http://attackthesystem.com/2014/07/18/is-market-anarchism-eclipsing-anarcho-marxism/
Is Market Anarchism eclipsing Anarcho-Marxism?
It seems to me that in the last couple of years “free market anarchism” in its various forms has grown to the point where it’s now starting to eclipse or even surpass the “anarcho-Marxists” in terms of size and influence. I base this observation on the number of public events sponsored by both, and the online presence of both. Am I right or wrong in this perception?
I ask not because I think either the anarcho-Marxists or the mainstreams libertarians are genuinely radical or revolutionary movements for the most parts, but because I’m interested in what the prevailing ideological currents are at present. It seems to me the anarcho-Marxists are in the process of self-destructing. It’s getting to where every time they hold a public meeting a fight breaks out between rival PC factions which, ironically, results in the cops often being called. I don’t see a movement like that ever growing or sustaining itself because it’s so ineffective at organizing, maintaining present participants, or recruiting new ones. In my view, the anarcho-Marxists cannot self-destruct soon enough. I say that for functional and strategic reasons rather than ideological ones. They’re a collection of dysfunctional overgrown 12 year olds who are a barrier to the development of a more genuinely radical movement with an anarchist orientation. If “free market anarchism” were to eclipse them, it would simply be a matter of eliminating one obstacle that’s presently in the way.
This is not to say that there are not also many problems within libertarianism/market anarchism. With the growth of libertarianism in recent years, it seems like it’s being pulled towards efforts at co-optation from two main directions. One of these is obviously the corporate-oriented right wing, e.g. Americans for Prosperity, Freedom Works, etc. The other is the PC Left, e.g. C4SS, BHL, Reisenwitz, etc. All that is to be expected. Much of libertarianism is just a microcosm of the wider society. The left wing of libertarianism are Democrats under another name, and the right wing of libertarianism are Republicans under another name. Indeed, at present there seems to be civil war going on among libertarians/market anarchists between the brutalists and the bleeding hearts is a way that’s reflective of the mainstream “culture wars” that represent rivalries among elite and/or middle class factions, and that are irrelevant to actual revolutionary struggle.
Opposition to US imperialism has to be the flagship issue of any serious radical movement in North America, and not arguing about mainstream issues. Anyone who wants to soft pedal that or water it down, much less compromise with the empire, is out of the game before it begins. Whenever I encounter any purported “radical” movement, organization, or individual, the first thing I usually ask is how do they feel about breaking up the USA into smaller political units. If they express opposition, then I know they’re already out of the game. I’ll then ask how they would feel about achieving such through capital “R” Revolutionary action. If they don’t recoil in horror, then I’ll assume maybe they have some potential.
Discover more from The Libertarian Alliance
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I am currently seeking recruits to my new Anarcho-Nudist movement. Anarcho-nudists believe in abolishing the State by introducing a regime of compulsory nudity for all. Universal compulsory nudity will first of all abolish the paedophile problem, since it will be so simple to observe naked children that there will be no more child porn. It will also abolish terrorism since, firstly, all the Muslims will have to go somewhere else and secondly there will be nowhere to hide a suicide bomb. “Peace and freedom from immodesty”, that is our catchphrase.
With the elmination of the terrorism and paedophile problems, the entire justification for the modern state will disappear, and thus so will the State, leading to a utopia of absolute liberty.
As Anarcho-Nudism member 0001, I eagerly look forward to signing up member 0002.
Before any of us can consider becoming Member 0002, can we have nude picture of Member 0001?
I’m afraid that is illegal under wise Mr Cameroon’s new “revenge porn” legislation, under which nude selfies are considered a form of self abuse.
Additionally Sean, while I am gratified by your interest, I am afraid that currently the organisation, to ensure that it is not disproportionately made up of older persons and males, in the pursuit of representing marginalised demographics, is currently positively discriminating in recruitment policy in favour of women aged 18-24 who, as part of our support of government anti-obesity policy should be slim and fit looking. To set an example, you understand.
The central “leftist” (for want of a better word) falsehood is that poverty is caused by “the rich”, by “big business”. They peddle the myth that either we can help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payers (actually pulling down the wage payers would make the condition of wage earners worse – not better) or that everyone can set up small scale production themselves (Karl Marx would have laughed at that absurdity – but not everyone who calls themselves a Marxist laughs at it, for example Mao had local communities trying to make steel in their back yards).
