"We have done this because we love liberty and hate authority." – Voltairine de Cleyre
Posts tagged politics
My Homework, Week 2.
Mar 22nd
I present my second week critique of pages 16-42 of the Tannehill’s The Market for Liberty. I feel I most apologies for this piece because it was read and written in one night that ended a full day of flying. The previous week and weekend were spent in the San Fransisco Bay Area attending their Anarchist Book Fair. Needless to say I had a blast, learned a lot and made a couple friends. The Bay Area Wobblies are friendly, open and amazing.
The question being critiqued for this week: “To what extent and in what ways, if any, does government exhibit the problems typical of other monopolies?” (I apologies for neglecting to giving the question being addressed in the first week: “What is aggression? How can we distinguish between aggression and other kinds of undesirable influence?”)
“In their book The Market for Liberty the Tannehills, Morris and Linda, present a theoretical case for distinguishing between two types of monopoly: one benign and one malign.
The benign or market monopoly maintains its vaulted status tentatively and precariously, always contingent on customer satisfaction or competitor disinterest. If the market monopoly were to offend its customer base or draw unwanted entrepreneurial attention, it’s over.
The malign or coercive monopoly is the complete opposite. It “maintains itself by the initiation of force or the threat of force to prohibit competition, and sometimes to compel customer loyalty.” (Pg. 27)
Roderick T. Long, in his Libertarian Anarchism: Responses to Ten Objections, identifies three basic problems that the statist or pro-coercive-monopolist must overcome for their case to have merit: the moral, incentive and epistemic problems.
The moral problem asks the question, “why you; what makes you so special?” Granting someone monopoly use of coercive powers seems rather drastic and dangerous.
“To put it simply, government is the rule of some men over others by initiated force, which is slavery, which is wrong.” (Pg. 35)
The incentive problem asks the question, “in the absence of market forces directing agents towards the production of lowers costs, higher qualities or both, what incentives at work on the coercive monopolist guiding them to similar ends?” If there is no worry of losing market share or market relevancy, then why not set my commodity price, by lowering quality or raising costs, to that point just below where you would prefer to go without?
The epistemic problem asks the question, “even if you found a saint (that had no objection to ruling over other humans?), gave them coercive monopoly powers and they did everything they could to stay along the straight and narrow road of truth and justice, how do they know that they offering the best quality goods and the cheapest price?” Without competition or options, choices or alternatives to compare notes with or contrast services against, how do I know that I am providing a desirable and efficient service? Compared to what?
The Tannehills begin their analysis of the State by defining it as a coercive monopoly in classic Weberian fashion:
“Government is a coercive monopoly which has assumed power over and certain responsibilities for every human being within the geographical area which it claims as its own.” (Pg. 32.)
They rightly do not put anything past or any sphere of social interaction beyond the reach of the State; not narrowing it down to night watchmen duties of retaliatory force via police, armies and judges.
The State for the most part interferes with the market through indirect means or the threat of force. The imposition of taxes, regulations, licensing, and credit manipulation skews, suppresses and restricts market actors and participation. The most unfortunate result of this kind of market destruction is the creation of a permanent underclass of poverty level labors. The diminished access to capital and means of capitalization provide ostensible verification for statist apologists to demand more police with greater powers to keep disenfranchised populations under control.
The consequences of one problem becomes the reason for another.”
My Homework, Week 1.
Mar 21st
I enrolled and was one of the lucky 15 to test out C4SS’s new ATP101 – An Introduction to Anarchism. The instructor is the always surprising and refreshing Gary Chartier; who has also provided the internet with his lecture series covering ATP-101. Below is my first weeks assignment, a 500 to 600 word critique of the first 15 pages of the primary text: The Market for Liberty by Linda and Morris Tannehill. As will be apparent I have some problems with their, the Tannehills, normative foundations for anarchism as well as their rhetorical strategy, defenses of retribution and Big Business. I look at the whole experience as fruitful, fun and thoughtful. I hope to be publishing my other homework assignments as the weeks roll on. ALL the Best, –James.
