Share this fundraiser with friends online using ChipIn!

Support Anarchist Bloggers!

Anarchoblogs depends on contributions from readers like you to stay running. We're doing a fundraising drive for the months of July and August.

Donations provide for the costs of running anarchoblogs.org and provide direct financial support to active Anarchoblogs contributors. See the donation page for more details.


Posts tagged libertarian left

Shameless Promotion

For anyone interested in left-libertarianism, the Forums of the Libertarian Left are still up and active! There’s been a slight decrease in the number of posts as of late, but it looks like a good number of people still check in regularly. If you are already registered and haven’t posted in a while, stop by! Let everyone know how you are doing, post a rant on something, or even just send cute cat pictures.

EDIT: and for anyone interested in an Aristotelian perspective on libertarianism and classical liberalism, Geoff Plauche recently created a Facebook page for Aristotelian liberalism.


Why I Am A Left-Libertarian

I am a left-libertarian. This is a position that seems contradictory to many, both libertarian and not; libertarianism is traditionally seen as being a movement of the Right, or even the farthest extreme of the Right, existing as an apologetic philosophy for corporatism and elitism. I believe that this is fundamentally mistaken. The Right, I think, is properly seen today as being the status quo of state-capitalism, dominated by an elite of bureaucrats and plutocrats, whose ends are power and authority at the expense of everyone else. Even modern day “liberals” and social democrats are rightist in this sense; merely reforming a fundamentally evil system is not enough, and the state-socialist means of compulsion and centralization contradict their declared “leftist” ends. Thus, the Left is properly conceived as being those whose ends are peace, justice, and prosperity, and whose means don’t conflict with those ends.

For libertarians reading this, it will probably help if I explain why I am a “thick” libertarian first, as opposed to “thin” libertarianism. Thin libertarianism is the position that politics is the ethics of the use of force; nothing more and nothing less. Political philosophy doesn’t and can’t have anything to say about society, other than that aggression is wrong. Any set of social and cultural norms is seen as being compatible with the political philosophy of liberty, as long as they are non-coercive. Thick libertarianism, on the other hand, is the position that liberty is fundamentally intertwined with other concerns. Politics is broader than statements about the permissible use of force, and justice is more than non-aggression. Note that left-libertarians are not the only thick libertarians; paleolibertarian conservatives and Objectivists also hold thick views on political philosophy.

I am a left-libertarian, because I am a thick libertarian who sees that the “leftist” values of anti-authoritarianism, mutuality, and equality are fundamentally entailed by the same principles that make me anti-statist. A society built on authority and hierarchy, where social evils such as patriarchy and xenophobia are widely accepted cultural norms, is not a just society, even if it is non-coercive. A just society is one where every individual’s flourishing is not subject to the arbitrary whims of others, one where people are not held back by society, but instead encouraged to become the best person that they can be.

 

 

 


ALLiance #3 is out now

ALLiance is Seeking Submissions


Want to advertise? Check this link: http://chrislempa.wordpress.com/2009/07/13/advertise-in-alliance/

ALLiance Issue 3 submission deadline is August 1!

It’s that time again. ALLiance a journal of theory and strategy is seeking submissions. Please consider submitting an article, poem, artwork, etc. The only submission guideline I have is that your work fits under ALL’s “mission statement”:

The Alliance of the Libertarian Left is a multi-tendency coalition of mutualists, agorists, voluntaryists, geolibertarians, left-Rothbardians, green libertarians, dialectical anarchists, radical minarchists, and others on the libertarian left, united by an opposition to statism and militarism, to cultural intolerance, and to the prevailing corporatist capitalism
falsely called a free market.

Ideally submissions will be received by August 1. However, other arrangements can be made. Issues 1 and 2 can be found here: http://www.scribd.com/Christopher%20Lentil. Submissions can be sent to chris (at) chrislempa.info

Issue 1

View this document on Scribd

Issue 2

View this document on Scribd

Culture Crash


Culture Crash
Chris Lempa
Black Oak Presents
Autumn 2008

Culture Crash

“Culture generally refers to patterns of human activity and the symbolic structures that give such activities significance and importance. Cultures can be “understood as systems of symbols and meanings that even their creators contest, that lack fixed boundaries, that are constantly in flux, and that interact and compete with one another.”

