Posts tagged politics

Bravo Section in Pictures.

Bravo Section, the Introduction to Anarchism Class that I volunteered to administrate for C4SS, now has some crazy logos.  Stickers, Buttons and T-Shirts should be on the way, enjoy.

Bravo

BRAVO_logo

Bravo_CIRCLE

If you are interested in jpeg copies of these items, email me or leave a comment.  Feel free to promote the Center, Stateless U. or Bravo Section with these icons to your heart’s desire.  ALL the best!

ALLiance #5 Recommended Reading.

Due to space constraints, ALLiance #5′s recommended reading list has been moved to this blog.  Also look forward to a bibliography for my article ALL Wobbly to appear here as well.

I hope to provide food for thought and vindication for left-libertarian theory and strategy.

ALL the best and enjoy:

1.  The State by Franz Oppenheimer with Introduction by George H. Smith (ISBN: 0-930073-23-1).

For those unfamiliar with Franz Oppenheimer’s classic work of political theory and sociology, I envy you because it is electric with radicalizing energy.  In one slim book Oppenheimer brings together many important philosophical and political threads and, most importantly, points out our opposition, our enemy: the “political means.”

“For a most enlightening treatment of the genesis and nature of the State, I refer my readers to Franz Oppenheimer’s short treatise on the subject (“The State …”).  It is sufficient here to define it as an organization primarily designed to perpetuate the division of Society into an owning and exploiting class and a landless, exploited class.  In its genesis it is an organization of a conquering group, by means of which that group maintains its economic exploitation of those subjugated.  In its later stages, when the conquering class has become merely an owning class, the State is an organization controlled by this class through its control of wealth, for the purpose of protecting ownership against the propertyless classes and facilitating their exploitation by the owning class.  The State is thus the natural enemy of all its citizens except those of the owning class.”  –Suzanne LaFollette, Concerning Women, footnote on pg 6-7.

I would like to highlight three important contributions this, particular, book offers to radical anarcho-libertarianism.  First, Mr. Oppenheimer offers us a link to the radical French Liberals that identified “class theory” sociology and a bridge to its contemporary incarnation: “agorism.”

Second, a clear contrast is made between Internal and External class production, which contrasts Oppenheimer from Marx.  As George H. Smith points out in endnote #2, another good reason to check out this version of The State is Mr. Smith Introduction,

“The Marxian approach, like that of Oppenheimer, is frequently placed in the “conflict school” of sociology, but with this difference: the former upholds a theory of the State based on “internal conflict” (i.e., of classes), whereas the latter is a theory of “external conflict.”  Proponents of “external conflict” believe that the State emerged from the conflict and forcible merger of two groups, victors and vanquished, which had formerly existed as separate communities.  (This is the modern “conquest theory” of the origin of the State.)

And third, as was mentioned in the quoted endnote, the historiography presented and vindicated, in The State, for the origin of the state is conquest.  Not with social contract, general will or divine appointment, but with the sword, the bullet, violence and subjugation.

But we already knew this, didn’t we?

“A small minority has stolen the heritage of humanity.”   –Franz Oppenheimer

2.  Solidarity Forever: An Oral History of the IWW by Stewart Bird, Dan Georgakas and Deborah Shaffer (ISBN: 0-941702-12-X)

Solidarity Forever is a great storied invitation to the trials and victories of the rank and file Fellow Worker.  This book will take you from the forests of the American Pacific Northwest to the textile mills of New York City; and through all the prisons in between.  From the introduction:

“Long regarded as belonging to a social movement whose time has come and gone, the IWW may yet prove to have been ahead of its time, developing and popularizing ideas very relevant to economic and political challenges undreamed of in 1905.  Knowing that humans must always err, the IWWs dared to err on the side of liberty.  The photographs we have gathered here show how that commitment to freedom blossomed into a profound mass movement.  The words of rank and file IWWs that we present embody that sense of justice and reason which prompted ordinary workers to deeds of extraordinary courage.”

