Forums of the Libertarian Left

I have really mixed feelings on Keith Preston. On one hand, his rhetoric can often be offensive, and he sometimes panders more to the Right than I would like. His call to purge the anarchist movement of cultural leftism was also bizarre (as well as being contradicted by his general approach). But on the other hand, some of his ideas are really good (for example, this post on Attack the System). I agree that a broad anti-state coalition is constitutive of our best chance at achieving freedom in our lifetimes (as part of a strategy also including education, civil disobedience, building alternative institutions, and putting political, social, and economic pressure on the state and the ruling class), and that post-state, a panarchy with communities ranging from far "left" to far "right" and everything in between will probably emerge. Of course, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't still emphasize the "left" part of left-libertarianism; breaking down racism, sexism, and heteronormativity is ultimately just as important as overthrowing the corporatist state. However, I don't see why we can't have strategic alliances with elements of the populist and decentralist Right, even if they may disagree with us on cultural issues. The way I see it, the state is the primary enabler of the other forms of oppression; they won't disappear with the fall of the state, but they will be far weaker, and ultimately reduced to idiosyncratic personal preferences, rather than the negative spontaneous orders that exist today.

Thoughts?

I always thought he wrote great articles, it really is a shame about the recent ones. I think he's harbouring a long term resentment to the cultural left due to his early days in what he would call the "leftoid" scene as can be seen in this article http://anti-state.com/article.php?article_id=369
It is understandable (the people he describes did sound rather hopeless) that he isnt too fond of the identity politics that some of the left are guilty of but i think he crossed the boarder to insanity a little bit when he wrote about purging the pan-seccession of all leftists.
However vulgar he may have been i think that ultimately he is right in that our biggest enemy is the state and cultural differences seem rather irrelevant, at the same time we dont wont to slip into "the enemy of our enemy is our friend" because if you look at the history of anarchism thats really not true. I think a pan-secessionist movement is probably the best idea of actually putting this into practice that we've got and Carson argues for a similar strategy at the end of his book (albeit with different allies in mind). If the people we choose to unite with are anti-state for whatever reason thats all that matters since post pan-secession we can just leave each other alone. If this means accepting the cultural right then so be it, its better than allying with liberals or marxists.

Well, NoLeaders, part of the problem is: I don't trust the motives of "national anarchists" and paleo-libertarians. Sure, it sounds all nice to propogate a "we can co-exist" thing, but when it comes down to what some of these people are proposing post-state I have doubts that this implied mutual respect for the other's basic rights is genuine or truly mutual. It seems like there is an issue of anti-statism being used as a means to ends that are highly questionable and contradictary. I certainly don't see many of the paleos and nationalist types particularly demonstrating "tolerance" for left-libertarians.

To an extent, the issue really isn't about a conflict of cultural positions so much as a conflict between a version of libertarianism that sees no problem with social authoritarianism in the sense of communalist or traditionalist laws enforced onto everyone vs. a version of libertarianism that is more likely to oppose such a thing in a broader sense, I.E. sort of regaurdess of what the cultural position is. Although ultimately it also seems like it is relevant to question whether or not certain cultural norms tend to undermine liberty and manifest themselves as authoritarianism more than others, and I'm fairly convinced that many of the norms of social conservatism are essentially inherently authoritarian in nature.

Brainpolice wrote:Well, NoLeaders, part of the problem is: I don't trust the motives of "national anarchists" and paleo-libertarians. Sure, it sounds all nice to propogate a "we can co-exist" thing, but when it comes down to what some of these people are proposing post-state I have doubts that this implied mutual respect for the other's basic rights is genuine or truly mutual. I certainly don't see many of them particularly demonstrating "tolerance" for left-libertarians.

And this brings up 2 related problems, one of which you touched on: will there really be a live-and-let-live attitude, and will the existence of, say, explicitly patriarchal communities undermine our own communities (to just use one example)?

Yeah i can see that being a problem, but then many ancoms consider anything remotely market based to be violent and vice a versa so can we trust anyone outside the ALL?
I havent talked to many paleo-libertarians so i dont know exactly what their proposals are, is it just rightist identity politics or something more sinister?

Also, I would add that, among paleos, I have found mixed attitudes towards a live-and-let-live panarchy, similar to the mixed reactions it receives with anarcho-syndicalists and other social anarchists. I haven't yet had much interaction with national anarchists, although I find a lot of their ideas to be downright bizarre.

