A.3.6 What is Cultural Anarchism?
For our purposes, we will define cultural anarchism as the promotion of anti-authoritarian values through those aspects of society traditionally regarded as belonging to the sphere of "culture" rather than "economics" or "politics" -- for example, through art, music, drama, literature, education, child-rearing practices, sexual morality, technology, and so forth.
Cultural expressions are anarchistic to the extent that they deliberately attack, weaken, or subvert the tendency of most traditional cultural forms to promote authoritarian values and attitudes, particularly domination and exploitation. Thus a novel that portrays the evils of militarism can be considered as cultural anarchism if it goes beyond the simple "war-is-hell" model and allows the reader to see how militarism is connected with authoritarian institutions (e.g. capitalism and statism) or methods of authoritarian conditioning (e.g. upbringing in the traditional patriarchal family). Or, as John Clark expresses it, cultural anarchism implies "the development of arts, media, and other symbolic forms that expose various aspects of the system of domination and contrast them with a system of values based on freedom and community." This "cultural struggle" would be part of a general struggle "to combat the material and ideological power of all dominating classes, whether economic, political, racial, religious, or sexual, with a multi-dimensional practice of liberation." In other words, an "expanded conception of class analysis" and "an amplified practice of class struggle" which includes, but is not limited to, "economic actions like strikes, boycotts, job actions, occupation, organisations of direct action groups and federations of libertarian workers' groups and development of workers' assemblies, collectives and co-operatives" and "political activity" like the "active interference with implementation of repressive governmental policies," the "non-compliance and resistance against regimentation and bureaucratisation of society" and "participation in movements for increasing direct participation in decision-making and local control." [The Anarchist Moment, p. 31]
Cultural anarchism is important -- indeed essential -- because authoritarian values are embedded in a total system of domination with many aspects besides the political and economic. Hence those values cannot be eradicated even by a combined economic and political revolution if there it is not also accompanied by profound psychological changes in the majority of the population. For mass acquiescence in the current system is rooted in the psychic structure of human beings (their "character structure," to use Wilhelm Reich's expression), which is produced by many forms of conditioning and socialisation that have developed with patriarchal-authoritarian civilisation during the past five or six thousand years.
In other words, even if capitalism and the state were overthrown tomorrow, people would soon create new forms of authority in their place. For authority -- a strong leader, a chain of command, someone to give orders and relieve one of the responsibility of thinking for oneself -- are what the submissive/authoritarian personality feels most comfortable with. Unfortunately, the majority of human beings fear real freedom, and indeed, do not know what to do with it -- as is shown by a long string of failed revolutions and freedom movements in which the revolutionary ideals of freedom, democracy, and equality were betrayed and a new hierarchy and ruling class were quickly created. These failures are generally attributed to the machinations of reactionary politicians and capitalists, and to the perfidy of revolutionary leaders; but reactionary politicians only attract followers because they find a favourable soil for the growth of their authoritarian ideals in the character structure of ordinary people.
Hence the prerequisite of an anarchist revolution is a period of consciousness-raising in which people gradually become aware of submissive/authoritarian traits within themselves, see how those traits are reproduced by conditioning, and understand how they can be mitigated or eliminated through new forms of culture, particularly new child-rearing and educational methods. We will explore this issue more fully in section B.1.5 (What is the mass-psychological basis for authoritarian civilisation?), J.6 (What methods of child rearing do anarchists advocate?), and J.5.13 (What are Modern Schools?)
Cultural anarchist ideas are shared by almost all schools of anarchist thought and consciousness-raising is considered an essential part of any anarchist movement. For anarchists, its important to "build the new world in the shell of the old" in all aspects of our lives and creating an anarchist culture is part of that activity. Few anarchists, however, consider consciousness-raising as enough in itself and so combine cultural anarchist activities with organising, using direct action and building libertarian alternatives in capitalist society. The anarchist movement is one that combines practical self-activity with cultural work, with both activities feeding into and supporting the other.
I don't really want to comment or read anything here.I have near zero in common with many of you.I may return periodically when there's something you need to know.
Near Mutualist/Libertarian Socialist.
The problem with people is stupidity and bad biology, culture is just as side effect of that. And frankly, all your leftist cultural wonking is just as crazy and mind-controlling as any theocracy that ever lived; equality is such utter nonsense I am amazed anyone not suffering from a head injury could believe in it.
You want to make people libertarian then make them egoistic, unresponsive to social pressures and extremely greedy bastards; you'll find statist power structures will collapse without the herd mentality and plebian cultism of the sort you're promoting here. If people mind their own business and don't give much of a damn about anyone else they might be surly but they're sure as Hell not going to be obedient; and that goes for both Right and Left-wing theocracies.