Culture can be defined as all the ways of life including arts, beliefs and institutions of a population that are passed down from generation to generation. Culture has been called “the way of life for an entire society.” As such, it includes codes of manners, dress, language, religion, rituals, norms of behavior such as law and morality, and systems of belief as well as the art.”

-Wikipedia, the anarchistic online encyclopedia

My goal in this short space is not to define culture or debate its merits. Rather, I will use the broad quote provided in the epigraph as a launching pad to discuss where the dominant culture has led us (negative) and where we can take it (positive). A close associate often reminds me that it is important to define my terms. With that in mind, I will provide the following definition for dominant culture

“Whereas traditional societies can be characterized by a high consistency of cultural traits and customs, modern societies are often a conglomeration of different, often competing, cultures and subcultures. In such a situation of diversity, a dominant culture is one that is able, through economic or political power, to impose its values, language, and ways of behaving on a subordinate culture or cultures. This may be achieved through legal or political suppression of other sets of values and patterns of behaviour, or by monopolizing the media of communication. (A Dictionary of Sociology 1998, originally published by Oxford University Press 1998.)”

There are many signs that the dominant culture is failing.  A quick glance at the Earth Policy Institute’s Eco-Economy Indicators warns that world grain stocks are falling, the world fish catch has hit it’s limits, and that the world’s water resources face mounting pressures. The website for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) has a section dedicated to failed banks. There have been  38 bank failures since October 1, 2000.  The Worldwatch Institute has a great program called Vital Signs Online, and their section on Fossil Fuels notes that,

“North America and Asia remain the world’s leading oil users, at 25.3 million barrels and 21.4 million barrels a day in 2006, respectively. The United States drained 20.7 million barrels of oil daily—24 percent of the global total. Yet U.S. gasoline use dropped by about 1 percent from the previous year as consumers reacted to higher prices. Other top consumers include Europe at 16.1 million barrels daily, China at 7.2 million barrels a day, and the Middle East at 6.5 million barrels daily. (Fossil Fuel Use Up Again, May 6, 2008)”

All of the trends are disturbing, but what does this have to do with culture, not to mention a culture crash?

Each of the referenced indicators noted “patterns of human activity” and “symbolic structures”  that are unsustainable. As the Water Resources Indicator notes, “rivers are running dry, lakes are disappearing, and water tables are dropping,” but unfortunately that doesn’t deter the University of Arizona’s Turfgrass Research, Education, and Extension (TREE) from finding better, more “efficient” ways to irrigate the desert. A webpage titled “Keeping Desert Golf Courses Green” notes that TREE is working on testing “heat-hardy grasses that thrive on salty water and only need irrigation every two weeks.”

Shifting to the governmental and financial realm, Doug French outlines the FDIC’s role in failed banks by reviewing Irvine H. Sprague’s Bailout: An Insider’s Account of Bank Failures.  Sprague was a Chairman and Director of the FDIC. While there he witnessed over 374 bank failures. Isn’t it interesting that the FDIC only lists 38 bank failures on their website? Why did they choose October 1, 2000 as a start date?

Vital Signs includes detailed reports outlining the results of various “patterns of human activity,” and instances where the dominant culture is driving us to the brink of extinction, or to a morbid wasteland are many. This may excite the Rapture crowd, but it should be scary to any rational, thinking being. Jesus isn’t going to make all of the believers disappear.  If, however, He were, what is the point of turning the planet into a wasteland before He comes? Unfortunately, that’s what is happening

Obesity is on the rise. Suicide rates are high. More people are on anti-depressants or psychotropics. The pharmaceutical industrial complex is developing new drugs and then developing new diagnoses to go with them (research the connection between Ritalin and ADHD/ADD). Potable water sources are being depleted so people can golf in the desert. Food is being turned into gasoline.

