[Cross posted at The Kingdom of God is Within You and Polycentric Order]
In the general context of the libertarian movement there seems to exist two patterns of strategic theory to achieve the end goal of Anarchist activism – a libertarian society. On one side there exists the reformist menace, a group so insecure and cowardly that they rely on the fading strength of parliamentary wash-ups and political opportunists to do the work that each individual ought to do for himself; on the other side breathes a powerful and growing camp of revolutionaries leading the way of change by combining their contempt for politics with a new wave of agitation for direct action. This situation argued elsewhere, however, the current point of interest does not so much hinge on dramatic poetry and passionate rants, as other articles have[ii][iii][iv], so much as it attempts to take a look at theoretical axioms commonly agreed upon by both camps of libertarian strategists. Yes, this article’s intent directly appeals to the more conservative/reformist camp and their enthusiastic love for the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises and especially his theory of the impossibility of socialist calculation. Far from being a discussion of political economy, however, the question of state-socialist economies will here be applied to the reformist plan to achieve the societal liberation that free market Anarchism aims at. Proving that reformism, once applied to Mises’ implications of socialist calculation, cannot possibly be looked at as any kind of path to freedom then, hopefully the reformist camp will see the light of reason emersed in Misesian spices.
First, however, to address the arguments proposed by the reformists properly, their very plan for achieving the libertarian society, a society absent a state, must be revealed. Indeed, the reformist’s plan comes down to a step by step process of small reforms within the United States government aimed at an attempt to restrain the politicians from acting within their nature. Delegating down to a plan of fighting government internally to break it down entirely, the reformists speak mostly of “steps” to gaining their liberation from the cold clutches of the state – though the ad hoc nature of their arguments seem to make the details of their intentions slightly more ambiguous (see a comparison between the Ron Paul movement’s goals in late fall and early winter[v] to its claimed goals in early spring[vi]). Conflating their system with one of incrementalist phases, claiming a monopoly on a realistic approach to change, the reformists, narrow minded and pompous, shut off completely to external logic and consistency in favor of the compromise of a crazed lunacy that suggests the nature of an entity can be overcome by the will of a handful of old men spitting and drooling into their couch cushions every night in their father’s mothball filled coats – still that’s progress from not knowing where they were sleeping to begin with.
Yes, this strategy certainly belongs to the reformists, conservative-libertarians usually associated with Lew Rockwell and the Ludwig von Mises Institute, but curiously enough, the support for a Ron Paul type step by step approach to decreasing the size of the state appears to be a direct contradiction of the Misesian background that almost all Free Market Anarchists – regardless of conservative or leftist creed – share. To understand this, take an excerpt from Mises’ Planned Chaos, a book devoted to the explanation of how middle of the road policies and rhetorical devices of conservative jargon lead to state-socialism. According to Mises, when the state intervenes in the market economy on behalf of one market variable, essentially fixing prices and wages, it must,
go further and further, fixing the prices of all factors of production – and forcing every entrepreneur and every worker to continue work at these prices and wages. No branch of production can be omitted from this all-round fixing of prices and wages and this general order to continue production. If some branches of production were left free, the result would be a shifting of capital and labour to them and a corresponding fall of the supply of the goods whose prices the government had fixed. However, it is precisely these goods which the government considers as especially important for the satisfaction of the needs of the masses, (24).
Adding still,
Price control is contrary to purpose if it is limited to some commodities only. It cannot work satisfactorily within a market economy... Production can either be directed by the prices fixed on the market by the buying and by the abstention from buying on the part of the public. Or it can be directed by the government’s central board of production management. There is no third solution available. There is no third social system feasible which would be neither market economy nor socialism. Government control of only a part of prices must result in a state of affairs which – without any exception – everybody considers as absurd and contrary to purpose. Its inevitable result is chaos and social unrest, (25).[vii]
The conclusions drawn by the great, free market economist Ludwig von Mises seem clear here. Given the involvement of the government in one area of the economy, unless it is removed entirely from all market variables at once, one step towards a free market economy in the marsh of state-socialism will only result in a further sinking towards the bottom of an unpleasant floor laid with the stench of mud and ***.
