Comments Elsewhere

MBH:

It also, necessarily, means total divorce from the conventional System. I don’t even know what that means.

Well, I don’t know what that’s supposed to mean, either, so I suppose that if you don’t know what you mean by it, and I don’t know what you mean by it, it may not have been a good choice of terms for describing the debate. Maybe we should try talking about real, identifiable institutions, or at least noticeable forms of institutions (e.g., “coercive,” “dominating,” “formalized,” whatever it is you have in mind) rather than a nebulous “System”?

I agree that the System has to rejected. But how can alternative institutions ever be entirely uprooted from the System? If they could, would that even be desirable? You’re being way too Dr. Strangelove for me dude.

You’re the one who introduced this “System” stuff out of the blue sky; how would I know whether or not alternative institutions ever can be uprooted from it? It “the System” means something like “society,” then I never said anything about getting out of that, and I don’t think Anarchism has anything to do with that. (Rather, Anarchists specifically distinguish society from the State, in order to explain that they want to reform the one from within, while — in part by — abolishing the other.) If it means something like “the entire institutional structure of society,” then I’ll just recur to my answer about society broadly; there are lots of institutions that Anarchism has no particular beef with, and lots that it suggests we bulk up. If it means something like “systems of domination” or “systems of coercion,” then of course alternative institutions can be uprooted from that — or at least, if they can’t, you haven’t given me any reasons yet to believe that they can’t. (Certainly your analogy to Descartes doesn’t help: Descartes’ problem, if he has one, has to do with his attempt to doubt human sociality. But Anarchism is all about human sociality; it’s simply proposing another, better form for the socializing. What it’s against is (1) coercion specifically, and (2) domination and hierarchy more broadly; but you haven’t yet offered any reasons to think that its critique of coercion or domination is presupposing either coercion or domination, in the way that Descartes’ act of raising doubts supposedly presupposes the social context that he’s trying to raise doubts about.)

MBH:

He was, I think, a right-wing anarchist. That’s what I’m calling “popular” anarchy.

Why? It’s not especially popular.

In any case, Rothbard’s immediatism is distinct from his pro-capitalism or other “right-wing” allegiances. Many anarcho-capitalists are not immediatists — cf. Randy Barnett, for example. If anything, I’d wager that practical immediatism (that is, calling for revolution-right-now, rather than policy reforms) is far more common on the left end of anarchism than on the right end of it; the Rothbardians are rather unusual, amongst anarcho-capitalists, in this regard.

You can argue all day that corporate power would suffocate without the state. I don’t buy it.

Well, I do believe that (or more precisely I believe that things would tend strongly in that direction, with us needing to push forward with conscious activism to get the rest of the way). But if you’re not going to listen to arguments, I don’t know what to do about it. I’m also not sure what all this has to do with Rothbard. My reasons for believing that about corporate power aren’t really particularly Rothbardian, much as I may appreciate a couple of the arguments he made, especially during his New Left phase.

MBH:

No. But I never said that.

Well, O.K., so what did you say? Just what is it about Olbermann’s efforts that does give off this anarcho-syndicalist signal? The fact that he sticks up for Mexicans? A lot of people stick up for Mexicans, not just anarcho-syndicalists. (As much as I might like it if all my friends in the immigration freedom movement were anarcho-syndicalists — certainly it would make strategy meetings a lot easier — generally they are not.)

Is it the combination of the roughly egalitarian end with the use of economic action that’s supposed to make it secretly anarcho-syndicalist? If so, that would seem to include virtually the entire history of the labor movement, a lot of the civil rights movement, the Irish Land League (the folks who coined the term “boycott”), and a lot of other folks who would be very surprised to hear that they are secretly anarchists. Of course, again, you could redefine “anarcho-syndicalist” to mean something other than “revolutionary anti-statism in which a free society is conceived without government or bosses, in which economic production is primarily organized through the structure of democratic industrial unions.” But if you’re doing that, it might help to say what you do understand it to mean. If Olbermann counts as “distinctly anarcho-syndicalist” does the UFW also? (In which case, why even keep the “anarcho” around? Why not just say “syndicalist”?) How about the Montgomery Bus Boycott or the Irish land campaigns? (In which case, why even call it “syndicalism”? Why not just “Leftism,” which doesn’t refer to the specific ideological tendencies that “anarcho-” and “syndicalism” do?)