In many different aspects of life – from bank failures to overfishing to water depletion – the dominant culture is failing. The worldwide monetary system is in a state of flux while the US mortgage crisis has spread throughout the world. All the while our “leaders” are saying that we might be facing a recession. Unfortunately, the solutions are always the same: tax cuts, more technology, clean power, or make do without.

Einstein defined insanity as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” If that’s the case, then it should be clear that the dominant culture is insane. But what can we do?

The good thing about living in the heart of the empire is that even small changes can have a large impact. The important thing is that we do something. The Back to the Land movement in the 1970s encouraged many people to live simpler lives. Many people are looking to recreate this movement. That’s a great start. Buy Local and Fair Trade Campaigns also have a huge impact. With that being said, I propose to take it further.

In an earlier article, I briefly outlined a vision for a more sustainable future. This vision was composed of a serious of autonomous communities freely associating with each other. This is the pure definition of the free market. The interesting economist Murray Rothbard described the free market as, “a summary term for an array of exchanges that take place in society. Each exchange is undertaken as a voluntary agreement between two people or between groups of people represented by agents. These two individuals (or agents) exchange two economic goods, either tangible commodities or nontangible services.”

Samuel Edward Konkin III (a.k.a. SEKIII) broke it down further. In the New Libertarian Manifesto SEKIII explains that, “the Market is the sum of all voluntary human action. If one acts non-coercively, one is part of the Market.” (”Toward a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics,” 1956)

A network of autonomous communities based on free association is the best chance for a sustainable future. I believe it is possible to make this a reality in our lifetime.

A Meta-Defense of Mutualism

Often in ancap circles, one finds criticisms of the specific recommendations of mutualism, especially the idea of occupancy/use as being the basis of property.  However, I think that some of these criticisms somewhat miss the point, and I thought I would do everyone the pleasure of clarifying the debate.  I myself am not a mutualist, although my views are heavily influenced by Tucker and Carson, and I think that the principle of mutuality can be integrated within an Aristotelian liberal approach, as part of the virtue of justice.

A common argument against the occupancy and use standard is a reductio ad absurdum: one often finds the example of a man holding a piano.  He can do anything he wants with it, as long as he doesn’t put it down and leave, because he would have relinquished his claim to it.  I think that this misses the point, for several reasons.

First off, the mutualist approach to property is purely consequentialist; there is nothing inherent to mutualism that demands that occupancy and use is the only standard by with property is to be judged.  By contrast, most ancaps take a partially or completely deontological approach to property, and derive it from first principles (part of the issue also stems from the tendency of some ancaps to take property rights out of their proper context).  Thus, from the ancap’s perspective, it makes sense to use the reductio mentioned above as a condemnation of mutualism as a whole, while the mutualist will think it a strawman.

The actual mutualist position is that rules for property acquisition and abandonment will follow the general social consensus.  Occupancy and use is upheld because it is thought to be the best general standard (whether it is or not is another issue entirely), but the way that it is applied will follow what people think is fair and just.  Thus, a squatter who moves in to your house while you go out for groceries almost certainly won’t be considered the rightful owner; that’s not fair or just, and it wouldn’t have the best consequences for society in general.  (And to anyone concerned about the use of the word “social consensus”, just substitute “common law”.)

Also, the differences between occupancy/use and neo-Lockean property rules are often overblown.  They are differences of degree, not of kind; there are just different standards of what constitutes abandonment and acquisition.  In Anarchotopia, I would expect that different jurisdictions and communities would have different property rules, ranging from mutualist to neo-Lockean to proviso Lockean and geolibertarian, and mixes of them.  Roderick Long’s Land-Locked in the JLS issue on Mutualist Politcal Economy, and Carson’s rejoinders in the same issue, are good further reading.  Also, an old post of mine on the paralells between Douglas B. Rasmussen & Douglas J. Den Uyl and Kevin Carson on the philosophy of property rights.


