by Natasha Petrova
http://c4ss.org/content/28380
Note: I find this a bizarre article. There is no chance whatever of a left libertarian victory in Iraq. The only choice in the main cities is between a gang of murderous fanatics supported by Saudi Arabia, and an Iranian satellite state that will murder anyone who steps out of line. Anyone who commits an act of disobedience with either of these will be murdered. Somehow defeat both of these, and the Iraqis will murder each other.
On balance, I prefer the Iranians. The foaming radicals who came in with Khomeini have now been moderated by age and cynicism. They will only murder opponents who stand up and identify themselves.
The gang of fanatics seem inclined to murder from simple conviction or because they like the smell of blood. Ditto the locals.
Rather than fall into the neocon trap of believing we can have any influence in the Middle East, we should be calling for the impeachment of everyone in our own countries who knowingly, or with culpable negligence, opened the Gates of Hell.
The Americans must make their own list. Ours, I suggest, should include Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron, Jack Straw and William Hague. They should be impeached before Parliament, and then punished by act of attainder. The next lot of scum we elect may then think twice before starting another war. This much we can do. Any hope of making things better in the Middle East is a fantasy. SIG
ISIS Fundamentalists Square Off With Tyrannical And Corrupt U.S. Backed Iraqi Government
Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS) militants recently launched a major offensive in Iraq. They managed to seize territory from fleeing Iraqi government/police forces. These Islamic fundamentalist fighters are basically engaged in behavior no better than what the Iraqi government does. Their behavior deserves no support from friends of liberty. There is a statist impulse similar to that of the U.S. government/U.S. supported Iraqi government animating them.
A general statist culture pervades Iraq. The main factions see possession of the central government or state as an institution that can protect them from the dominance of the others. Anarchism would strike at the root of this problem and do much to alleviate it. It wouldn’t be enough though. There are other destructive cultural trends at work in Iraq. One is clearly fundamentalist Islam, and its basic anti-liberty premises. These premises are the absolute reliance on divine authority, and the aggressive violence required by its particular brand of Islamic law. An uprooting of this element is also necessary in a struggle for individual freedom in Iraq. This is only my particular left-libertarian market anarchist view though.
The practical means of uprooting statist and fundamentalist Islamic culture are bound to be peaceful ones. The firepower possessed by a U.S. backed regime is too immense to do armed battle with. The ISIS forces probably also possess considerable arms. They would not otherwise have made the progress they did. It would be advisable for freedom loving individuals in Iraq to begin a campaign of informing people of the possibilities of civil or peaceful criminal disobedience. The word criminal here pertains to violations of unjust laws and not criminality in the sense of violating the non-aggression principle. This civil or criminal disobedience is preferably aimed at both the rule of the Iraqi regime and ISIS militants. Both are authoritarian forces bent on the imposition of laws requiring the aggressive use of force.
A movement for the rights of all Iraqis could begin with peaceful disobedience, but it may involve instances of individual or collective self-defense too. This is especially true with respect to the emergence of a liberated territory under statist assault. Violence is preferably not a first resort and is best avoided as much as possible though. Its defensive potential is only magnified by the participation of a sufficient number of others. This is why isolated acts of violence are likely to be ineffectual and potentially immoral due to this lack of effectiveness.
We left-libertarian market anarchists in the U.S. can do all we can to support Iraqi comrades in creating a free society.
Get on it! Liberty lovers.
Sean, If I’m your War Secretary, I’ll make sure you can’t take our soldiers anywhere near there.
There is some truth in what Sean says – it is a bizarre article.
As for “left libertarians” in Iraq – well both Sunni and Shia radicals are “left libertarians” of a sort, in that they enjoy the loot-rape-murder-burn thing (the Sunni radicals even wave Black Flags – as some “left libertarians” do). However, I think it is a coincidence – it is very unlikely that either the Sunni radicals or the Shia radicals have even heard of “left libertarians” (or real libertarians come to that).
The article also leaves out two forces in Iraq.
The Kurds – who are Sunni, but moderate in their religion and social democratic in their politics.
And the traditional tribal elders (both Sunni and Shia) landowners whp dominated the old Iraq before the terrible coup of 1958 (similar people used to dominate the old Syria before the socialists took over in the early 1960s).
Getting back to a society dominated by landowning elders (as opposed to clerics or the “democratic state”) may be very unlikely in Iraq – but it is the only chance the country has.
As for the Iranians – Sean is making a basic mistake.
The “elected President” (actually the candidate was chosen by the Supreme Leader for his ability to act-the-moderate) is not the man of power – the Supreme Leader is.
And the Supreme Leader is actually more radical in his theology than Khomeini was.
Khomeini pushed “hasteners” with the death penalty.
What is a “hastener”?