Ricky James Moore II: " equality is such utter nonsense I am amazed anyone not suffering from a head injury could believe in it." Lovely! I've explained this before so I won't repeat it.Do some reading. "You want to make people libertarian then make them egoistic, unresponsive to social pressures and extremely greedy bastards;" Maybe that's your plan.It's not mine. "you'll find statist power structures will collapse without the herd mentality" I disagree. " If people mind their own business and don't give much of a damn about anyone else" The civilization will collapse or An-cap will be achieved.
" equality is such utter nonsense I am amazed anyone not suffering from a head injury could believe in it."
Lovely! I've explained this before so I won't repeat it.Do some reading.
"You want to make people libertarian then make them egoistic, unresponsive to social pressures and extremely greedy bastards;"
Maybe that's your plan.It's not mine.
"you'll find statist power structures will collapse without the herd mentality"
I disagree.
" If people mind their own business and don't give much of a damn about anyone else"
The civilization will collapse or An-cap will be achieved.
Don't you people have your own websites? We've seen this CAPITALISM IS NOT ANARCHISM stuff enough to not care over here. In fact, I am sure every link and everything you said has been brought up like 500 times by assorted black flag types. We don't care. We're an-caps, if you don't want to call us anarchists, go ahead. Doesn't matter what you want to call me, anarchist, nazi, time traveler, vulgar libertarian; whatever - I know what I am, and I don't value the opinions of lefto nuts.
Given the option between Bob Black and Commodore Vanderbilt, the choice is clear.
The NAP is just the valuing of equality of aggression. I hate to say it to you Ricky, but you're an egalitarian too.
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
Equity is not the same as equality.
Define it however you want (a common theme amongst the right); the NAP says I have a right to the same amount of aggression as everyone else (i.e. none). It says aggression should be valued equally across all sectors of society. It strives for equality, ergo, egalitarian law.
Any kind of liberty is egalitarianism. It just depends on how far you want to take that.
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun: The NAP is just the valuing of equality of aggression. I hate to say it to you Ricky, but you're an egalitarian too. Did you not catch the posts a while back where I said that the NAP is legally tautological? Any legal system whatsoever involves the NAP. I'm a propertarian-contractarian; and all property and contracts are unique. You're just grasping at straws, lefto. I will break in the doors of hell and smash the bolts; there will be confusion of people, those above with those from the lower depths. I shall bring up the dead to eat food like the living; and the hosts of dead will outnumber the living. | Post Points: 5
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:Define it however you want (a common theme amongst the right); the NAP says I have a right to the same amount of aggression as everyone else (i.e. none). It says aggression should be valued equally across all sectors of society. It strives for equality, ergo, egalitarian law. Any kind of liberty is egalitarianism. It just depends on how far you want to take that. Equality is sameness of value, and egalitarianism promotes it beyond equality under law, but into social and economic aspects as well. The Non-Aggression Principle does nothing of the sort. Egalitarianism is actually very anti-libertarian in that it holds an opinion on how people should think (we are all equal, I am not better than anyone else) and how we should treat each other. | Post Points: 35
Equality is sameness of value, and egalitarianism promotes it beyond equality under law, but into social and economic aspects as well. The Non-Aggression Principle does nothing of the sort. Egalitarianism is actually very anti-libertarian in that it holds an opinion on how people should think (we are all equal, I am not better than anyone else) and how we should treat each other.
Did you not catch the posts a while back where I said that the NAP is legally tautological? Any legal system whatsoever involves the NAP. I'm a propertarian-contractarian; and all property and contracts are unique. You're just grasping at straws, lefto.
Equality is sameness of value,
Correct. And the NAP values aggression equally for all sectors of society.
and egalitarianism promotes it beyond equality under law, but into social and economic aspects as well.
You're generalizing here. It doesn't matter what traditional leftists do. The NAP still values every person equally in terms of aggression; they should neither give nor recieve.
The Non-Aggression Principle does nothing of the sort. Egalitarianism is actually very anti-libertarian in that it holds an opinion on how people should think (we are all equal, I am not better than anyone else) and how we should treat each other.
If we are not equal why should one have equality under the law? Shouldn't the elite's have a better place in it? Why give legal protection to non-property holders, black people, jews, or anyone else you subjectively deem "non-elite?"
Twist the words any way you want, equality under the law is still egalitarianism.
Yeah, we're the ones 'twisting words'.
Crankity Crankshaft.
Look, in my view this whole 'NAP' thing is a red herring. Law presumes you've decided not to fight and seek either agreement or arbitration. It doesn't presume anyone is equal, or that 'all aggression is equal', or that people have 'equal rights and wrongs' or any such nonsense. Law is law precisely because it recognizes the unique traits and decisions of particular circumstances, it may invoke equiproportionality but so does engineering; is engineering 'egalitarian'?