Localism and Globalism in the Libertarian Left

Rad Geek People’s Daily has been the host of a very interesting conversation (links here, here, and here) about localism and globalism within the libertarian left (hat tip to Roderick Long).  To throw in my belated $0.02, I find myself in agreement with Rad Geek, in that the solution to the problem is dialectical; that is, localist communities can be accommodated within a globalist framework without contradiction.  I think that Carson’s localist view is a pretty good prediction of what society will look like immediately post-state, before large-scale, truly voluntary associations can develop (and, ironically, it would probably provide an equal or higher standard of living than the current state-capitalist system, given how much wealth and productivity the ruling class sucks up).  Ultimately, though, I think that large-scale institutions and organizations will develop (think Proudhon and his “association of associations”), and a more extensive division of labor, either through entrepreneurs figuring out clever, non-statist solutions to the problem of high-tonnage, long-distance transportation, or through technology (nanotech, virtual reality, etc.) making the problem irrelevant (or a combination of both).  As far as the rest goes, I think Rad Geek said it best:

When I have my hoverbike, I’ll use it for a lot of things, and one of the things I hope to be able to do is to fly through uncountable different neighborhoods within the gleaming metropolis. Don’t forget that even New Tokyo will have neighborhoods, or at least I hope it will, because a city with no neighborhoods isn’t worth a damn. The always-ready hyperlocal holographic social networking mapping mash-up that shimmers into existence over my hoverbike dash will help me find landmarks and fascinating holes-in-the-wall and the good old hang-outs and the hot new things, with help from the interwoven knowledge of friends, visitors, and longtime locals. Some of the neighborhoods may be glass and steel; others may be orchards and wheat fields and villages; others campus gothic spires, grassy quads and libraries; others may be permaculture cities of green roofs and hanging gardens. They will speak many different languages; some will be young and others old; some will be slow and stable over time, and others will be frenetic and constantly changing. Some may be stable in structure while constantly changing in population (think of a University campus), and others may be exactly the reverse (think of an indie rock scene). Which ones are the best to visit, or to live in, will depend on the circumstances of life for each of us. (What you want by way of stability or surroundings when you’re 50 may be different from what you want when you’re 19. What I want at 27 may be different from what you want at 27. What I want in the summer may be different from what I want in the fall.) And that’s what’s beautiful about it. It’s the neighborhoods that makes the city glorious. But without the city, and the hoverbikes to fly through it, there wouldn’t be the neighborhoods, either. There would only be warehouses, deserts, and fortresses.  (source)


Left Libertarianism and Leadership


Left-Libertarianism and Leadership
by Chris Lempa & Keith Taylor
Black Oak Presents, Spring 2009

Leadership is essential to the growth of the anti- (or alternative) State movement. Ken Pigg, a rural sociology professor at the University of Missouri, notes that leadership is “influence,” and what are we seeking as libertarians if not influence? We need to build “organic” leadership to not only prosper libertarian thought, but also combat centralizing tendencies in our day to day life.

Leadership is a concept oftentimes criticized as amorphous, difficult to conceptualize, and laden in values. When one applies a set of values to the concept of leadership, however, it is not as difficult to conceptualize as one might believe. Leadership should be viewed from many perspectives. Corporate leadership certainly differs from small business leadership, which no doubt differs from political leadership. But as libertarians, we should care most about community leadership.

Community leadership is, as Pigg noted, about influence. There is a set of characteristics a community leader must exude to be effective within the community sphere: a lack of ego or individual power seeking; a desire for inclusionary decision making; sensitivity to others’ willingness or lack thereof to participate in community; and most importantly, a desire to build other community leaders.

Community leadership promotes a level of anti-authoritarian structure through diffuse leadership. In other words, community leadership is about removing authority through mutual empowerment. A community leader does not seek power, but as previously stated, seeks influence. A community leader avoids control and instead seeks participation and inclusion in community processes.

For example, a member-owned cooperative grocery store would seek the input of not only the membership in decision-making activity, but also the workers, recognizing them as essential components of the co-op’s operations. Critical decisions by the board and management of the cooperative would seek to build trust and reciprocity amongst the cooperative community before forging ahead on initiatives potential deemed as controversial.

