to as well. I see this as no more significant than Black Muslim opposition to pork or alcohol, conventional Christian opposition to adultery or abortion…”
As far as I’m concerned — Nuff said. Make up your own minds people.Ddo you have principles or just big mouth?
I bow out of this discussion.
March 20th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Soviet Onion,
I’m actually fairly enthusiastic about Rothbard’s “New Left entente” period, and on good terms with a lot of Austrians in that tradition (Roderick Long, Rad Geek, Brad Spangler, Joseph Stromberg, etc.). Nothing inherently vulgar about Austrianism, although I do differ with them on rent and interest.
March 20th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
“Keith Preston — We in Europe have a “No platform” policy as regards fascists, which sees ethno-nationalism as beyond the pale.”
No, you do. I don’t. Frankly, extremist scum like you make me ashamed to be human, let alone European.
“Dain — Yeah. I’ve argued elsewhere that psychical-force antifascism should be extended to apologists for mass murder under other banners , such as Stalinists and Maoists.”
Then you should be kicked in the bollocks. Oho, the irony.
“As far as I’m concerned — Nuff said. Make up your own minds people.Ddo you have principles or just big mouth?”
I have principles - freedom of thought and association, and eternal war against those who attempt to limit that, like religious fundamentalists, neo-Nazis, and people like yourself. Now do the human race a favour and fuck off and die.
“I bow out of this discussion.”
An honourable surrender, old boy.
March 20th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
I respond to Daniel Owen here. My ideological affinity to such people is mostly limited to a distaste for the status quo, though of course I want to shift in a direction of less authoritarianism rather than more. I try to read people who have a very different perspective from me though.
As for Austrians and mutualists, some of you might be interested in this debate between Bastiat and Proudhon on interest, brought to us by Roderick Long.
March 20th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
When the hell was there ever a fascist regime in England?
I consider myself to be a single-issue activist, and that single issue is overthrow of the present US ruling class. Those who are interested in this objective are welcome into my circle, irrespective of the rest of their views. Yes, Neo-Nazis, Commies and other left-wing totalitarians, theocratic religious movements and the like would be dangerous if they had real power, which they’re not going to get, at least not in the USA. The real danger here is authoritarian liberalism. All who oppose this are welcome. National-Anarchists, welcome. Black Panthers, welcome. Evangelical Christians, welcome. So-called “eco-terrorists”, welcome. Anti-Zionist Jews, or even pro-Zionists with anti-imperialist foreign policy views, welcome. Gays, welcome. Marxists, welcome. Paleoconservatives, welcome. Members of the criminal underclass, welcome.
Bigoted assholes like you, Daniel, who are more interested in attacking other groups who are out of power and against the system, are even welcome once you get your thinking straightened out.
The alternative system I postulate is based on a simple idea: Dissolving the present regime into regional federations of micronations and intentional communities (sort of Liechtenstein meets Christiana). Everyone gets a piece of the pie. Even unsympathetic jerks like you.
March 20th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
If anyone cares, here is an essay by a national-anarchist named Flavio Goncalves outlining the basic ideas of the movement. I picked this because I found it to be generally representative of what I have encountered in those circles. While I would emphasize ethnicity and ecology less, and individualism more, I generally concur with this article.
*National-Anarchism: The Way of the Future*
*by Flavio Goncalves*
WHAT led me to write this short essay - through which I will try to
explain how National-Anarchism first arose and what it stands for and why -was the fact that whilst involved in a discussion regarding the Unabomber with other comrades I came to realize that in Portugal, and in Portugal alone, there is a huge lack of knowledge regarding this vanguard’s ideological current, a
current that at least from the perspective of those who run Wikipedia, although very reluctantly, has finally been included as a valid current of Anarchism.
It’s common for National-Anarchists (N-A) to be frowned upon with
distrust by the whole political spectrum – both from the right-wing and the left-wing– and even fought back by both mainstream Nationalists (pro-State, supremacist and racist) and mainstream Anarchists (anti-State, egalitarian and anti-racist). Why? Because N-A, even though they agree partially with a few common goals, repudiates the majority of the dogma upheld by both
movements. N-A stands out as a revolutionary third way.
*The repudiated dogmas*
*State* – N-A, like any other Anarchist current, does not uphold the existence of a ruling state; all decisions must be taken by the local communities, not by a central government and politicians that are not aware of the realities of the people. N-A is also anti-totalitarian, by extension that means it is anti-fascist and anti-communist.
*Racial supremacy* – N-A does not recognize the superiority of any race, whatever it may be, by doing so it does not uphold that Nationalist dogma. Races are different and cannot be compared nor labeled. What is good for one race does not necessarily mean that it is good for another race. What some consider as evolution and civilisation, others find to be abomination and barbarism.
*Racism* – N-A is not racist, it does not discriminate against anyone because of their race, creed or culture. N-A works with
revolutionaries from all races, ethnic backgrounds and creeds.
*Equalitarian* – N-A is not egalitarian, it defends the fact that
every person is different unto himself, meaning that if I am different from my own brother or my own family it’s only due to an act of imbecility that I would not consider myself to be different from members of other sexual, racial and cultural groups. Each person is an individual, with different capacities; equality does not exist in the real world. Nonetheless, N-A stands for the
equality of opportunity.