Indeed, to deny that state-socialism only results in planned chaos where every single move contradicts every other move displays a surprising lack of understanding, or perhaps just a willed ignorance, for the principles of Mises. Even in an instance where the general tide swings towards liberty, without instant and total abolition of the state the blame for all the damage felt by the people, an inevitable in a state-socialist economy, will fall squarely on the shoulders of those in power – the reformist libertarians. As demonstrated by Mises, by attempting to play in the mud of the state’s economy, no matter what intentions to clean up the marsh, the murk’s victory is a certain one forever creeping up the body of those that jump gleefully into its muck. By cutting off one head of the hydra-leviathan, not only do libertarians drain themselves in a flare of roundabout activity, but they cause ten more to grow in its place. Indeed, the harsh fall of the government is a guarantee and with it must come considerable pain to the people, but if that pain is accompanied with a continued existence of the state, with the incompetent boobs in the reformist camp of libertarianism sitting on the throne, no victory for liberty will ever occur – only reactionary hate for the philosophy and those claiming its name. Absolutely, the best that can be hoped for is a revolution walking the lines outlined by Samuel Edward Konkin III in his New Libertarian Manifesto – where the use of the counter-economy doubles as a weapon against the state and as a crutch for the innocent to rely on when the state-socialist economy inevitably collapses.
Applying the principles of Mises to revolutionary strategy seems to create an obvious glass through which to look here. With the reformist strategy supporting a state-socialist whack-a-mole game, where one step towards a free market results in three more towards continued oppression, the only other option, and fortunately the most efficient one, must be pursued. Direct action, specifically Agorist action[viii], then seems to be the train that each and every self-respecting liberty lover should embark upon if he wishes to establish and maintain a libertarian society in the near to distant future. Absolutely, if one rightfully understands that reformism is an impossibility and a counter-productive one at that, then one must also understand that revolutionary Market-Anarchism is a fast sailing ship, powerful and decisive in its course of action.
de Cleyre, Voltairine. "Direcet Action." Molinari Institute. 1912. Molinari Institute. 29 Apr. 2008 .
[ii] Adami, Niccolo M. "Purge the Parlor Revolutionaries." Polycentric Order. 27 Apr. 2008. 29 Apr. 2008 .
[iii] An Apolitical Approach to Libertarianism." Brainpolice. 5 Apr. 2008. Ludwig von Mises Institute. 29 Apr. 2008 .
[iv] Molyneux, Stefan. "The Ron Paul Revolution – A Postmortem (& Prescription)." Freedomain: The Logic of Personal and Political Freedom. 6 Feb. 2008. Freedomain Radio. 29 Apr. 2008 .
[v] Murtaroe, Kathryn. “How a 'Third-Tier' Candidate Wins the Primary.” Lewrockwell.com 9 Nov. 2007 .
[vi] Sunwall, Mark. “Ron Paul as Prophet.” Lewrockwell.com 3 March. 2008 .
[vii] von Mises, Ludwig. Planned Chaos. 6th ed. Irvington-On-Hudson, NY: FEE, 1977.
[viii] Adami, Niccolo M. "The Virtues of Agorism: A Direct Action." Polycentric Order. 16 Apr. 2008. 29 Apr. 2008 .
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
*boinks the liberventionists in heinee*
Niccolò:Conflating their system with one of incrementalist phases, claiming a monopoly on a realistic approach to change, the reformists, narrow minded and pompous, shut off completely to external logic and consistency
I remain open-minded on this issue, but I have yet to hear strong arguments that agorism is a realistic approach to change. Thus far from agorist defenders I'm only getting a lot of strategy that ignores the differing personality types found in nature (most people who aren't angry young men like and prefer a sovereign), dubious assertions (e.g. avoiding crackdowns with PDAs, uh huh), appeals to authority (SEK, who likes to make unsupported assertions such as "All will fail if for no other reason than Liberty grows individual by individual"), and flawed, easily-defended attacks on reformism (e.g. not emperically supported, too hard to win elections).
Niccolò:According to Mises, when the state intervenes in the market economy on behalf of one market variable, essentially fixing prices and wages, it must go further and further, fixing the prices of all factors of production – and forcing every entrepreneur and every worker to continue work at these prices and wages. No branch of production can be omitted from this all-round fixing of prices and wages and this general order to continue production
I disagree with Mises here. IMO he is making the same mistake that he accuses others of, in regards to the ERE. That is, the ERE is a mental construct designed to show us certain things about reality, but should not be assumed to have the possibility of actually ever becoming reality. Thus, for example, Austrians condemn neo-classical competition theory because it embraces "perfect competition", something that only exists in the ERE and bears no resemblance to actual competition in the real world (e.g. no perfect knowledge, no homogenous products, no exit/entry barriers, no "many" competitors).
Well, I think the Mises makes that error in thinking of politics. I think perfect socialism and perfect anarchism are like ERE's -- useful in showing aspects of the real world but unable to manifest in the real world due to human nature. People will never embrace perfect socialism because most people love private property and freedom too much (not to mention the calculation problem). However, IMO people will never embrace perfect anarchy either, because some people need a sovereign and fear life without one.
Niccolò:Direct action, specifically Agorist action[viii], then seems to be the train that each and every self-respecting liberty lover should embark upon if he wishes to establish and maintain a libertarian society in the near to distant future.