But it is not enough for leadership to stop there. In order to be effective, the leaders must encourage others within the ranks of the cooperative to seek official positions within the decision-making apparatus of the organization and even welcome challenges to their positions. Such an environment is a welcoming environment, allowing for civil discourse and the dissemination of ideas, thoughts, and concerns.

A left-libertarian critique of capitalists (or supposed “free-market capitalists”) is the inconsistency in their stance on authority. Capitalists at large seem to be content with corporate bosses, as well as exploitive business owners (boss treats ya bad? Quit! Move elsewhere!). This offers no solution to the problem of exploitation, nor does it assist in empowering laborers. Community leadership would reinforce social norms that respect all aspects of human interaction by recognizing we all have a stake in our community, whether it be in a shopping center, factory floor, or mopping floors; people are not disposable husks of measurable economic units, and to treat them as such has ramifications outside of the marketplace.

Believe it or not, there is a world of academic literature out there that is quite pragmatic in this approach. The rural and community academic literature has for a while, been writing about entrepreneurial communities in a manner necessitated by the devolution of federal and state governments and limited funding sources, even though most impoverished communities are rich in assets.

The problem is, in part, because the dominant economic class has imbued their own values into what is a “viable business model.” Individuals can lead a movement from within their own community to fight this mindset and recognize intrinsic community capitals that outsiders would normally scoff at.

Cultural capital in Mattoon, Illinois certainly varies from the cultural capital of a Wall Street trader in NYC, as do the unique preferences of individuals from those two communities. And that’s fine! Just because one group attempts to push its norms and values on the other through the economic system, that does not legitimize it, especially if there is resistance and leadership from within those communities to counter the outside influence.

As left-libertarians, are we not attempting to influence the public discourse? Is this not a leadership role? Are we not attempting to move toward a self-help approach and remove hierarchical power structures? How else can we do this if we do not lead and attempt to build other leaders?

Chris Lempa is a streetwise professor in search of the perfect cup of coffee and the perfect glass of water. He is an editor at http://www.Strike-the-root.com. You may e-mail him at chris (at) chrislempa.info.

“Aristotelian Liberalism”

For those who have not read it, I highly recommend Dr. Geoffrey Allan Plauché’s PhD dissertation, entitled “Aristotelian Liberalism: An Inquiry into the Foundations of a Free and Flourishing Society”.  Within in it, he synthesizes the view of Douglas Rasmussen and Douglas Den Uyl with that of Roderick Long, regarding the basis of rights within a pluralist neo-Aristotelian theory of ethics and flourishing.  To give a brief summary: on the structural level (R&DU’s view), rights are meta-normative principles that protect the right to liberty and thus self-direction, a constitutive element of one’s flourishing; and on the personal level (Long’s view), rights are interpersonal normative principles, and respecting rights is in itself constitutive of flourishing.

To make things interesting from a left-libertarian point-of-view, he also develops a non-statist theory of participatory democracy, building on the work of the New Left.  In the same vein, he defends a “thick” conception of libertarianism; that is, a libertarianism that is concerned with more than just non-aggression.  All-in-all, I would recommend this to anyone who has an interest in neo-Aristotelian or Randian philosophy, and especially to left-libertarians working within that tradition.


List of Random Stuff that I’m calling a Blog Post

1. This will be my first post aggregated to Anarchoblogs, so to all reading, hello! Also, I'd like to take this oppurtunity to once again mention the Forums of the Libertarian Left, a great place for agorists, mutualists, geolibertarians, voluntaryists, libertarian socialists, decentralists, and other left-libertarians to discuss theory, history, and tips, tricks, and strategies on smashing the state.

2. Happy birthday Pierre-Joseph Proudhon!

3. If you will, vote for Kevin Carson's policy recommendations to the Obama administration on Change.gov.

4. That's about it. I'll close with Aristotle Quote #2:

Humor is the only test of gravity, and gravity of humor; for a subject which will not bear raillery is suspicious, and a jest which will not bear serious examination is false wit.