Noleaders wrote:Yeah i can see that being a problem, but then many ancoms consider anything remotely market based to be violent and vice a versa so can we trust anyone outside the ALL?
I havent talked to many paleo-libertarians so i dont know exactly what their proposals are, is it just rightist identity politics or something more sinister?

It varies. It ranges from right-wing identity politics fused with libertarianism to extremely vulgar tendencies in favor of causes such as restoring European monarchy, establishing a private theocracy, reinstating institutional racism and plain old statist nationalism.

wombatron wrote:Also, I would add that, among paleos, I have found mixed attitudes towards a live-and-let-live panarchy, similar to the mixed reactions it receives with anarcho-syndicalists and other social anarchists. I haven't yet had much interaction with national anarchists, although I find a lot of their ideas to be downright bizarre.

Well I myself have a mixed attitude towards panarchy in the sense that I think that anarchism becomes meaningless if it reduces to a completely open-ended tolerance in which literally whatever values or ends people want to persue are legitimized (even if those values or ends end up being authoritarian in themselves or leading to authoritarianism) on the basis of the questionable assumption that those values or ends will not be externalized coercively onto others. I do see a certain danger of approaching the matter in such a rigidly "value-neutral" way that panarchy pretty much becomes a floating abstraction, a void which one can fill with any value one wants.

This leads to a conundrum that I have meditated on before: how is anarchy sustainable qua anarchy without some degree of common values, and at what point does "pluralism" become superficial and begin to undermine itself (I.E. as a "pluralism" that tolerates small-scale concentrations of forced homogeneity, which is anti-pluralistic in a sense, and is therefore only "pluralistic" relative to small-scale fixed centers of homogeneity)? On the other hand, it seems like things are too monopolistic in a broad sense without some degree or kind of pluralism. The only solution to the conundrum would seem to be a certain degree of balance between "pluralism" and "universalism", if you will.

Brainpolice wrote:

Noleaders wrote:Yeah i can see that being a problem, but then many ancoms consider anything remotely market based to be violent and vice a versa so can we trust anyone outside the ALL?
I havent talked to many paleo-libertarians so i dont know exactly what their proposals are, is it just rightist identity politics or something more sinister?

It varies. It ranges from right-wing identity politics fused with libertarianism to extremely vulgar tendencies in favor of causes such as restoring European monarchy, establishing a private theocracy, reinstating institutional racism and plain old statist nationalism.

Well if its just identity politics then i have no problem with that, i disagree, but we could still get along with them surely.
As for restoring monarchy, how do they plan to do this?
How private is a private theocracy?
How do they plan on reinstating racism and nationalism in more than isolated areas?

First of all, Brainpolice: twinkles.

Second: Did we as a community not come to fucking resolution on this bullshit like a week-and-a-half ago?

Third . . .

I agree that a broad anti-state coalition is constitutive of our best chance at achieving freedom in our lifetimes

Taken alone or in tandem with aberrant social philosophies, this will result in something qualitatively worse more often than not, given present attitudes and circumstances.

(as part of a strategy also including education, civil disobedience, building alternative institutions, and putting political, social, and economic pressure on the state and the ruling class)

So it's good to see that you're not taking them alone. Here's my question:

Why is anti-statism to the point, and not any of these other things? Why are the latter optional and expendable when the former is not? And yes, you are saying they are expendable if you plan to ally with people who reject them but are hostile to the existing state, or when you agree to give them special exemption to do their own thing to others trapped in their territorial swamp and look the other way.

The way I see it, the state is the primary enabler of the other forms of oppression; they won't disappear with the fall of the state, but they will be far weaker, and ultimately reduced to idiosyncratic personal preferences, rather than the negative spontaneous orders that exist today.

1. Why is fractured power, which has better connection to the eyes on the ground and is able to hold itself in more intimate contact with the objects of oppression, less able to be qualitatively more oppressive in it's given sphere of influence, even though that sphere is smaller? Remember, we're talking about a lot of small spheres, which combined can add up a large degree of harm, more than what a single large entity of comparable size would be able to do.

If you're arguing that violence requires subsidy because it's inefficient, it would be wrong to assume that just because top-down political structures choose to inefficiently blow money on cruise missiles means that violence is necessarily unsustainable without it when the same standard does not apply to security or road building. It's still quite possible to lynch people or isolate them from social support networks without spending a single dollar.

