leftlibertarian.org

Comrade Wally Conger has posted an outstanding short essay by a nearly forgotten libertarian movement activist, El Ray, from back in the 70’s — On Strategy of Cultural Change. As Wally notes:

“It’s a fantastic repudiation of the ‘retreatist’ charge made against anti-politics and, in turn, agorism.”

Also interesting is the degree of similarity to elements of what’s called the “post-leftist” trend in anarchism, particularly Crimethinc. My own view of what’s called post-leftism per se is that it’s a snapshot of a period in time, reflecting what will be seen in retrospect historically as a period leading to a re-definition of what “the left” even is.

As the right solidifies into a uniformly fascistic movement, the social democrats falsely called “liberals” and the Marxists will fade away to be replaced by de-centralization oriented progressive libertarians and greens in the realm of electoral politics, while we anarchists will cement our seizure of the pinnacle of revolutionary radicalism from the state socialists. Advances in anarchist theory by the likes of Carson confirm that Liberty, alone, answers the social question. The agorists have, in the concept of the counter-economic revolution, the weapon the bring that Liberty about.

UPDATE: In light of the first comment, I should clarify that this post was more a "musing" than an argument. My intention was only to say, "I can see this side of it," a defense of the State, not the defense of the State. In any case, I don't see what's so "silly" in my argument that anarchism rests on people respecting the rights of others. Here's the original post:

Will an anarchic society be total chaos, "every man for himself?" I doubt it; I suspect there'd be a great deal of cooperation, as that is how human beings are. But when the mores or sensibilities of the community are violated when the public becomes aware of an individual not living how they think he ought, what will happen?

Imagine there is no State. You know that someone in the neighborhood is running a dogfighting operation on his estate. Would you be willing to personally use physical force - alone or with a group of neighbors - to stop the cruelty? Would you use lethal force to break it up? Once you've broken up the operation, would you then leave the participants alone, or would you lock them in a cage for some period of time? Perhaps torture them? Publicly humiliate them?

Many people would say "Yes!"

Now imagine that the fellow next door sells recreational drugs. Would you take the same measures you did against the drug dealer as you did against the dogfighter?

Again, a lot of people would say, "Yes!"

What if, instead, he engaged in deviant sexual practices?

A smaller but surprisingly large number would say Yes.

What if he drew satirical cartoons about religion? Or desecrated national symbols?

Again, a good number would say Yes.

What if he bought goods from the other side of the world at below-local market value?

Again, a good number would use violent means to destroy his goods and run him out of town.

In a way, this actually makes the State look good. Without the State, who knows how much people would interfere with the peaceful activities of their neighbors. Despite the too-many victimless crimes on the books, the State's armed agents can't be everywhere at once. At the same time, would-be meddlers are themselves deterred by the State from taking violent action against their neighbors for doing things they don't like. They recognize they have no right and no authority to interfere. Their attitude of "the law is the law"and sheep-like obedience is hardly a sophisticated interpretation of natural justice, but it does constrain them.

The road to anarchy must include persuading the vast majority of people to live in peace with their neighbors, including a high degree of toleration of their peaceful activities. Short of that, there is something to be said in defense of the State. It's a paradox: in a free society, Michael Vick would not be headed for jail. But in a stateless society, Michael Vick may well be dead by now, done in by mob justice.

Rather than choosing to explain why a fifth of Americans can’t find the US on a world map, Miss South Carolina apparently chose to demonstrate why.

This is a perfect example of the sort of person who goes on to a bright future in government or corporate communications departments. They string overtly intelligent-sounding but vapid catch-phrases together regardless of actual semantic content (or lack thereof). Expressing a coherent thought is at best optional and often to risky within the context of jockeying for status within hierarchies.

This is what the US education/indoctrination system produces because this is what the authoritarian US political system demands. We are fast approaching what the late Robert Anton Wilson (Goddess rest his soul) referred to as “Optimum Fuckup” in his discussions of communications theory.

Hat tip: Last Free Voice

Back in the early 1970s, when I was still a baby libertarian, El Ray, later Rayo, was a widely published activist who represented what was often called disparagingly the “retreatist fringe” of the movement. While others pursued electoral politics to further liberty, El Ray explored more radical avenues to expand personal freedom and actually live a free life. He was a great theorist and, in a way, a forefather to Samuel Edward Konkin III’s “counter-economic” Movement of the Libertarian Left. For a decade, from his camper and campsites socked away in the mountains and woods, he wrote pieces on freedom theory and strategy for little publications like Innovator, Free Trade, Libertarian Connection, and Vonu Life. Then, in 1974, whoosh, he was gone. Not dead-gone. Gone-gone. Rayo disappeared.

For all anyone knows, he was eaten by savage warthogs. He might even have slipped quietly into a conventional suit-and-tie lifestyle. Who knows? I like to think that, 33 years later, El Ray’s still hunkered down in his own Galt’s Gulch somewhere, far away from prying eyes.

What follows is a short essay El Ray wrote for the Winter 1969 issue of Innovator, titled “On Strategy of Cultural Change.” It’s a fantastic repudiation of the “retreatist” charge made against anti-politics and, in turn, agorism.

Libertarians who choose to secure their own liberty often find themselves accused of “anti-intellectualism” by other freedom advocates. The charge goes:

“Statism is basically an intellectual problem and requires an intellectual solution; liberty cannot be achieved until popular attitudes become compatible with liberty. The way to gain liberty is not by ‘opting out’ of society but by disseminating rational ideas within the society.”