3.  The Industrial Workers of the World: Its First 100 Years by Fred W. Thompson and Jon Bekken (ISBN: 978-0-917124-02-0)

The First 100 Years is great introduction to The Industrial Workers of the World.  It is written by two Fellow Workers, Fred W. Thompson and Jon Bekken, who have lived through and participated in many of the chronicled labor actions.  This book does not gloss over the failures or blow out of proportion the successes of the Union, but rather presents a living, growing phenomenon.  The IWW has weathered many storms, hard winters and police brutality, but has remained and maintained its core radicalism: workers don’t need bosses to get the job done.  From the introduction:

“The IWW was stated in 1905 by “seasoned old unionist,” as Gene Debs called them, who realized that American labor could not win with the sort of labor movement it had.  There was too much “organized scabbery” of one union on another, too much jurisdictional squabbling, too much autocracy, and too much hobnobbing between prosperous labor leaders and the millionaires in the National Civic Federation.  There was too little solidarity, too little straight labor education, and consequently too little vision of what could be won, and too little will to win it.”

4.  The New Harmony Movement by George B. Lockwood (ISBN: 0-486-22719-7)

Those of use in the Alliance of the Libertarian Left who come from the Individualist and Mutualist perspectives will find this a great introduction to Robert Owen: friend and mentor to Josiah Warren.  It presents a number of other social experiments, the practical counterpart to social theory, that were occurring in the American heartland and frontier.  There is also a whole chapter devoted to the life and experiments of Josiah Warren.

5.  AGITATE! EDUCATE! ORGANIZE!: American Labor Posters by Lincoln Cushing & Timothy W. Drescher (ISBN: 978-0-8014-7427-9)

This a great collection of labor activism and art.  There is very little text which is fine because the purpose of each piece is to grab your attention, communicate a message and point you in a direction.

Pure Angry Madness…

This story is pure angry madness. (H/T to RadGeek, Charles Johnson)

“It was hell. The man was suffering,” Raybin told News 2 Tuesday. “Everyone has had problems with their teeth. Can you imagine being in jail with no help, no medical attention and having the enamel of four of your teeth destroyed?  It was an agony for him.  The medical people didn’t do zip for him.”

These cops are out of control.  They represent and index only the meanest, coldest segment of our society.  Lt. Tanya was not alone when she ripped Anthony’s teeth from his head! Other cops stood by and watched it happen!  They listened to his screams.  Imagine it! Hearing screams, watching screams and doing nothing.

This is the kind of story one would expect to hear from the Inferno.  ”My dear Dante, in this room they pull the teeth from your head,” Virgil explained.

“Dear god! What do you call this place,” cried Dante?

America.

Straight Forward and Unenlightening.

Week 6 of C4SS’s ATP-101 involves a critique of a statist classic:Would private for-profit or not-for-profit providers of defensive services go to war with each other in a stateless society?  Why or why not?

The question “would defensive service providers go to war with each other in a stateless society” is a complex question fallacy similar to questions like: “Have you given up your evil ways? Do you still beat your wife? Or Are you still a communist?”

This is not to say that the question is illegitimate, lacking merit or does not require an answer; only that the way the question is framed is designed to illicit a simple answer to a complex series of questions.  The audience is supposed feel that the apparent lack of a simple yes or no answer tips the discussion in the favor of the statist position and away from the anarchist’s.

A more honest or genuine modal appraisal of the question would be: Is it possible…?  Yes.  Is it probable…?  Maybe, given the right circumstances.  Is it certain…?  No.

Straight forward and unenlightening.

But the same spectrum of answers would be given to any other question, e.g “Is it possible, probable or certain that the United States will ever stop fighting wars that kill thousands of innocent civilians?”

Yes, Maybe and No.

There are contextual issues to the question that I find puzzling.  What does “go to war” mean in a stateless society?  In a very generic presentation, “go to war” is a trial by ordeal.  A trial by ordeal leaves the question of authority decided without an appeal to reason.  We understand what it means in a state-full society as Karl von Clausewitz so aptly phrased it in his book On War, “War is thus an act of force to compel our adversary to do our will.”  The public face of statist war is bombs, guns, crying orphaned babies, toppled buildings, reduced civil rights for everyone, but politicians and capitalist, etc, etc, but does “go to war” mean the same thing in a state-less society?  In a stateless society it is more plausible that “go to war” could mean a best 2 out of 3 chess matches or a Step Up/You Got Served dance battle then a locked and loaded, street by street gun battle a la HEAT.