2. Explain the Middle Ages.

And this brings up 2 related problems, one of which you touched on: will there really be a live-and-let-live attitude, and will the existence of, say, explicitly patriarchal communities undermine our own communities (to just use one example)?

1. They probably won't. They certainly adopt "live-and-let-live" to people coming into "their community" from the outside, or children born into these communities that won't conform to the mold, or people who moved in but then changed their minds.

2. Of course they will undermine our own communities . . . If we stand back and do nothing. Not so much because of anything they'd do to us, but because of how we will have compromised ourselves. Because by standing back, by drawing boundaries between "we and our freedom over here" and "they over there" we've already killed the spirit that we needed to animate ourselves. Freedom is either universal or not at all. Libertarian ideals are universal or they're not libertarian at all. Morality is either universal or it's not morality. Humanity is either universal, or it's not humanity.

I care about other people because the kind of freedom I need depends on everyone's freedom, and I can't draw a distinction between "my people" and "their people" without destroying it. Period.

Yeah i can see that being a problem, but then many ancoms consider anything remotely market based to be violent and vice a versa so can we trust anyone outside the ALL?

I am not a relativist. They are objectively, factually wrong and we are objectively, factually right, and part of what the ALL is supposed to be doing is to talk to leftists, engage them on that point and try to persuade them of the truth, like we've been doing for a while to some success. Do you people believe in reason or not?

This actually ties into my old pet peeve about fetishizing "difference" and "diversity". Pluralism does not entail sequestering ourselves off into our little mutually-exclusive comfort zones and tacitly agreeing never to challenge each other. Lot's of little ideological no-go zones stacked side by side are bad for the same reason that one, unchallenged hegemonic ideology is bad. The point is not to cling to "things" and secondary implications over discourse and first principles.

Wombatron, I have just about exactly your same approach. I'm still reflecting on the fruits of the last debate, but I will say that to me pan-secessionism is just what you're left with if you really want a chance at a freer world without having to force everybody to see things your way. The missionary zeal for converting the world coming from some corners of the libertarian left really leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I'm not a libertarian or an anarchist because I know what's best for everybody else, or because I have the secret sauce to world peace.

I predict that at some point in the future there will be a major split on the Left between the egalitarian-humanist-universalist wing and the radical post-modernist/radical multicultural/cultural relativist/overtly Third Worldist wing, as these two are obviously incompatible with one another.

- Keith Preston

One more thing: I and another ALLer knocked back some beers with the guy last week. He's not a bogeyman; he's actually pretty chill. God help me if I'm ever judged solely by what I say on the motherfucking internet.

Brainpolice wrote:To an extent, the issue really isn't about a conflict of cultural positions so much as a conflict between a version of libertarianism that sees no problem with social authoritarianism in the sense of communalist or traditionalist laws enforced onto everyone vs. a version of libertarianism that is more likely to oppose such a thing in a broader sense, I.E. sort of regaurdess of what the cultural position is.

Yeah, to me, not the issue at all. The issue is how you're going to go about opposing authoritarianism in a broader sense. Getting rid of the state is one instrumental means to left libertarian values. I believe our values can stand on their own, that they can be demonstrated - not that I can't free people until they agree with me. It's not that I don't have a problem with authoritarianism in more traditionalist societies, it's just that I don't think a crusade is the answer (and it always, always is when people start saying things like they are objectively right and others are objectively, factually wrong).

It's like we don't believe our own rhetoric sometimes. If left libertarian values really are better, then shouldn't people naturally gravitate towards them or be more amenable to them the freer and more undistorted the society? Isn't the point to get to a society where we can show people a way of life, an approach to the human condition that is genuinely preferable? Sure, you don't need to oppose the state to do that - but then again, opposing the state certainly doesn't hurt, either. In fact, the sooner left libertarians can get control of their own lives and communities and not have to cut through red tape, institutionalized authoritarianism, artificially mediated communities with no incentive to come together, etc. the sooner we can make our point. Or, we're wrong and the sooner we realize it.