A Hastener is a Shia Muslim who believes that the return of the “Hidden One” can be (and SHOULD be) “hastened” by spreading fire and blood over the world.
The present Supreme Leader is a “Hastener”(although he hid this point whilst Khomeini was in power).
I repeat that he is not more moderate in his theology – he is more extreme.
Many people of a (basically) materialist-atheist cast of mind (Thomas Hobbes, David Hume, Jeremy Bentham and so on……) tend to think that religious people are either stupid and/ignorant (indeed, as with David M, it is pointless to discuss religious matters with them – as their assumption that all religious beliefs are based upon stupidity and/or ignorance is so deep that it is, basically, the core-of-their-being). To such people “spirit” is something that comes in a bottle, and “soul” is something (spelt differently) that is at the base of a shoe.
However, neither the Supreme Leader of Iran or his leading followers is a stupid or ignorant man (although a recent ex President of Iran was a rather stupid man, who went around saying in public “Hastener” things that should only be said privately – one must not “warn the infidels” that one is planning to cast them into the fire, so that their blood may “hasten” the return of the Hidden One). On the contrary, the leading figures in Iran are knowledgeable and very cunning.
Technically speaking even the Black Flag waving Sunni radicals are more “moderate” (theologically) that the particular Shia faction that controls the Iranian regime.
Although “moderate” (in this context) is a relative term.
For example both the Sunni and Shia radicals believe we infidels should be killed. Not just in the Middle East – but everywhere (all over the world).
The author of the article, Petrova, appears to be about twelve years old. I hear more mature reasoning from my son, who’s seven.
:>)))!!!
The problem in the Mid East isn’t statism, it’s tribalism. To be true brief, the abandonment of the tribal paradigm is probably the key element in the success of the Western World. Statism would be a step forward for these people, ironically.
Also, weren’t these people brave freedom fighters a few months ago when we were being urged to support bombing Syria?
I do not agree Ian – indeed what you call “tribalism” is the (relatively) good alternative to hard core Islam (Sunni and Shia) in the Islamic world (and when Muslims enter the West also).
As long as the populations of various countries are following what you (and sometimes me) would call their “tribal” elders (who also tend to be landowners) then there is some hope – when a general Islamic identity asserts itself there is no hope.
The West by pushing “modernisation” (universities, elections and so on) undermined the authority of the elders and thus (without meaning to) opened the door to a fully Islamic identity. It is a mistake to think that the Islamic “radicals” are uneducated – on the contrary, since the 1920s they have been some of best educated people in these countries.
It is also true of Muslim immigrants into Western countries – the first generation are often O.K. (because they still operate within the “tribal” framework of elders and so on), it is the children and grandchildren who are normally more Islamic. What happens is a “wild youth” (when they seem ultra “Westernised” lots of drugs, booze, pop “music” and so on) then a terrible emptiness (as the hollowness of this existence, its failure to give meaning, becomes obvious to them) – then Islam.
The parents and grandparents often have their “tribal” structures (and beliefs – practices and traditions, for example the Sufi practices that are not accepted by mainstream Islam, venerating “saints” and so on), the children (in the “Westernising” stage) reject all that – but so have nothing but “pure” Islam (the actual teachings and life example of Mohammed – both evil) to turn to.
Of course if the West actually had a culture (a belief system) that actually offered these people answers to the fundamental questions of life, then things might be different – but the West no longer has such a culture.
By the way a belief system need not be religious – Randian Objectivism (for example) is an example of an atheist belief system.
Anyway – the Middle East (and Muslim immigrants, or their descendants, in the West) have no place to turn other than Islam – IF they reject their “tribal” structures (of following local elders and so on).
Short version.
In the Middle East (and in places such as Birmingham) the end result of “modernisation” among nominal Muslims is actually to REVIVE Islam (the actual teachings and life example of Mohammed – seen in a literal way, not via tradition and ritual and custom).
The resulting horrors are inevitable – IF the old “tribal” cultural restraints are removed. Far from being a “throw back” to “tribal” customs – Islam is actually a rejection of them (it always was – Mohammed himself taught sons to kill their fathers if they were enemies of Islam, Islam was to transcend all ties of family and “tribe”).The Muslim Brotherhood (and the Shia versions of this Sunni movement) are, in their way, “modernising” and certainly take advantage of “modernisation”.
“Statism would be a step forward for these people” – exactly WRONG Ian.
You are making the same mistake that Western advisers (and educators) have made for so many decades. Your statist “modernisation” actually paves the way for “radical” Islam (by destroying the only viable alternative to it).
Both by economic failure (such as the failure of the “White Revolution”, the statism of the Emperor of Iran and his Western economic advisers) and by undermining the traditional elements in the Middle East – the landowners and the traders.
You are also exactly WRONG about the West.
What you call the “tribal” elements in the West (the non state elements) were actually STRONGER here than in the Middle East.