I’m pointing to how Olbermann exhibits substantially higher degrees of anarchism than O’Reilly.

Based on what? The fact that you find his politics more agreeable? I mean, look, I like Dr. King’s politics more than I like Olbermann’s, and Ella Baker’s more than I like Dr. King’s. But I wouldn’t pretend that either of the two is an Anarchist. They have other, different positions, which happen to agree with Anarchism on some important particulars, and to disagree with Anarchism on others.

It is probably true that back when the number of soi-disant libertarians was much smaller than it is now, those who defended radical views and spoke with more heated rhetoric were probably a larger percentage of the total number of people calling themselves “libertarian” at the time, and probably also exercised more influence over the movement than they do now. Of course, the difference is not because the absolute numbers of hotheaded radicals are now lower (they are almost certainly much higher), or because hotheaded radicals have fewer outlets than they used to (there are a lot more, read by a lot more people), but rather because a lot of very mildly heterodox conservatives and corporate liberals (Bill Maher, Glenn Reynolds, whatever), who wouldn’t have imagined calling themselves “libertarians” in the 1960s-1970s, are willing to call themselves that now.

MBH:

So endorsing the boycott of an economy that discriminates against Mexicans is to anarcho-syndicalism as breathing is to conservatism?

Yes, just about.

Do you really, seriously think that the idea of using boycotts to protest absurd or unjust laws is a uniquely anarcho-syndicalist idea? If so, where in the world did you get such a notion? I wish that every boycotter in the world were secretly broadcasting on a “distinctly anarcho-syndicalist wavelength,” but I think you can really only make that claim by making the meaning of “anarcho-syndicalist” so broad as to render it utterly meaningless.

MBH:

Was that not Rothbard’s position?

1. Rothbard was many things, but he was not a typical Anarchist. If that was his position, it wouldn’t make it “the popular kind” of anarchy.

2. Rothbard was very fond of this quote by William Lloyd Garrison:

Urge immediate abolition as earnestly as we may, it will, alas! be gradual abolition in the end. We have never said that slavery would be overthrown by a single blow; that it ought to be, we shall always contend.

Note the difference between the ideal propounded and the outcome expected; note also that for Garrison, “immediate abolition” certainly didn’t just mean anything that would result in the end of slavery immediately (you could do that by killing all the slaves, say, or forcing them all against their will onto ships bound for Liberia, both of which he opposed). What Garrison specifically wished for was universal conversion and the immediate emancipation of all slaves everywhere by repentant ex-slavers. I suppose that, similarly, the ideal that Rothbard has in mind (without expecting it) is that all rulers everywhere would immediately lay down their arms due to a universal conversion to radical libertarianism and spontaneous universal adoption of the Libertarian Legal Code within an advanced industrial society. Of course, what he actually worked for would be quite different in practice, but not because his practical aim was “just-smash-the-state-right-now-and-who-cares-what-succeeds-it,” either. He had a fairly specific idea of what should succeed it, and how he was trying to bring that about. The point of the whole exercise, rather (at least, the point Rothbard took) was that you can’t successfully bring the expected outcome about if you lose sight of the righteous ideal. He was mainly concerned — and in this, he was genuinely in line with Garrison — with keeping the discussion on the basis of conscience, solidarity, and the transformation of individual relationships, rather than letting it sink into utilitarian calculation or political excuse-making for continuing to violate innocent people’s rights.