As far as the national anarchist, Brainpolice, you're free to have your suspicions. Until they actually engage in some sort of deplorable act, though, I think a lot of the talk about them is SPLC-style blustering and posturing. I'm all for opposing fascism (whatever "opposing" means to you, including being really sincere on the internet), but come on - it's not an excuse to just beat down people because they disagree with you. Keith is right: the Antifa types will be the future secret police. It's the attitude.

Brainpolice wrote:

wombatron wrote:Also, I would add that, among paleos, I have found mixed attitudes towards a live-and-let-live panarchy, similar to the mixed reactions it receives with anarcho-syndicalists and other social anarchists. I haven't yet had much interaction with national anarchists, although I find a lot of their ideas to be downright bizarre.

Well I myself have a mixed attitude towards panarchy in the sense that I think that anarchism becomes meaningless if it reduces to a completely open-ended tolerance in which literally whatever values or ends people want to persue are legitimized (even if those values or ends end up being authoritarian in themselves or leading to authoritarianism) on the basis of the questionable assumption that those values or ends will not be externalized coercively onto others. I do see a certain danger of approaching the matter in such a rigidly "value-neutral" way that panarchy pretty much becomes a floating abstraction, a void which one can fill with any value one wants.

This leads to a conundrum that I have meditated on before: how is anarchy sustainable qua anarchy without some degree of common values, and at what point does "pluralism" become superficial and begin to undermine itself (I.E. as a "pluralism" that tolerates small-scale concentrations of forced homogeneity, which is anti-pluralistic in a sense, and is therefore only "pluralistic" relative to small-scale fixed centers of homogeneity)? On the other hand, it seems like things are too monopolistic in a broad sense without some degree or kind of pluralism. The only solution to the conundrum would seem to be a certain degree of balance between "pluralism" and "universalism", if you will.

.

Well I also believe that forms of cultural oppression are manufactured by the state and they will become less powerful after its death. However as a panarchist myself I feel we don't have to subscribe to territorialist conquest of "paleo-national-heathens". Of course we should apply self-defense when someone pulls out a cultural imperialism. And that the problem with national-anarchism. I agree that it fetishizes culture in a similar way that anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-communists fetishize their economics. And it has a territorialist conception (see: "homogenous village societies").
I have the belief, however, that these folks will not attack dissidents unless they are repressed. And a good thing with panarchy is that it allows dissidents to disengage - unlike other proposals. If I could find a better alternative than panarchy I would sure subscribe to it, but I haven't found something better...

I think also that trying to restore theocracy or monarchy or who-knows is hopelessly utopian and deranged in a lot of ways. Even the wildest utopias of the anarchocommunists seem far more rational than this. I don't think that most people would want such regimes back anyway. It's more acts of crackpottery in my opinion, and I think that the way the far-rightist paleos focus on these issues makes them look very very irrelevant and divorced from actually-existing-reality. My solution to all this is drawing lines. "Cultural preservation" is a matter only of those who want to "preserve culture". "Religion preservation" is a matter only of those who want to "preserve religion". "Monarchy (sigh!) Restoration" is a matter of importance only for monarchists. I believe that it's our duty as libertarians to make it absoutely clear. You DON'T have the right in order to "liberate" your self or your team to enslave others. If we are to keep it libertarian we cannot have every neo-Jacobin or neo-Tory make the libertarian movement an identitarian movement, just because the want to "liberate" themselves. <<"Liberation" for "liberationists" only>> should be our motto. Any opinion on that?

I don't think that "teh revolution" will follow anyone's party lines exactly, so we might need to work with other groups, and sometimes trust them.

But I'm taking the market approach - others can join us, or they can compete with us. There are enemies, and then there are competing brands. I look at LVMI, Campaign for Liberty, etc as competing brands. When our interests work together then yeah, we should work with them. And when their members are attacked by the state yeah, we should back them up. But that doesn't mean that we have to pretend to agree with them to get anything done.

The National Anarchists, on the other hand, have demonstrated via their rhetoric and Folsom Street Fair action, that they are objectively statist.

When push comes to shove, I don't expect your average Ron Paul supporter to shoot me for the glory of the Constitution. I don't think as highly as everyone Preston would ally with. This doesn't mean we shouldn't talk to these people, but acting like they're "with us" is a little premature.

I see ALL as building bridges, not walls, and inviting potential ALLies to cross the bridge to our side.

Regarding Preston saying stuff on the internet: I don't think it's very chill to giggle about sicking the Cossacks on people because they don't fit into your identity politics.