“My reading of the assigned pages, 1-15, of The Market for Liberty has stirred up a number of positive and negative emotional responses. The Tannehills, Linda and Morris, seems to be trying to “scorch the earth” of any rival theories that might be in the minds of the audience. They repeat certain phrases over and over again as if, at first, to head off possible questions the reader might have, but, later on, it feels like it is in order to help the reader correct a bad mental habit.
This rhetorical strategy has positive and negative effects: On the positive, for a reader treading water, barely keeping their head above a tumultuous sea of forced and contradictory bromides, a clear and open desert can be a life changing discovery.
“Finally I can breathe and think,” the reader sighs.
On the negative, this desert should just be a rest stop; one cannot stay there. Life, philosophy and morality are in a continuous flux of changing conditions and shifting contexts. If you try to take the desert with you, you’ll do just that, extending it to cover the forests and lakes of your intellectual landscape.
“The only way a man can be compelled against his will to act contrary to his judgment is by the use or threat of physical force by other men. Many pressures may be brought to bear on a man, but unless he is compelled by physical force (or the threat of force, or a substitute for force) to act against his will, he still has the freedom to make his own choices. Therefore, the one basic rule of civilized society is that no man or group of men is morally entitled to initiate (to start) the use of physical force, the threat of force, or any substitute for force (such as taking something from another person by stealth) against any other man or group of men.” Pg 10.
The Tannehills have created a desert call “non-aggression.” It is a place where everything is permitted, but aggression and aggression is initiated physical force. The statement, “initiated physical force is illegitimate,” is easily acceptable, but the stressed, “only initiated physical force is illegitimate,” sounds insane. The evaluative concept “legitimate” is an index that we use to navigate our moral lives; it points us down paths worthy of exploration and identifies obstacles that are worthy of dismantling. To reduce the concept of “aggression” to only identifying “initiated physical violence” as illegitimate is putting ethical blinders on, always looking at the world from one point of view, and strapping yourself into a practical straight jacket, only reacting to physical violence while dismissing all the other ways humans are warped and adjusted by institutions.
The Tannehills mention the concept “institution” many times in the first fifteen pages.
“But more than enough can be reasoned out to prove that a truly free society – one in which the initiation of force would be dealt with justly instead of institutionalized in the form of a government – is feasible.” Pg 4.
“In all of recorded history, men have never managed to establish a social order which didn’t institutionalize violations of freedom, peace, and justice – that is, a social order in which man could realize his full potential.” Pg 6.
The sociologist Alvin Gouldner defines “institution” in his text book Modern Sociology (1963, New York: Harcourt, Brace & World Inc.) as a “societally prescribed system of (more or less) differentiated behavior by means of which recurrent problems are resolved.”
Does “aggression” and “institutionalized aggression” always look, feel or operate the same way? If not, then it might be easy to spot one while the other goes unnoticed all around you, even while you are looking for it. You might even be an active party in its maintenance.”
How does it feel to be a Fugitive?
Mar 11th
A couple of days ago it was brought to my attention that in my home state of Oklahoma I was a walking fugitive. (Hat tip to Brad Spangler) You see in Oklahoma, according to Title 21, Chapter 9, Section 374, it is a felony to “carry … or publicly display any red flag or other emblem or banner, indicating disloyalty to the Government of the United States or a belief in anarchy or other political doctrines or beliefs, whose objects are either the disruption or destruction of organized government.” I have been, peacefully mind you, walking around Tulsa, Oklahoma with ALLiance of the Libertarian Left and Industrial Workers of the World buttons pinned to my jacket (suspecting, but) never knowing that I could be punished with 10 years in prison and/or $1,000.00 fine.
I took a couple of days to reflect on this realization (no crying this time Less Antman 
). I came home one day to see a cop car park along the street in front of my section of apartments and I did get a little rush of adrenaline. I tried to imagine if this is what other fugitives felt. I imagined some character from a Tarantino film sitting alone in their apartment peeking into a suitcase full of loot, jumping at every knock at the door and suspecting every motive from friends or family.