See for example Why Be Libertarian?. (N.B.: he mentions the button-pushing test in this essay; for what it’s worth, you may notice that the test he proposes is a button “for instantaneous abolition of unjust invasions of liberty,” not a button for just abolishing government invasions and leaving the rest just as-is.)

MBH:

But when he, for instance, uses his reach and sporting world connections to openly threaten the state of arizona that he will help organize big name athletes into boycotting big money events like the MLB All-Star game, I can’t help but hear a distinctly anarcho-syndicalist wavelength.

Jesus, man, that must be the world’s most sensitive antenna you have there. Maybe you’re picking up noise more than signal?

Seriously, not everything that some liberal does is secretly anarcho-syndicalist, even when the things that they do are (as they sometimes, certainly, are) things that an anarcho-syndicalist might feel genuinely sympathetic to. You may as well say that when you hear him inhaling, you “hear a distinctly conservative wavelength,” since, hey, conservatives are all for breathing oxygen too.

MBH:

Joker is 100% anarchist because his default setting is to demonstrate how the central controlling authority is powerless.

That’s not what not Anarchism is about. In fact, it has basically nothing to do with what Anarchism is about.

The aim of Anarchism is to abolish central controlling authority, in order to enable the emergence of consensual social order. Not to show that central controlling authority is “powerless” to stop random acts of terrorism. You may notice that that last italicized item, which has been central to Anarchism since Proudhoun wrote that “Liberty is the mother, not the daughter, of Order,” is not exactly on Joker’s Christmas list.

He would probably call it creative destruction.

I’m pretty sure he would not. You seem to be confusing him with the Shadows, or perhaps Ra’s al-Ghul.

The duty of the philosopher is to expose the posers. Joker takes that kind of sentiment to heart.

Well, OK, but that’s not really what Anarchism is about, either.

I don’t think 100% anarchism is helpful.

Well, if you define your notion of 100% anarchism in terms of random violence and terror, I suppose that you wouldn’t.

But I advocate something like 50% anarchism so that the current form of life can safely mutate into one with radically less injustice.

Anarchism is a doctrine about ends, not just a doctrine about means. “100% Anarchism” means advocacy of a life 100% without government. Not advocacy of some particular set of tactics (random violence, blind destruction of all social institutions, whatever) to get there.

Lorenzo,

What, exactly, do the (numerous) crimes of Arab rulers, against both Jews and Palestinians, have to do with whether or not the treatment of Palestinians by Israeli rulers is just?

Of course, the situation would no doubt be better if Arab rulers weren’t a pack of criminals. But all rulers are a pack of criminals, so that’s a pretty slender reed to lean on, and in any case the fact that Arab rulers dispossessed and expelled a lot of ordinary Jews doesn’t somehow make it less bad that Israeli rulers dispossessed and expelled a lot of ordinary Palestinians, who had neither practical control nor moral responsibility over the actions of autocratic Arab rulers in far away countries, to whom they were not even subject to begin with, and with whom they had absolutely nothing in common besides the fact that they are, in some extended sense, members of the same ethnic group. Which is to say, nothing in common at all, of any moral or political relevance, unless you subscribe to a theory of morals and politics that allows for collective punishment and retribution against individual victims for crimes committed by unrelated third parties, based solely on their sharing an ethnicity or race. But those kinds of moral and political theories are, to be quite frank, stupid, racist, and appalling.

I wouldn't dare to speculate about why people like Trotsky became won to Bolshevism. But I don't know why you think that people like the butcher of Kronstadt would be good figures to appeal to around a bunch of Anarchists. In any case, if your "successful anti-capitalist revolution" includes industrial conscription, the dismantling of all independent trade unions, the Red Army, the Cheka, and confiscating grain while 5,000,000 peasants starve to death, then I have to wonder what "anti-capitalism" means to you; apparently you don't have in mind the end of bosses, death squads, political repression, militarism, or (literal) starvation wages. If that's what "success" looks like, what in the world would you count as a failure? If I can't survive, I don't want to be part of your revolution.