Whether it is Rousseau, or Karl Marx, or Mao, or Kevin (sometimes of this Parish) the idea is false – poverty is NOT caused by private concentrations of wealth, “the rich” and “big business” are not to blame.
The central economic idea of Classical Liberalism and libertarianism, i.e. the natural long term harmony of economic interests, between “rich” and “poor”, “capital” and “labour”, is correct.
This does not mean that state policy can not increase inequality artificially – it can (for example a policy of monetary expansion, “low interest rates”, “cheap money” tends to increase inequality even after the boom-bust has worked itself out – this is the story of much of Latin America, and increasing the United States and other lands), but inequality (even massive inequality) is not in-its-self an evil.
As for “U.S. Imperialism” – the United States does not tend to have vast colonies over seas paying taxes to the fund the bread-and-games at home (Athens and Rome both tried this – America has not, preferring to finance its recent Welfare State with massive credit money expansion, the road to bankruptcy cultural as well as economic).
The United States did oppose German Domination of Europe (and the world) – in spite of (ironically) having a President (Woodrow Wilson) who was saturated in Germanic (collectivist) philosophy and who rejected (at least in some of his writings – he was not consistent) the very idea of universal reason or universal justice (natural law) the very things that the French President (a man from a very different philosophical tradition) . Woodrow Wilson was (by the facts of geography and the balance of power) placed in the odd position of having more in common (philosophically) with his enemies than with his allies (for example Woodrow Wilson shared the fashionable racism of the day – the French President did not, many in the German elite did).
Still the position of a President is often not quite the same as the position of the United States – as Mr Obama is finding over the Ukraine (where he has more in common, philosophically, with the people dancing round statues of Lenin in eastern Ukraine – but may end up being pushed into arming the other side, although he has NOT yet). Ironically the person who actually is supplying weapons (and fighters) in the Ukraine, Mr Putin, actually has little in common to the drunken “People’s Republic” socialist scumbags he is funding – Mr Putin is a vicious (but sober) criminal, with no Marxist beliefs (although he is happy to employ Marxists – partly to distract them from going after him). The hatred of the West of Mr Putin is pathological rather than ideological (again the person with an ideological hatred of America,is the President of the United States rather than the President of Russia – although some of the Comrades back in Chicago insisted, even back in the day, that both Comrade Barack and Comrade Michelle “sold out” by becoming more interested in how much stuff they could plunder for themselves rather than how best they could serve “the cause”).
The United States also opposed the domination of the world by the Axis Powers during Word War II (I am not going to bother talking about the beliefs of Franklin Roosevelt – as they seem to change from day to day, even from hour to hour, with the man not even seem to notice that he was contradicting some belief he had come out with only a little time before – his arbitrary interventions paralysed investment, even of the largest firms, during the 1930s – but they was less arbitrary reversals of policy once war had actually been declared, although the brain tumour that “FDR” allegedly had, may have reduced his ability to mess everything up – although having a mental incompetent represent the United States at Yalta was devastating).
The United States also opposed international Communism efforts to dominate the world (once Franklin Roosevelt had gone to that big mental ward in the sky) – a “little” matter of opposing forces that murdered more than one hundred million people (see the “Black Book of Communism” and many other works) and would have murdered hundred of millions of people given the chance.
The United States also opposes (although in a deeply incompetent way) the expansionist (indeed “Imperialist”) plans of both Sunni and Shia Islam – which are also global in nature. Mr Obama actually seems keener on killing Islamists than Mr Bush was – even when it would actually better to capture the terrorists (for information) rather than just blow them (and everyone else standing near them) to bits. Although (in relation to the “Hastener” regime of Iran) Mr Obama seems unable to free himself from the idea that anyone who claims to believe in religious doctrine must either (A) be lying (as he is when he claims to have religious beliefs), or (B) be an idiot. The idea that the “Hastener” rulers of Iran might be sincerely religious AND intelligent (indeed very cunning) is just alien to how Mr Obama looks at the world.
Still back to the history…..
How opposing the domination of the world (including Latin America) by Imperial Germany, the domination of the world by Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, opposing the domination of the world by the forces of international Marxism, and (most recently) opposing the Imperialist designs of the more ardent followers of Sunni and Shia Islam amount to “American Imperialism” I leave to others, there was certainly no NET economic gain to the United States (rather the reverse).
The fact is that such things as the Berlin Airlift and the opposition to the invasion of Korea by the Communists are things to be proud of – not ashamed of.
And if “anti Imperialists” think otherwise, they are wrong.