You're really straining with this lefty nonsense.
Lol.
Extended above, senor.
Love the Carnegie icon, BTW.
Look, in my view this whole 'NAP' thing is a red herring. Law presumes you've decided not to fight and seek either agreement or arbitration. It doesn't presume anyone is equal, or that 'all aggression is equal', or that people have 'equal rights and wrongs' or any such nonsense. Law is law precisely because it recognizes the unique traits and decisions of particular circumstances, it may invoke equiproportionality but so does engineering; is engineering 'egalitarian'? You're really straining with this lefty nonsense
You're really straining with this lefty nonsense
Once again, try to define it how you want. You still either think everyone has a right to arbitration or you don't. That's equality under the law. If you don't what do I care? I'm referring to NAP libertarians or anyone else who thinks everyone has a right to legal representation.
(PS engineering is not a political theory)
Thank you RJM.
I'm gonna hate myself for starting pointless debates with you Epicurus, but how on earth can you say
?
This reminds me of the time when you said that giving to charity is no different then wealth redistribution.
I don't believe people have a 'right' to anything intrinsicaly, rights are a matter of contract and it is a logial and legal, not a moral, concept. It's got nothing to do with equality, it's got to do with the logic of law. Specifically, no one has a 'right' to arbitration or security, you get whatever you can convince other people to give you.
That's equality under the law.
People are not 'equal' under the law, a gangster is not equal to a stock broker, a land lord is not 'equal' to his tenant, they are all separate and unique people. Jurisprudence is a profession and a system of thinking, not some kind of ideal form.
I'm referring to NAP libertarians or anyone else who thinks everyone has a right to legal representation.
What kind of crazy libertarian things people have a right to legal representation? Who is to provide this right? Shall we conscript lawyers?
As I am well aware, but so what? All of this classical liberal rightsism is a bunch of mystical nonsense.
Anyways, I don't know what you think you're even accomplishing with this semantic equivocation, as liberal egalitarianism has nothing to do with tortfeasors and adjudication.
a land lord is not 'equal' to his tenant,
The tenant can be "equal" to the landlord if he becomes one. And even then, we have to take in consideration the expenses of property, size of property etc.
Well, the point would be that as landlord and tenant they have opposite rights and duties by contract, precisely contrary to equality; if the tenant is a landlord in his own right he is a landlord over different properties with different tenants and specific rights and duties in relation to them.
There is no 'equality before there law', there is not even any such thing as 'the law'; there are people who work within a legal framework and those who are outlaws; and no presumption of 'equality' applies to either group or between these groups; it is precisely their differences that make invokation of law useful.
I don't believe people have a 'right' to anything intrinsicaly, rights are a matter of contract and it is a logial and legal, not a moral, concept. It's got nothing to do with equality, it's got to do with the logic of law.
Should or should not every person be given the privelage of legal representation?
Specifically, no one has a 'right' to arbitration or security, you get whatever you can convince other people to give you.
Ok, you're certainly no "libertarian." So my argument doesn't apply to you at all.
Should a gangster be able to represent himself (or choose representation) in a court? Should only one side be able to present their case, or both? To both parties have an EQUAL right to representation?
What kind of crazy libertarian things people have a right to legal representation? Who is to provide this right? Shall we conscript lawyers
Once again, either people have a right to show their side of the story, or they do not (whether they represent themselves or get a lawyer. Nice try, but swing and a miss).
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:Once again, try to define it how you want.
It's always a semantics issue with you. Sadface.
You guys are arguing on multiple points, some un-related to each other. I don't see any real direction in the dispute.
Second off, rights have no real business in this discussion. In so far as rights have anything to do with voluntary exchange. The right to private arbitration is the same right to purchase an apple at the store. These alleged rights extend only so far as other parties are willing to trade with you. So in that regard it's certainly no positive, or absolute right and really it's unclear what business rights have to do in any of this.
It's not unlibertarian for a gangster to purchase legal defense. It's also not un-libertarian for the service package rendered to gangsters having a different price and qualitative composition then services rendered to honest folk. As legal representatives charge a premium for the added risk in the reputation of thier firm by defending a gangster. Seems like folks are talking past one another, when they very likely agree on some of the points in dispute.
Kalhoun is just a leftoid, I'm done talking to him pretty much forever. I have better ways to waste my goddamn time than bother with these college kids.
But this time the semantics are not coming from my side, Filc. It's like this;
Either you think every person should be able to represent themselves (even if thru a lawyer) in front of the law or not.
Should I be able to convict you of charges without you defending yourself?
If you answer that question no, then ok. YOu're not an egalitarian. But neither are you a libertarian, so whaterver.