They are going to want their stuff back, so the cops are looking for me. That’s what they do; they track down stolen goods or murderers who have stolen lives. Living on borrowed time.
Wait a second! How are displays of sympathy for anarchism in any way similar to stolen money or stolen lives? What have I stolen?
Oh yeah! That’s right. I almost forgot. I stole my mind away from the government. Their truncheon or badge or letterheads are not substitutes for reasons or arguments in my presence.
So, dear friends, if you don’t hear from me in a week or two, then it might be because the government has sent the police to take their “property” back.
Politics: A Survey of Anarchist Positions
Jan 6th
One of the perennial questions of anarchist theory and strategy is the proper role that politics should play in our liberation program. Politics, in this context, refers to any attempt to influence the institutions that constitute the State in order to undermine, subvert or destroy the State itself.
If the existing positions were represented on a continuum, showing the degree politics plays, then, to be sure, the advocate of %100 politics should be held in extreme suspicion. But if we move down this scale past %60 and %50 percent we find the population of libertarians and anarchists begin to grow and our suspicions, though always present, subsiding.
I would like to offer a brief survey of these positions through the testimony of the proponents who held them. I am not a scholar or researcher; indexing and cross-referencing are not my profession. This is not intended to be comprehensive; only sketch or outline, to be filled in, sooner or later, by other enthusiasts, like myself, hopefully within the pages of this journal.
My sources can be found in the articles and pamphlets found in Shawn Wilbur’s Corvus Editions, Wendy McElroy’s indispensible volume The Debates of Liberty, I Must Speak Out lovingly edited by Carl Watner, and Kevin Carson’s, must read, Studies in Mutualists Political Economy.
That landscape found below the %50 mark is populated by many different people from many different points of view; all wanting a liberated land where they can work, grow and love. It is because of this historical fact that questions of anarchist sincerity will not be speculated upon here; even though this has been a favored past time of other anarchists past and present.
Starting with some of the restored history found at Corvus Editions. I will assign “pro-politics” and “anti-politics” labels to the determined positions, but we should not conclude that a “pro” position that politics is regarded as the only or even as a constitutive means to our shared anarchist end.
Eliphalet Kimball holds an anti-politics position and a pro-violence position as you can see here.
“It is only by anarchy and violence that a great accumulation of social wrongs can be removed. Anarchy is a good word. It means ‘without a head.’ Violence is the healing power of Nature applied to society. The violence which would follow from the abolishment o flaw, would be proportion to the number and magnitudes of the wrongs that needed removal.” — Eliphalet Kimball, Law, Commerce, and Relgion, Anarchy is a Good Word
The wonderfully clear Henry Addis makes his anti-politics understood.
“To support government is to aid tyranny. To become a part of it is to join hands with organized murder. Political action is for the ignorant, the deluded and the knave.” –Henry Addis, Political Action, Essays on the Problem
“The more the powers of the State are curtailed the more nearly we approach a condition of Anarchy: the more powers of the State are increased the further we drift from it. How then can State Socialism, the governmentalization of everything, lead to Anarchy? It cannot. If you really want Anarchy, refuse to uphold the State. Decline to run for or hold office. Refuse to do jury duty, and in every way practicable weaken the powers of the State.” –Henry Addis, Through State Socialism into Anarchism., Essays on the Social Problem
The director of a clinic for the poor in the Chelsea district of New York City, Dr. Gertrude B. Kelly supports a pro-politics plan for state dissolution.
“Necessarily, therefore, the community, to protect itself in securing intelligent citizens, must enforce a compulsory education law. Though, as an Anarchist, I desire a radical change in present social conditions, I do not believe the public-school system is the place to begin. Manual and industrial training, though obtained at the expense of the taxpayers, are useful under present system, but only because that phase of education helps mitigate, somewhat, the evils under which we suffer. Such compulsory training the Anarchist believes would not be necessary if every man got what he really earned.” –Dr. Gertrude B. Kelly, IV, Some Socialist and Anarchist Views of Education
The anarcho-syndicalist Jay Fox has cast his lot in with the anti-politics and instead recommends General Strike for social and economic change.