In the Middle East (under the various despotisms and their bureaucracies) no landowner (no matter how important) was ever really safe – his land could be confiscated.
Ditto a trader – no matter how rich he was, the state could take his money (and his life).
In the West “tribal” structures (such as the Feudal nobility, and the Merchant Organisations of the towns) were much STRONGER – they influenced the fundamental laws of the society (limiting what even Kings could do). This can be seen as far back as the 9th century (the formal concessions that Charles the Bald is forced to make).
The rise of the state in the 18th and 19th centuries in some places (with figures such as Frederick the Great of Prussia and the Empress M.T. of Austria) is the rejection of the old “feudal” (“tribal”) past – the copying of Asiatic Despotism (as Gibbon with his whitewashing of Islam and his support for a Roman style state, understood).
It is not a paradox that Britain. the most “reactionary” in its political institutions, had the agricultural and industrial revolutions – it is BECAUSE the political institutions and laws of this land were “outdated” “reactionary” (a mixture of “feudalism” and “anarchy” according to that statist Jeremy Bentham – dreaming of his 13 Departments of State covering every aspect of life) that we had an agricultural and industrial revolution.
Indeed it is the rejection of these old institutions (“tribal” limits on government) with such things as the creation of the Civil Service (the Ottoman Empire had one centuries before we did) that mark the start of the DECLINE of Britain.
A wiser policy in the Middle East (and elsewhere) would not have been to undermine what power the landowners and merchants (both of whom tended to be the “elders” of their communities) had (as “modernising” Westerners did – unwittingly helping the dark forces they thought they were opposing) but to strengthen and INSTITUTIONALISE these powers.
After the fall of the Ottoman Empire (which never really respected the rights of landowners and merchants) – institutions should have been supported that institutionalised the rights of the landowners,. merchants and so on (that did not leave them vulnerable).
Sadly the West could hardly follow such a policy overseas – when following exactly the opposite policy (a policy of statist “modernisation”) at home.
As for democracy – the only thing “the masses” have in common in the Middle East is their Islam (Sunni or Shia). To build institutions based on “the masses” (teaching people NOT to look up to the most economically successful people in their community) was folly, insane folly.
But then the West was doing that at home also.
Perhaps the time will come when even building reflects this in the West.
The great difference between a rich man’s house in the Middle East and in the West was historically that in the Middle East the rich man’s house would be very plain from the outside (and often clever methods would be used to make the house look smaller, not bigger, than it actually was).
This was because a rich man (merchant or landowner) would not want to attract the ENVY of the ruler (and his officials – and the mob of the “people” who they could raise). This may come to pass in the West also – as our culture declines.
As Ludwig Von Mises pointed out so called “Islamic democracy” (pointed to by leading “intellectuals” in the West – not just Kim Philby’s father) was actually MOB RULE (although mobs carefully incited and manipulated), with the mob being incited with envy and the false doctrine that their poverty was caused by the wealth of others.
The mob incited (by the rulers) to forget “tribal” institutions (respect for rich “elders” and so on) and just think of themselves as “the people” whose poverty was due to the wealth of others – till noble rulers struck down these evil rich people.
So NO statism would not be a step up for these people – it has been tried before (many times) by many despots (and their vast machines of officials) who use Islam to incite “the masses” to strike down “the rich”.
The “tall poppies” the “tribal elders”.
After all their wealth violates “Social Justice” and Islamic figures can talk that language just as well as Western “Progressives” can (indeed they were talking it centuries before Western Progressives existed – they smile at their imitators even as they plan interesting deaths for them).
Ian B is spot on with the final paragraph of his comment. Certainly all MPs that voted for military action in Syria should, at the very least, be placed on Sean’s little list.
As to statism versus tribalism, I partly agree with Ian. My take is that the city-state was a huge advance on the tribe. Mainly because the people in city-states were bound together, not by random accident of blood-line, but by a shared voluntary commitment to their mutual defence. But the nation-state is a big step back towards tribalism. For at birth, nationality isn’t voluntary, just as which tribe you were born into wasn’t voluntary. BTW, that’s why I think of patriotism as silly.
It’s a little better for immigrants, who can if they wish voluntarily acquire a new nationality. And good luck to them!
Nation states have some more problems of their own, too:
(1) States don’t actually reflect nations. The Basques, the Catalans, the Flemish, the Kurds – even the English! – all are nations who don’t have their own states, so are in essence ruled over by “foreign powers.” (Yes, Gordon Brown, I mean you!)
It’s even worse in Africa, where the red lines on the map are relics of colonialism, and have little to do with the identity or interests of the people who actually live there.
(2) Politics – and democracy, most of all – will eventually break apart any social cohesion a nation state might have initially had. For most denizens of this blog, it goes almost without saying that Labour and their supporters are, and always have been, the enemy. Many of my further left-leaning friends think the same of the Tories.