Only angry young men are willing to take on the state directly. The rest of us have families to consider.
"He that struggles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper." Edmund Burke
maxpot46:I remain open-minded on this issue, but I have yet to hear strong arguments that agorism is a realistic approach to change.
Agorism is the practical application of Misesian economics to revolutionary theory. Economic law is immutable, and Mises and Rothbard had clearer economic vision than anyone before, and few since. The counter-economy will prevail because the state is self-cannibalizing. Whether or not the counter-economy is part of an Agorist strategy depends on how many counter-economists are consciously Agorist.
But I would point out that it doesn't matter whether it "works" as a revolutionary strategy. You should circumvent the state every chance you get because it is to your benefit to do so.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
MacFall:But I would point out that it doesn't matter whether it "works" as a revolutionary strategy. You should circumvent the state every chance you get because it is to your benefit to do so.
I'm totally with you there, and I certainly do so as much as possible.
maxpot46: I remain open-minded on this issue, but I have yet to hear strong arguments that agorism is a realistic approach to change. Thus far from agorist defenders I'm only getting a lot of strategy that ignores the differing personality types found in nature (most people who aren't angry young men like and prefer a sovereign),
I remain open-minded on this issue, but I have yet to hear strong arguments that agorism is a realistic approach to change. Thus far from agorist defenders I'm only getting a lot of strategy that ignores the differing personality types found in nature (most people who aren't angry young men like and prefer a sovereign),
I don't know what you mean by "sovereign."
How exactly does Agorism "ignore differing personality types"? How could such a thing even remotely apply?
dubious assertions (e.g. avoiding crackdowns with PDAs, uh huh),
First, a defense agency is not the means by which Agorism proposes to "avoid crackdowns." The fact that you even think that indicates how little you know.
Agorists do not believe PDA's will even occur until the 3rd to 4th phase of the revolution. Agorists do, however, believe that "avoiding crackdowns" is something worth doing, and as Agorists have a particularly high incentive for doing it, they should do it well given the freeness of competing strategies to avoid the state - if economic law means anything to a conservative like you.
appeals to authority (SEK, who likes to make unsupported assertions such as All will fail if for no other reason than Liberty grows individual by individual"),
Unsupported, ok.
and flawed, easily-defended attacks on reformism (e.g. not emperically supported, too hard to win elections).
Do you even know what empricism is? It's just the observation of given trends, such as the trend of reformists barking at people to vote while consistently failing afterwards.
I disagree with Mises here.
Then the article is not addressed for you. My intention is not to rehash the Socialist calculation debate. Read Planned Chaos if you want.
Again, what's a sovereign? In any case, then you're a statist and an inherent enemy.
Right, as you've already admitted, your love for liberty is just a quaint hobby - a fetish. You have a liberty fetish; it doesn't make you a libertarian, just someone turned on by the bosom of liberty.
Niccolò:Right, as you've already admitted, your love for liberty is just a quaint hobby - a fetish. You have a liberty fetish; it doesn't make you a libertarian, just someone turned on by the bosom of liberty.
This is a flippant response to a serious issue that any anarchist movement faces.
It's all well and good when we exist alone, angry, separate and in a vacuum of our own creation.
Our priorities and necessities change when we are responsible for, and to, others.
Liberty student, Nic's a leftist-libertarian. He wants to kill voters who vote against tax-raising ballot-initiatives.
He has also admitted his belief that other individuals are weak-minded; in his mind, other individuals will be believe whomever states ideas in the most insulting, arrogant, forceful manner.
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.
Ego: Liberty student, Nic's a leftist-libertarian. He wants to kill voters who vote against tax-raising ballot-initiatives. He has also admitted his belief that other individuals are weak-minded; in his mind, other individuals will be believe whomever states ideas in the most insulting, arrogant, forceful manner.
No, I'm actually just a libertarian - I'm sorry you can't deal with the fact that libertarians (true libertarians) are left, but it is the truth nonetheless.
I don't want to kill voters, nor have I ever even suggested it. I have, however, suggested shunning individuals that have been given all the arguments opposing their tactics, but proceed to vote anyways.
I don't know where I "admitted a belief that other individuals are weak-minded." Where does this come from? A basic understanding of persuasion techniques?Oh, ok.
liberty student: Our priorities and necessities change when we are responsible for, and to, others.
Who is "we"?
I did not say that having a mere fetish for liberty, as opposed to a devotion to it, could not be worked with. No, I just said that Maxpot is only a fetishest, which he is. Actually, perhaps I can even retract that. Maxpot has a fetish for the word liberty, but not the actual thing - er... well, at least not for people who don't have a penis...