“But you will ask, ‘What’s to be done?’ I trust we have at least learned something that should not be done, that is: We should not waste any more time striving to better our conditions through legislation. The attempts in Colorado has been a miserably failure, and all such attempts elsewhere must inevitably fail for the reasons aforementioned.” –Jay Fox, What’s To Be Done?, Economic Thought
In The Debates of Liberty Wendy McElroy gives an account of three positions and three men; all representing different philosophies regarding political participation.
“Possibly Brother [Benjamin R.] Tucker has yet to learn that compromise is a true scientific principle under Anarchism, and that in its proper sense it is logically enjoined upon the faithful. I have never found a final settlement of any problem yet, save that of my own ignorance: therefore do I rise for prayers, and ask Sister [Dr. Gertrude B.] Kelly and Brother [Benjamin R.] Tucker to keep me from going astray.” –Henry Appleton, “Anarchism and Expediency,” Liberty (April 17, 1886). Quoted from On the State and Politics, The Debates of Liberty page 22.
Interestingly Henry Appleton, as Wendy McElroy points out, is not referring to compromising Anarchism with regards to voting, but with regards to supporting popular labor organizations that used political activity; like the Knights of Labor, an organization that Appleton had infiltrated. Needless to say this puts Henry Appleton in the pro-politics camp.
“If my use of the ballot has been aggressive, some person must exist whose rights, whose legitimate freedom, have been invaded by the adoption of free trade, by my vote for free trade. But, since free trade is a corollary from equal freedom, no one’s rights are violated by the establishment of free trade. If no one’s rights are violated, those who vote for free trade are not guilty of any offence. When there are no aggressed upon, there are no aggressors.” –Victor Yarros, “Principle and Method,” Liberty 12 (November 1896). Partially quoted in On the State and Politics, The Debates of Liberty page 24.
Victor Yarros held many position, maybe all positions at one time or another within the anarchist and other radical social movements of his time, but I feel that it is safe to conclude that at this time young Victor Yarros presented a case for the pro-politics.
Our final sample from The Debates of Liberty will be from the “consummate” representative of plumb-line anarchism, Benjamin R. Tucker. Tucker smashes all doubts to his commitment to anti-politics with the following:
“If liberty has a weak-kneed friend who is contemplating a violation of his anarchist principles by voting just for once, may these golden words from John Morley’s “Compromise” recall him to his better self: “A principle, if it be sound, represents one of the larger expediencies. To abandon that for the sake of some seeming expediency of the hour is to sacrifice the greater good for the less on no more creditable ground than that the less is nearer.” –Benjamin R. Tucker, “Labor’s New Fetich,” Liberty 2 (August 23, 1884). Quoted in in On the State and Politics, The Debates of Liberty page 21.
I Must Speak Out is a treasure trove of anarchism. It is a labor of love from the heart of Carl Watner, Wendy McElroy and George H. Smith. Every collected article is exciting and challenging. It is a must read for anyone who claims the mantle Voluntaryist or anyone of the minarchist persuasion who feel up to the challenge of dueling with some of the best. The Voluntaryist has not only staked a claim dead center in the anti-politics territory, they have built a barn and tilled the land.
From the Statement of Purpose, page 1, of I Must Speak Out:
“The Voluntaryists are advocates of non-political strategies to achieve a free society. We reject electoral politics, in theory and in practice, as incompatible with libertarian principles. Governments must cloak their actions in an aura of moral legitimacy in order to sustain their power, and political methods invariably strengthen that legitimacy. Voluntaryists seek instead to delegitimize the State through education, and we advocate withdrawal of the cooperation and tacit consent on which State power ultimately depends.”