Positing this state-full “go to war” scenario in a stateless society, where the dominant cultural milieu is an explicit rejection of Clausewitzian war, sounds implausible divorced from a drawn out narrative.  A spontaneous eruption of violence must be referring to children hashing it out on the playground or adults brawling in a pub parking lot, not bazooka and machine gun carrying infantry setting up a defensive position around client A’s house to protect it from B’s tank platoon.

The question assumes that a stateless society looks and feels the same way as society does today just minus the state.  As if you could say “minus the state” and all the institutions that have developed around, along and in spite of the state would also look and feel the same way just minus the state.

It needs to be understood that anarchism is, as George Woodcock explains in his book Anarchism (pg 14.):

“… a system of social thought, aiming at fundamental changes in the structure of society and particularly … at the replacement of the authoritarian state by some form of non-governmental cooperation between free individuals”

The phrase “aiming at fundamental changes in the structure of society” must be stressed and one of those fundamental social changes is to embrace direct action and rebellious activity as Mary E. Marcy stresses in Better Any Kind of Action Than Inert Theory:

“Let us remember that discipline and party obedience mean unpreparedness and inaction and that rebellion means initiative to think and to act.  And above all we must remember that the revolutionary movement gains strength, experience, equipment and momentum to attack and resist through action alone.”

With this in mind I find hard to consider a society of anarchists standing ideally by while kids or adults pummel themselves, let alone allow defense providers to arm themselves for statism.

So to summarize and answer the question: Would defensive service providers go to war with each other in a stateless society?  I would like to see them try; we anarchists need to stay sharp.

“But who will provide…?”

Week 4 of C4SS‘s ATP-101 involves a critique of Insurance Companies as Defense Providers: In what way or ways would it be most difficult for insurance companies to function successfully as sources of justice and defense against aggression?

In libertarian circles the question, “who will provide the roads, if not the state,” has reached a level of boredom and exhaustion to be almost dangerous.  I am certain that “burn out” has been objectively reached by many enthusiastic libertarians after addressing that question for the 900th time to the same person.

With most questions of the “who will provide…” variety, the libertarian has a kind of “live and let live” attitude; acknowledging that such and such innovation or service would be super cool, but since they have no right to force it they repress any feelings of entitlement to have it.   This is not to say that some wild eyed libertarian would not be all over it.  A libertarian with a smile is a libertarian with an idea and three plans to make it happen – even with Big Brother watching.

It is this lovable and tenacious quality of the libertarian that keeps even the question, “who will provide justice and defense,” the last bastion of “perceived” statist necessity, from keeping me up at night.

But who will provide justice and defense services?  The quick and dirty answer: I will, you will, we will.  The more drawn out answer: Arbitration Specialists, Philosophers, Mutual Aid Societies, Martial Art Instructors, Detectives, Security Agencies, Justice Entrepreneurs, and Insurance Providers.  All playing to their respective strengths and competing with each other for market share in ever decreasing market for aggregated wealth maintenance.

“Hey Murray, Big Bill what kind of security providers do you use?” Diogenes asks.

“I have an insurance policy with Midas Touch, a safety deposit box at Greene’s First Mutual Bank and I am assistant organizer of my Neighbor Hood Watch.”  Murray Rothbard cheerfully explains.

“All my important papers are secured in a safe at the Black Cat Lodge, one of the benefits of membership, the factory’s doors and gates are secured with Solidarity Steel Locks and some Fellow Workers that live nearby help keep an eye on it and if any would be Mugger tries to shake me down I just present my Red Card and let them know that picking the pocket of one is picking the pocket of all.”  Big Bill Haywood smiles as he puffs up his chest.

“What about you Diogenes?” Murray and Bill ask together.

“Well, I have let go of all my possessions and have taken up aikido.”

Of all the possible security providers, the one that I am most skeptical of is the Insurance Company.  I don’t see any problem with them providing policies, packages or product reviews, but I don’t see their interests being aligned, in the same way and for the same reasons, with their client.  It must be made clear that the client hires a security provider because they do not want their heirloom stolen or their body harmed, but the Insurance Provider wants to manage risk in such a way as to support their bottom line while fulfilling their contractual obligations.

This is what insurance is and it is not unreasonable for an Insurance Provider to “pay out” or settle at the agreed rate, instead of taking steps to prevent theft.

This, along with having to compete with other security providers, puts the Insurance Company in a poor position as sole security provider; though their services will undoubtedly be important to aid other, more direct, security providers in risk management, reputation underwriting and quality assurance.