[edited annoying grammatical error]

Darian wrote:I don't think that "teh revolution" will follow anyone's party lines exactly, so we might need to work with other groups, and sometimes trust them.

But I'm taking the market approach - others can join us, or they can compete with us. There are enemies, and then there are competing brands. I look at LVMI, Campaign for Liberty, etc as competing brands. When our interests work together then yeah, we should work with them. And when their members are attacked by the state yeah, we should back them up. But that doesn't mean that we have to pretend to agree with them to get anything done.

The National Anarchists, on the other hand, have demonstrated via their rhetoric and Folsom Street Fair action, that they are objectively statist.

When push comes to shove, I don't expect your average Ron Paul supporter to shoot me for the glory of the Constitution. I don't think as highly as everyone Preston would ally with. This doesn't mean we shouldn't talk to these people, but acting like they're "with us" is a little premature.

I see ALL as building bridges, not walls, and inviting potential ALLies to cross the bridge to our side.

Regarding Preston saying stuff on the internet: I don't think it's very chill to giggle about sicking the Cossacks on people because they don't fit into your identity politics.

[edited annoying grammatical error]

I agree with everything. We should INDEED take the market approach. We should check the quantity and the quality of people who become parts of our movement, and see what have we done correct and what not. Also when we see that other antagonistic anti-statist movements draw a lot and intelligent people, we should see what they do correct or not, in order to "use" it. Also we should avoid attitudes that draw unintelligent and fanatic people - they destroy every movement they infiltrate. There is no reason that we see PL or NA as enemies as misguided as they may be. After all, if our ideas are better, in the long run we'll win!

Darian wrote:Regarding Preston saying stuff on the internet: I don't think it's very chill to giggle about sicking the Cossacks on people because they don't fit into your identity politics.

That is not at all an exaggeration of a completely literal opinion.

Goddamn it people, we just went through this!!

I think also that trying to restore theocracy or monarchy or who-knows is hopelessly utopian and deranged in a lot of ways. Even the wildest utopias of the anarchocommunists seem far more rational than this. I don't think that most people would want such regimes back anyway.

Um, isn't the Taliban currently prying large swaths of territory away from the US and Afghan forces to the tune of at least some popular support? Didn't the Islamic Courts Union do the same in south-central Somalia back in 2006, 15 years after state collapse? Isn't there a secessionist movement of fundamentalist Christians moving to South Carolina and attempting to make it an independent theocracy? Hasn't Keith Preston praised this as a positive development, thereby indicating that theocracy is indeed compatible with pan-secessionism as he conceives it?

I'm still eagerly awaiting someone to address the issue of the Middle Ages, in which the social fabric was comprised of mostly hyper-local private entities descended from the non-state barbarian groups that filled the power vacuum left by the Western Roman Empire, usually in the form of MONARCHIES and THEOCRACIES. People in that society should have had an exceedingly easy time engaging in "personal secession" and forming their own communities, and in which harmful social dynamics, like patriarchy and religious fundamentalism, should have been weeded out through natural processes, right?

Incidentally, the closest thing to the refuge societies you people keep claiming as an ever-accessible solution took several centuries to finally appear, and did so in the form of Free Cities: incipient commercial nodes based on mass society, long-distance trade and continent-wide travel and interconnectivity.

And while we're at it, how about attempting to actually prove the assertion that power is qualitatively less harmful on a smaller scale instead of just asserting it over and over again and acting like it's already beyond question.

Restating my original query:

1. Why is fractured power, which has better connection to the eyes on the ground and is able to hold itself in more intimate contact with the objects of oppression, less able to be qualitatively more oppressive in it's given sphere of influence, even though that sphere is smaller? Remember, we're talking about a lot of small spheres, which combined can add up a large degree of harm, more than what a single large entity of comparable size would be able to do.

If you're arguing that violence requires subsidy because it's inefficient, it would be wrong to assume that just because top-down political structures choose to inefficiently blow money on cruise missiles means that violence is necessarily unsustainable without it when the same standard does not apply to security or road building. It's still quite possible to lynch people or isolate them from social support networks without spending a single dollar.

"There is no reason that we see PL or NA as enemies as misguided as they may be. After all, if our ideas are better, in the long run we'll win!"