If you answer it yes, you are. There's no way around it. There's no semantics of getting out of it. You can define equality under the law any way you want, it is still equality under the law (basically Im saying screw the semantics and cutting to the deeper issue). Im sorry you have such self-loathing for your egalitarianism, but that's the bricks. Deal with it.
"The problem with people is stupidity and bad biology"
I know of a certain other Austrian who believed that too.
What is Cultural Anarchism?
Proof that the fringe/hipster left cares only about social signaling rhetoric, and little else. Perhaps this group is synonyomous with at least a certain form of such signaling.
resist272727: Egalitarianism is actually very anti-libertarian in that it holds an opinion on how people should think (we are all equal, I am not better than anyone else) and how we should treat each other.
Egalitarianism is actually very anti-libertarian in that it holds an opinion on how people should think (we are all equal, I am not better than anyone else) and how we should treat each other.
Because libertarianism as belief never would lead us to argue "we should think aggression is bad " and "treat each other without aggression".So your argument is false.Furthermore the sameness thing is only true to an extent.I'll give you credit though,least you haven't said egalitarianism= a world of clones.
William: What is Cultural Anarchism? Perhaps this group is synonyomous with at least a certain form of such signaling.
Perhaps this group is synonyomous with at least a certain form of such signaling.
Mises and the paleosites? sure. 1950's cultural conservatism.The world's moved on people!
You want to make people libertarian then make them egoistic, unresponsive to social pressures and extremely greedy bastards; you'll find statist power structures will collapse without the herd mentality and plebian cultism of the sort you're promoting here. If people mind their own business and don't give much of a damn about anyone else they might be surly but they're sure as Hell not going to be obedient;
If people don't give a damn about others, why would they mind their own business?
Most of the busy-bodiness that goes on is over status games and moralizing; and if you think you need some deontic moral myth to make legal systems work then you don't understand customary law.
"Most of the busy-bodiness that goes on is over status games and moralizing; and if you think you need some deontic moral myth to make legal systems work then you don't understand customary law."
Are you kidding? Am I supposed to unpack that?
If you think that busy-bodiness can be differentiated from hot air by any other means than metaphor, then you don't understand anything about mythopoesis. Whatcha gotta say about that, Cracker Jack?
Ricky James Moore II: If people don't give a damn about others, why would they mind their own business? Most of the busy-bodiness that goes on is over status games and moralizing; and if you think you need some deontic moral myth to make legal systems work then you don't understand customary law.
You sound like a culturally conservative crank saying leave my bigotries alone in the same way when sometimes you criticize a racist, someone might say they has a 'right' to that opinion.In anycase sounds like your still in the randian phase.Give it a few years.
You sound like a culturally conservative crank
Lol@me being 'culturally conservative'. I think monogamy is for losers.
In anycase sounds like your still in the randian phase.Give it a few years.
Nice job sounding exactly like all the liberal retards who want to psychologize egoism away. Also, Rand was a moralizer, too. This kind of crap is why I don't talk to you left wing scum; you're just a bunch of smarmy idiots.
That does not make a lick of sense.
What an environment of love this thread is.
I don't think voluntarism promises to vanquish all bad on Earth, but merely seeks a social system where the institutionalization of coercion is rejected. Coercive acts and murder may still occur but these these would be isolated and frowned upon by people.
Even hypothesizing that no physical coercion ever occurs again, this does not mean people will have no self-esteem problems to deal with, or that annoying moralizers won't exist.
MrSchnapps: Mises and the paleosites? sure. 1950's cultural conservatism.The world's moved on people! That does not make a lick of sense. Especially since Mises' actual philosophy was largely cosmopolitan liberalism; he was pretty left-wing even if he wasn't personally a degenerate. I will break in the doors of hell and smash the bolts; there will be confusion of people, those above with those from the lower depths. I shall bring up the dead to eat food like the living; and the hosts of dead will outnumber the living. | Post Points: 5
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:If we are not equal why should one have equality under the law? Shouldn't the elite's have a better place in it? Why give legal protection to non-property holders, black people, jews, or anyone else you subjectively deem "non-elite?" Twist the words any way you want, equality under the law is still egalitarianism.
In my opinion, and probably not yours, we are not equal because value is subjective. That doesn't make anyone an elite, it just allows for people to form their own opinions on rank and use them to make decisions on who they associate themselves with. Because I don't believe in intrinsic value, it wouldn't make sense for me to want laws favoring the elite and oppressing the undesirables because those laws would have to be determined by intrinsically valueless beings and would have no intrinsic value themselves. If equality under law is egalitarianism, I am by your definition an egalitarian. But that word would have no value to me because that is not what it means to me.
Voluntaryism is favorable because it allows people to make value-based decisions for themselves and only themselves. If they attempt to do so for others, there are consequences.