*Anti-racism* – N-A, even though not being racist, does not uphold the anti-racist dogma that discriminates “positively”. N-A recognises that races exist and that their differences can and should not be fanatically eliminated, as most of the anti-racists believe.
*Left/Right* – N-A has attracted since it’s conception both former
leftists and rightists, it is a third way ideology and as such it is beyond left and right, considering both concepts to be surpassed realities. Some of the N-A propaganda upholds that today it’s not an issue of Left versus Right but of the State versus the citizen, of people that support the System and people that fight the System.
*What it stands for*
N-A stands for something that many believe to be pessimistic and/or
defeatist, and considering the degree of social degradation that is
so deep
and rooted we see no way of turning this boat around, if you will
allow me
to use an analogy from “Ship of Fools”. Drugs, alcohol, MTV and sexual
degradation have affected our society in such a way that it is
impossible to
return to the old days, some even consider those things as a
fundamental
part of our society.
N-A stands for the termination of nation-states, has a necessity for
survival and upholds the need of a rebirth of our tribal spirit. All
national territories should be regionalised, fragmented, reduced to
small
territories and within those territories people with common ethnic or
cultural affinities will gather together. Our notion of Nationalism
is very
strict: it covers solely the racial group closer to us (Azoreans,
Galicians,
Flemish, for example) and also covers the cultural aspects of that
group (we
also uphold autonomous communities for homosexuals, hippies,
vegetarians,
Muslims, pagans, etc.) or even the political aspects (autonomous
communities
for Anarchists, Ecologists, Social Democrats, etc.). N-A above all
stands
for the right of any individual to live among those whom he feels more
comfortable with ideologically, racially and culturally, or by any
other
identitarian concept that may define him and his people as a group.
We should have autonomous and independent communities for each ethnic
and
cultural group. N-A believes that the racist formula upheld by most
Nationalist parties, proposing the expulsion of all ethnic and
cultural
minorities from our territories is completely unrealistic and
surpassed by
the real world: there are millions of citizens from other races and
cultures
living in Europe and, believe us, they are here to stay!
So being, the regions where a large concentration of different
populations
live will have to right to create their own communities and that is
nothing
new, even the Greeks in old Hellas lived in this way, in autonomous
city-states that had different cultures (let us compare Sparta to
Athens,
just to exemplify this example).
This N-A stance angers particularly the mainstream Nationalists, but
we hope
that they might gift us with any other more realistic solution, or
would
they prefer a total civil war or maybe even a policy of genocide?
*Utopia?*
This being said, you are free to consider National-Anarchism as an
Utopian
ideology. N-A is not an ideology for the present time, it is
something that
has been created to prepare the ground for tomorrow, when today’s
System
disintegrate amid all the wars and natural disasters that have
started in
the last few years. It’s not with joy that we behold today’s world, N-
A may
very well be the only valid future for the time when it all gets even
worse
and, believe us, it will get much worse. National-Anarchism, at
least, tries
to be a more realistic option.
March 20th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
There you have it, folks. I’m a “bigoted asshole” when it comes to Third Positionists, fascists, racists and all other ethno-nationalists.
Flavio Goncalves: “Races are different and cannot be compared nor labeled. What is good for one race does not necessarily mean that it is good for another race. [...] N-A recognises that races exist and that their differences can and should not be fanatically eliminated, as most of the anti-racists believe.”
I stick with the old rallying cry that libertarians have always had: Liberty, Equality and Brotherhood.
March 20th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
“I stick with the old rallying cry that libertarians have always had: Liberty, Equality and Brotherhood.”
That’s Jacobinism, the very foundation of the modern totalitarianism you represent so well.
March 21st, 2008 at 7:48 am
Fantastic, Daniel. You are completely unable to defend your absurd position, but incredibly you persist in this discussion despite having previously ‘bowed out’ of it. When I exit a debate at least I actually mean it.
March 30th, 2008 at 11:33 am
“By making the limited liability form standard, the state in effect subsidizes the corporation to the amount such default insurance would cost.”
Would default insurance cost more than the cost of incorporating? In some states, especially New York, incorporating costs over $3,000. For a small firm (let’s say a small web design firm with just 5 people) it’s hard to imagine that the default insurance would cost more than the cost of incorporating.
For those people who negotiate complicated partnership structures when setting up an LLC, legal costs can sometimes go up to $10,000, or possibly even more. This seems like more than default insurance would cost (though, of course, such agreements also touch on some issues that aren’t directly related to default).
March 30th, 2008 at 11:57 am
You’re probably right, jackson. For small firms, I’d guess the cost of incorporation would be greater than the cost of default insurance. For large corporations, the incorporation process would probably be a net subsidy. That’s especially true if you figure the default insurance would have to cover the crap they routinely get away with now in Chapter Eleven, what GM did with employee pensions, and so forth.
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:50 pm
@ Dain
“The Bay Area National Anarchists site recently proposed a tour of Vietnam, the idea being to live among the rural population there for a short while and give at least rhetorical support to their efforts to resist globalization and other upsets to their traditional lifestyle.”
Thats right (although technically it was an announcement for the New Right Australia/New Zealand). We believe it is respectf