If the truth of ideas were sufficient to guarantee their victory, then human history would have been a far happier place. In reality, authoritariainsm has often won- and one way it can win is if liberty counts on a disembodied market to provide for it. A market is merely a name for the sum of free actions, and if we do not act ourselves within it to acquire the social goods we desire then we are missing the point. As Roderick Long has said: we are the market. To advocate freedom for truth and falsity alike entails that we take the responsibility for discriminating between the two upon ourselves. If we do not actively use our voices to counter those who advocate doctrines which cause senseless pain to human beings, then we have only won a free market of ideas at the price of refusing to sell our wares, to the benefit of those who sell shoddy and dangerous goods. This is senseless.

The use of coercion is one important way that lies may win over truth, but there are others- the distinguishing characteristic of left-libertarianism is arguably precisely this recognition: the awareness that not only the state but other socio-economic heirarchies and authoritarianisms can constrain the human spirit and break the individual's will down into submission. One cannot honestly apply this insight and yet turn a blind eye to those who oppose the state in the name of older and no less cruel forms of human domination.

Liberty is impossible outside of the context of a society which recognises the moral right of individuals to think for themselves and choose for themselves how to live. Religious fundamentalisms and racist tribes do not and cannot do that. Their natures are deeply and inevitably contrary to the individualist values without which liberty is an arbitrary goal and a meaningless word.

The national anarchists are virulent authoritarians who reject the state precisely in order to establish or re-establish the most iron authoritarian heirarchies. And whatever they say, the claim that they do not advocate coercion is a word game. We all start as children, and our freedom for the most first decade and a half of our lives sets the tone for the rest. National anarchists cannot maintain the community consensus, rigid identities, or geographical racial purity they desire without subjecting their children to continual assaults on their ability to reason and choose for themselves. I should know: I grew up in a family just like Keith's, and barely survived.

Most of the world is born under conditions wherein children are subjected to near-absolute power directed from all sides against their independence and rational faculty. Any society which mandates a religion or an ethnic identity as a prerequisite for functionality in social life does this. The unspeakable achievement of the open society is that individuals do not always have to follow their parent's religion, politics, or choice of spouse. The opposite has been the norm for all the agonised millennia of premodern societies. The national anarchists and their third positionist and nouvelle droit backers want to destroy that achievement. They want to protect societies in which people must sacrifice their own reason to the myths of the tribe. To those who are curious and intelligent this si spiritual murder

Jeremy's citation of Preston is right. There is an irreconcilable difference between left-libertarians who desire a kind of society characterised by individualism and social justice, and anarcho-pluralists who desire the removal of the state in the name of a relativist acceptance of all social systems, including authoritarian heirarchies characterised by collectivisms of caste and tribe. Both may oppose the state and the American Empire, but they do so for very different reasons and with very different ends. And I do not wish to give any aid to those who would set of societies in which I could not live, and which would be worse than the status quo for everyone and everything I care about.

I very clearly do believe that certain social systems are better for the realisation of human happiness and potential- those characterised by liberte and egalite, in their classical liberal meanings. I hope for a world in which dictatorship, racism, patriarchy, and other forms of oppression have gone the way of human sacrifice, murderous cannibalism, and the slave trade. We should have enough intellectual courage to say that freedom is better than slavery, that reason is better than irrationality, and that happiness is better than misery. If we cannot do that, then we are not serious in any claim to oppose human contraint and suffering. Relativism is in the last analysis no friend to individualism- if all things are equal and must be let be, then the historically incredible assertion that human beings can defy the social norms and live their own lives is dust. It is religion and authority which gains in we deny the human mind the right to overturn convention in favour of reason. They need murky postmodern darkness; that which brings happiness and makes sense should not fear but embrace the revealing sunlight.

Nor is enabling anarcho-fascists sane strategy. We have not the slightest chance to make allies on the anarchist left if we enable those who want to fully bring back all the racist and sexist horrors that a previous generation of radicals partially defeated at enormous cost. You cannot call yourself 'left' and cheerfully work with a philosophy named in open homage to national socialism. To try would be to betray every woman, every person of colour, every queer individual who wants a way to defend freedom which does not come at their expense. If left-libertarianism cannot be that wing of libertarianism which opens its doors to all, then no other faction will, and the result will be that all who do care or must care for social justice will have no choice but to join with those who wrongly oppose markets and commerce.