Before I conclude with Kevin Carson’s Studies in Mutualists Political Economy I would like to offer the position defended by the anarchist philosopher Roderick T. Long, who offers a position similar to Carson’s and for similar reasons. Roderick T. Long is a supporter of the pro-politics position, but I must emphasized, as he has always emphasized, it is the smallest “pro-politics” position one could have while still remaining pro-politics.
“Now I certainly agree that as libertarian strategies go, education and building alternative institutions are much more important than electoral politics. And I also agree that the danger of reinforcing people’s attachment to the State is a count against urging people to vote libertarian. … But I also think voting can be useful as a means of self-defense in the short run; and while the ultimate revolution will be primarily from the bottom up, it will certainly go more smoothly, and with less danger of a violent crackdown from a government desperate to maintain power, if we’ve got some support on the inside too.” –Roderick T. Long, http://aaeblog.net/2006/11/06/in-defense-of-voting-sort-of/ (italics added)
In the final chapters of the impressive and important Studies in Mutualists Political Economy, Kevin Carson gives his readers an introduction to the Mutualist program of Gradualism. It is important to understand that the concerns of the gradualist program is to dissolve the State while doing as little harm to the subject population as possible and, hopefully, protecting them from the violent death throws predicted to accompany the end of the ruling elites privileged position. This places Kevin Carson, by my lights, in the pro-politics edge of our scale.
“The problem with this line of argument is that the State is an instrument of exploitation by a ruling class. And exploiters cannot, as a group, be ethically “educated” into abandoning exploitation, because they have a very rational self-interest in continuing it. Coleman McCarthy can conduct “peace studies” classes, and quote Tolstoy and “the Rabbi Christ” till he’s blue in the face, but it isn’t likely to persuade a majority of the ruling class that they’d be better off working for a living.
If most ordinary people simply withdraw consent and abandon the political process altogether, the ruling class will just drop the pretense of popular control and resort to open repression. So long as they control the State apparatus, a small minority of dupes from the producing classes, along with well-paid police and military jackboots, will enable them to control the populace through terror. A majority of Italian workers may have supported the factory occupations of 1920, but that didn’t stop the blackshirts, paid with capitalist money, from restoring the bosses’ control.
In For Community, a pamphlet on Gustav Landauer, Larry Gambone argued that it was no longer possible merely to act outside the State framework while treating it as irrelevant. To do so entailed the risk that “you might end up like the folks at Waco.” An “anti-political movement to dismantle the State” was necessary.22
At some point, before the final dissolution of the State, its mechanism must be seized and it must be formally liquidated.” –Kevin Carson, Studies in Mutualists Political Economy page 319.
I hope that you have enjoyed this tour of obscure and contemporary anarchists and their varied relationships with the institutions of political power. I would like to stress, if I may, that between the two, often feuding, camps of pro-politics and anti-politics, that we remember their expressed reasons for their positions. All anarchist hope and work for an end to State violence directed towards spontaneous and free humanity. All are sensitive to every freedom lost and every freedom unexercised.
I find both positions compelling and inspiring. I look to the anti-politicians like Henry Addis, Benjamin R. Tucker and Carl Watner for strength; their commitment to living their values now and accepting the hardships that accompany a systematic withdrawal from State infected life and culture.
And I look to the pro-politicians like Dr. Gertrude B. Kelly, Victor Yarros and Kevin Carson for compassion; their sensitivity to the perils and hardships that will inevitably be faced by humanity during the State’s disintegration.
It is my belief that a robust anarchist movement needs both positions equally (dialectically equal); that both represent the core values of what anarchism is and desperate to achieve. We need to continue pushing forward, breaking new ground on new counter-institutions, reducing the crippling hierarchies of the State and ending the violence that maintains it, but we must not forget that that aggression, those hierarchies bows backs and breaks legs. We need to remember to show people that they can live free, help them to let go of their bonds and protect them from those final moments when the State, realizing its end, tries to take away our future.