You advocated murdering tax-cutting free-market politicians on the grounds that politicians rule over you (never mind the fact that free-market politician is trying to reduce oppression), and you oppose voting against tax-cutting ballot initiatives because voting is ruling over you (never mind that the voter is trying to reduce oppression). I drew the connection because I figured that you'd be consistent.
As for your "weak-minded" question:
When asked why you were so always so arrogant and rude, you replied that other people are convinced when someone acts that way as opposed to acting calmly and politely. I certainly assume that you don't feel you would fall for an argument because its proponent is being arrogant and rude; you probably feel that you weigh ideas based on their merit and truth. Why not give everyone else the same credit that you give yourself instead of assuming that you're smarter?
Niccolò:Who is "we"?
People with responsibilities to others. Mouths to feed. Children to watch. Spouses to support (emotionally, if not financially).
You know, grown up stuff.
Ego: You advocated murdering tax-cutting free-market politicians on the grounds that politicians rule over you
You advocated murdering tax-cutting free-market politicians on the grounds that politicians rule over you
Not entirely. If I've said that, it was not entirely serious, my position isn't an advocation of killing politicians, it is one of accepting the act as moral, but not entirely expediant to advancing the cause of liberty.
(never mind the fact that free-market politician is trying to reduce oppression),
Except they don't. They only increase it, though indirectly.
and you oppose voting against tax-cutting ballot initiatives because voting is ruling over you (never mind that the voter is trying to reduce oppression). I drew the connection because I figured that you'd be consistent.
Oh, I do oppose voting, but not because it is "ruling over me." I oppose it because it is counter-productive - I have no solid position on the morality of it; I quite frankly just don't give a damn about that.
As for your "weak-minded" question: When asked why you were so always so arrogant and rude, you replied that other people are convinced when someone acts that way as opposed to acting calmly and politely. I certainly assume that you don't feel you would fall for an argument because its proponent is being arrogant and rude; you probably feel that you weigh ideas based on their merit and truth. Why not give everyone else the same credit that you give yourself instead of assuming that you're smarter?
That's really simplistic. Do you know what attribution theory is?
The purpose of science/logic/philosophy/etc. is to remove oneself from the aspect of judgment.
The simple fact is that as a general rule people tend to follow direct approaches or characters that display intuitive confidence. Whether I do this or not - I, as most people, do fall into the trap - is not the issue
liberty student: People with responsibilities to others. Mouths to feed. Children to watch. Spouses to support (emotionally, if not financially). You know, grown up stuff.
Uh huh... Well, that's nice. It isn't the road I would choose - or at least it isn't a road that I would choose if it pertained to an exclusive situation where you either have one or the other - but congratulations on being such a "grown up," guy who sits on computer arguing with college students and high school drop-outs.
Niccolò:Uh huh... Well, that's nice. It isn't the road I would choose - or at least it isn't a road that I would choose if it pertained to an exclusive situation where you either have one or the other - but congratulations on being such a "grown up," guy who sits on computer arguing with college students and high school drop-outs.
LOL.
You forgot high school drop outs who live at home with their parents.
You almost had me converted over to your cause with the moral justification for killing politicians (or the lack thereof) and then you had to go and insult me because I'm a high school drop-out.
Oh well, gotta go walk the dog and then go work for The Man...
Anonymous Coward: You almost had me converted over to your cause with the moral justification for killing politicians (or the lack thereof) and then you had to go and insult me because I'm a high school drop-out. Oh well, gotta go walk the dog and then go work for The Man...
Actually, I put you in the same boat as college students - like me.
We're all equals.
Niccolò:I don't know what you mean by "sovereign."
It's in the dictionary.
Niccolò:How exactly does Agorism "ignore differing personality types"? How could such a thing even remotely apply?
Demographics is a hugely important consideration when crafting effective economic or political strategy.
Niccolò: appeals to authority (SEK, who likes to make unsupported assertions such as All will fail if for no other reason than Liberty grows individual by individual"), Unsupported, ok.
It is an unsupported assertion, to put it charitably. Put bluntly, it's nonsense. Liberty could grow in one fell swoop if a president signed an executive order reinstating the dollar's link to gold (as one of many examples).
maxpot46: It's in the dictionary.
I know the definition, but I don't know why one needs a king or queen. Talk about unsupported claims.
maxpot46: Demographics is a hugely important consideration when crafting effective economic or political strategy.
You didn't even come close to answering the question.
maxpot46: It is an unsupported assertion, to put it charitably. Put bluntly, it's nonsense. Liberty could grow in one fell swoop if a president signed an executive order reinstating the dollar's link to gold (as one of many examples).
Oh... Like the liberty you had in 1970, gotcha!