Use your freedom in the free market of ideas: condemn in the harshest terms those who would bring back the dead misery of life in societies which lack even the concept of individualism. React openly in horror to those who would desecrate anarchism by attempting to incubate and hatch a resurrected fascism within its chest. Left-libertarianism is getting off to a very promising start, precisely because of its fiery idealism and its consistent recognition of Promethean individualist values. To allow this to fail, now, when this discussion should be over, would be a historical crime.

And for those who say that ideas do not effect history and have no power= let them respect those who do believe that ideas are crucially important, and recognise their lack of equal stake in the situation by graciously stepping aside for those who do deeply care. Those for whom individuality is life itself, and for whom a politics which applies freedom to all is a necessity of living, need their own space- and an unobstructed road.

SOVIET: Regarding Preston saying stuff on the internet: I don't think it's very chill to giggle about sicking the Cossacks on people because they don't fit into your identity politics.

JEREMY: That is not at all an exaggeration of a completely literal opinion.

ASTER: With all due respect, Keith used the word 'pogrom'. Not all of us have the luxury of being so blithe in the face of words that are meant to remind us of the power of bigotry to kill. I'm not a terribly serious person, but in this case I'm living-or-dead serious. I am sorry, but real people's lives, bodies, and freedom are on the line- like, mine-, and I don't find anything either rational or noble in treating humanly unequal politics equally when people are getting hurt. Do I have to bring up graphic news articles showing what can happen to transgendered people and sex workers caught outside the city walls? Soviet rolled a natural 20 when he put it like this: "When did they last lynch white guys in Virginia". I know the history's more complicated, but I trust you get the point.

'Pogrom'. That's one of those special words like 'torture' that you don't get to take back. Keith crossed a line. Charles, Soviet, Gillis, Darian, Gogulski, Royce, Spangler, Carson, and Roderick all saw it. You may decide not to judge all you wish, but those of us concerned with this world and how we can learn how to make it human are not aided by your stance. Ideas have consequences. Cultures make or break souls. Political philosophies kill.

Your stalwart defence of your friend is admirable, but there are people on his newsgroup who link directly to Stormfront. It's that's ok with you, then barbed wire and slave labour are ok with you. It's not okay with me, nor is it ok with any political movement with which I wish to participate. Because whether you think so or not, human ideas determine whether your society has free speech or whether your society has concentration camps. Reason works. Appeasing national tribalism is an epic fail.

Aster
I am in factual reality trying to "marketize" liberal values. This is a job that I'am trying to do in the Greek blogosphere since the uprisings of December that I'm active commentor. The problem is that I, also, do not like the idea of nationalism being promoted by libertarians. It is pointless. In those grounds we could as well sell neoliberalism as freedom. But I find wasting our time with national anarchists (either as allies or enemies) counterproductive at best. While I think that they'll be a sensation in anti-Nazi and centre-left "concerned groups", I doubt that in the long run they'll be any successful. I find it more a more plausible scenario that the original White Nationalists will hit 'em harder than anything that we will do. My problem is: How you sell efficiently cultural libertarianism? While I have found useful arguments and argumantation tactics, due to a general experience in Internet communication, I think that there is still something missing...

Soviet Onion
The truth is that I was thinking in Western Society terms. I know that vocally-religious groups generally tend to favour authoritarian norms and regimes. And the problem is: how do you sell libertarianism to these folks? My answer is that the movement should not try to build alliances in ideological grounds, but in purely practical, considering our goals as given. I affirm what I said in my first post. <<"Liberation" for "liberationists" ONLY and EXCLUSSIVELY>>. We should make clear that authoritarianism is not to be tolerated by us at least. The problem is: how you sell it? How you achieve it? The only way is to search the history about the preconditions for a liberal society (such as the Free Cities you describe or the Great Britain). What social preconditions made the Anglo-American individualist ethos possible? And, more important, what contributed to its decline?
As for the fractured power issue I answered above.

As far as the national anarchist, Brainpolice, you're free to have your suspicions. Until they actually engage in some sort of deplorable act, though, I think a lot of the talk about them is SPLC-style blustering and posturing. I'm all for opposing fascism (whatever "opposing" means to you, including being really sincere on the internet), but come on - it's not an excuse to just beat down people because they disagree with you. Keith is right: the Antifa types will be the future secret police. It's the attitude.