What is relatively new is the position in which I and many others find ourselves today: “A plague on all their houses.” Choosing between the Hoary Gories, the Slaver Party or the Slob Dims is like choosing between being hung, shot or beheaded with an axe. I don’t see PUKIP as being that much better; if they ever got power, inside 5 years they’d be like the Tories are now.
That explains why I don’t vote. Indeed, if you vote for a party that gets into power, you have committed an aggression against those who are harmed by that party’s policies. Maybe you can now understand why, in my opinion, no libertarian should ever vote for any politician.
My thinking on the way forward is that at the local level we must look to have voluntary communities of like-minded people. Some will be Christian, some Muslim, some atheist, some socialist, some capitalist, some free-market leftist, some libertarian, some libertine, some none of the above.
On top of that we need a minimal, general code of conduct applicable to all members of all communities. In the long term, I think this must be world-wide. The libertarian non-aggression obligation gives us a starting point, but I don’t think it does the job on its own. Being a minarchist, I think we do need government – that is, institutions that deliver objective justice and, where necessary, defence to their subscribers. But we don’t need the state or its machinery of power, taxation, war, border controls, bad laws, bullying, propaganda and surveillance. One of my recent bons mots, trying to make this important distinction between government and the state, is: Government should be an umpire; but the state is a vampire.
Most importantly, I think we must abolish all moral privileges. There must be one law for all, not one law for the politically rich and another for everyone else. Otherwise put: What is right for one to do, is right for another to do in similar circumstances, and vice versa.
In the last several months I’ve locked myself away and written all this (and much more) down, at short book length (40,000 words). I’m deep in editing right now. I’ll keep you posted.
Actually in Greek city state such as Athens citizens voted by “tribe” (at least at first – when “the people” took over as a concept rich-versus-poor politics could take over, once Athens had been dominated by the rural farms only over time did the urban centre come dominate everything ).
This was certainly true in Rome – however, over time even the “rural tribes” became dominated (at least at voting time) by the urban mob (who Populari the Roman version of Greek Demagogues, could stir up) who could be promised loot from conquest (or from plundering allies as Athens did) or via rich-versus-poor politics, then the Republic was finished.
When tribe no longer meant anything (when one just part of the mob -“the people”) and when the Senate (the seniors, the elders – the Greeks had their versions also). lost respect – then the Republic was finished.
There was a ghost of all this as late as the 1960s.
The Senates in many American States were drawn up to reflect the rural areas (to counter balance the big towns and cities) – but the Supreme Court declared (twisting the meaning of the 14th Amendment) that the upper houses of the States should reflect population (thus destroying the point of them – and giving another push away from a Republic towards “democracy”).
In Britain people (even after the got the vote) tended to look up to the leading people in a local area (the “tribal elders” as it were).
When David Lloyd George defeated the local landowner in the vote of 1890 (or whenever it was) it showed the British Polity was changing – moving away from “tribalism”.
This was not a good thing.
It showed that the demagogues (the rich-versus-poor politics) was taking control.
Talking of rich-versus-poor demagogues (Populari – like Julius Caesar), there was amusing moment on “Russia Today” this morning.
Rosa Klebb. (or “Stacy Herbert” as the lady with the poisoned dagger in her shoe calls herself these days). was going on about how evil American companies are to try and leave the country to avoid the 35% company tax rate (and that is just the Federal rate) which they have to pay even on profits earned in other countries (if they bring the money back to the United States).
And they created the high Corporation Tax rate in the first place (said Rosa) as a barrier of entry to competition and now they are trying to leave because…….
And then the lady stopped for a second – because she understood that to say any more risked revealing the truth, i.e. that American companies (business enterprises) may have influence over the government, but they do NOT control it.
If they did control it that Corporation Tax would never have been introduced in the first place (“barrier to entry” not worth the money they pay) and it certainly would not be at its present level. Nor would such things as Californian rates of personal income tax and Californian Capital Gains Tax exist.
The whole idea that there is a united “Capitalist Class” which rules in the line with its economic interests (rather than that “the rich” are actually utterly divided in their politics with economic interests often not being the most important factor) is exposed as nonsense.
If one attacks American companies (and American INDIVIDUALS – renouncing citizenship) for trying to leave to escape heavy taxation (and the endless REGULATION that can send a company director to prison for what would be a minor clerical error outside the demented American legal system) then one risks letting the cat out of the bag.
The cat being that the American state (the Federal government) is NOT just the tool of the “capitalist class” (“the rich” and “the corporations”).
Of course the joke is that now Russia Today does not talk the language of Marxism – it talks the language of the “libertarian left”, but the message is the same.
“Death to America, the USA is controlled by the evil rich and the evil corporations, Death to America”.
Just wrapped up in more subtle language.