This criticism is rather beguiling because it is half true: statism is indeed an intellectual problem and requires an intellectual solution. But statism is not EXCLUSIVELY intellectual; it is a SYMBIOSIS of philosophical deceit and institutionalized violence, each sustaining the other. Neither is alone the cause; each is both cause and effect.

Coercivist governments largely control the mass communication media; directly through administration of “public schools,” indirectly through licensing of radio/TV stations and intimidation of publishers under tax and regulatory laws. And the controlled communication media in turn inculcate attitudes and misinformation in support of institutionalized coercion.

Equally important but not so well recognized: Most people accept statist propaganda not merely because they are brainwashed but because they WANT to believe. They feel powerless to change the society or to liberate themselves from it (“You can’t fight City Hall.”) and therefore prefer to believe that somehow it is all for the best. And the more despotic the system, the greater their credulity. Most inmates of German concentration camps were pathetically eager to believe the “explanations” of Nazi administrators, against all evidence to the contrary. Most Russians, even more than most Americans, believe that infringements of their liberty are necessary; opposition, if any, is reserved for details of implementation where change appears possible. One can observe this for himself; most people encountered are not merely deceived; they WANT to be deceived and bitterly resent any attempt to demolish their rationalizations of The Way Things Are.

Certainly liberty cannot be achieved society-wide until popular attitudes become compatible with liberty. But the inverse is equally true; changing popular attitudes is impossible until liberty is realized or at least appears imminent. Together, these lead to the conclusion: a coercivist philosophic/politico-economic system cannot be radically changed BY ANY MEANS from within. Establishments can and do evolve, but mostly in response to developments external to the system.

I suggest that liberation is possible only on the individual level and only by changing attitudes and living-patterns together. Refutation of statist propaganda and opting out must go hand-in-hand. To seek self-liberation is not to be “anti-intellectual”; it is to integrate intellect with reality — to follow thought with action.

It seems to be a common but fallacious belief amongst minarchists and other people who are partly against the State (and even some Anarchists, sadly) that there are only two kinds of methods that one can use to bring about politico-social change: violent revolution (civil war) and political means (activism, voting and fielding candidates). They [...]

I've just discovered a new source for on-line e-books from a number of well known authors. I can't figure out who is the author of this site besides the name 'Rob'. His contact link doesn't produce any usable results. Click the title above as a link. The original reference comes from New Centrist. The site is dedicated primarily to the works of Eric Blair aka George Orwell. These include the novels 1984. Animal Farm, Burmese Days, Coming Up for Air, Down and Out in Paris and London, and Keep the Aspidistra Flying. The earliest novel A Clergyman's Daughter does not appear to be available at this time. For non-fiction is Homage to Catalonia and The Road to Wigan Pier. There's an excellent sample of his well known, and not so well known, journalistic essays including one of my favourites Shooting an Elephant where Orwell remarks on the existential absurdity of imperialism. Other authors include Charles Darwin with a listing for Origin of Species, Voyage of the Beagle and the Descent of Man and other important writing. The Bard of Avon gets more than a look-in with thirty-seven titles from the tragedies and comedies, five large poems and a listing for the sonnets (154). From Charles Dickens are twenty-two major entries and some non-fiction. Mark Twain [Samuel Clemens] is included with Connecticut Yankee, Adventures of Tom Sawyer, two other Tom Sawyer stories and much more. Non-fiction essays are available and a list of his short stories here. There is so much good material from all of these gentlemen I would suggest that any reader go out and buy a "hard copy" version or two. In fact why not buy an armload at your favourite bookstore? Tell them the Shag sent you and help put an end to the balderdash that computers are to blame for illiteracy. However before you run off let's first consider two poems from G.O. which ask us to appreciate the "flowers in the concrete" A Nice Cup of Tea and Some Thoughts on the Common Toad. A few paragraphs from the latter provide some opportunity to really see into the mind and the view of life which penned Animal Farm and 1984.

It occurred to me while reading this that one useful talking point about hard money is that it’s not necessarily literally “hard” in the sense we would all have to carry only potentially inconvenient coinage. Paper certificates, checks and debit/credit cards aren’t going to be outlawed. Rather, commodity money (as opposed to government fiat money) is “hard” money in the sense that “hard science fiction” is “hard” — honest and meticulously realistic.

It should be noted that under free market banking, the actual commodity used by any private currency issuer could be gold, silver, labor hours contractually secured, plutonium, metric tons of iron, board feet of lumber, grams of cocaine, pork bellies or whatever. This isn’t a matter of gold being fetishized. It’s about stopping the political class elite from screwing the ordinary person by inflating the money supply to subtly rob us all of purchasing power.

A while ago, I heavily recommended for all my readers to watch out for the upcoming movie Off the Grid: Life on the Mesa. Here is another movie to watch out for… The Gang: How A Government Agency Uses The Law To Destroy Your Rights And Freedoms. Here is the trailer:

One of my regrets since college has been misplacing a dusty little 1972 paperback titled A New History of Leviathan: Essays on the Rise of the American Corporate State, edited by Murray Rothbard and Ronald Radosh. This book was one of the few genuine Left-Right collaborations that sprung from Rothbard’s notorious flirtation with the Left in the late 1960s. And it was a real eye-opener for me at the time, filled with essays by, of course, Rothbard, libertarian Leonard Liggio, New Leftist William Appleman Williams, then-Leftist now-neocon Radosh, and others. I did an online search for it about two years ago and found a single, well-worn copy — originally priced at maybe a dollar — for 35 bucks. As much as it pained me, I passed. Well, the Mises Institute comes through again! It now offers this important bit of Libertarian Left history as an absolutely free PDF download! Fantastic!

Thanks to comrade Brad Spangler for the tip.