I'm not sure where you're getting this. I don't support the antifa groups, at least insofar as they use arbitrary violence as a tactic. But I reject the assumption that Keith (and you to a lesser extent?) are making, I.E. that it's the anti-nationalists who are violent and irrational while the "nationalist anarchists" are just innocent people who merely want to secede. I'm mystified as to what basis there is for this one-dimensional accessment in which the anti-racists are assumed to be violent while the nationalist groups are assumed to be passive. There is plenty of behavior on the nationalist side that mirrors the antifa irrationality (they're becoming very popular in Russia right now, where they have their training camps and where they randomly assault and murder immigrants). What I gather from Preston is that he is projecting his own negative accessment of anti-nationalists and anti-racists onto the entire thing, and using that projection as a point from which to be reactionary and dismiss the entire sentiment wholesale. That is part of exactly what I was debating confederalsocialist (who one could say is youtube's version of Preston) about.

1. An open-ended pan-secessionism means abandoning our principles. We are anarchists because we believe in human freedom and equality. A free society is better than a slave society. A free society is better than an oppressive society.

2. An open-ended pan-secessionism means endangering ourselves. At this point, the far right relies on anti-queer, anti-immigrant and anti-abortion campaigns to hold itself together. And all these campaigns involve violence. I'm queer. Others here are immigrants. Others here may need abortions at some point.

3. An open-ended pan-secessionism means losing solid allies for untrustworthy ones. This is harder to evaluate. Yes, I sometimes take some flak in social anarchist circles for my market anarchist views, but not as much as some of you might think. I for one can't trust the Naanies the way I can trust my fellow-anarchists.

4. An open-ended pan-secessionism means turning neutral parties into enemies.

5. An open-ended pan-secessionism, even if it undermines the macro-state, would replace it with many micro-states. Anarchist enclaves would still face hostile states. Anarchists in micro-states would still need to be able to either overthrow them or escape. I'm not convinced that this strategy is the best one for abolishing the macro-state anyway.

What we do here, we should do as forthright ANARCHISTS.

Brainpolice wrote:I'm not sure where you're getting this. I don't support the antifa groups, at least insofar as they use arbitrary violence as a tactic. But I reject the assumption that Keith (and you?) are making, I.E. that it's the anti-nationalists who are violent and irrational while the "nationalist anarchists" are just innocent people who merely want to secede. I'm mystified as to what basis there is for this one-dimensional accessment in which the anti-racists are assumed to be violent while the nationalist groups are assumed to be passive. There is plenty of behavior on the nationalist side that mirrors the antifa irrationality (they're becoming very popular in Russian right now, where they randomly assault and kill immigrants). What I gather from Preston is that he is projecting his own negative accessment of anti-nationalists and anti-racists onto the entire thing, and using that projection as a point from which to be reactionary and dismiss the entire sentiment wholesale. That is part of exactly what I was debating confederalsocialist (who one could say is youtube's version of Preston) about.

The Nazis and their allies are extremely violent. As in they kill their critics, as well as people in target populations, and get away with it because too many of the police support the nadros. I have been attacked, more than once, by the nadros. Classic antifa tactics may not be the best tactics, but things have already moved from preclusive self-defense, and in Russia, they have reached the point of desperate self-defense against a stronger, more organized enemy. How do you propose to stop the nadros before they kill again?

Brainpolice wrote:There is plenty of behavior on the nationalist side that mirrors the antifa irrationality (they're becoming very popular in Russia right now, where they have their training camps and where they randomly assault and murder immigrants).

Some response to Soviet may have spilled on you. Let me get you a towel. In other words, sorry. The above quote reflects my view as well.

jeremy6d wrote:

Brainpolice wrote:There is plenty of behavior on the nationalist side that mirrors the antifa irrationality (they're becoming very popular in Russia right now, where they have their training camps and where they randomly assault and murder immigrants).

Some response to Soviet may have spilled on you. Let me get you a towel. In other words, sorry. The above quote reflects my view as well.

No need for towels. But yea, I'm not exactly "left-sectarian" about this issue in the sense that I oppose what I would consider to be irrational tactics on "both sides", although I principally side with the causes of anti-nationalism and anti-racism. By no means would I make a blanket defense of everything that European antifa groups do. But I think Kieth's expressed view is skewed in a way that essentially constitutes a blanket defense of the nationalist groups.