…and then says no to any further dialogue.
In some ways, this discussion reminds me of the foreign policy debates between realists and liberal-humanist-universalists. Not coincidentally, the realist George Kennan became a supporter of something resembling pan-secessionism in his final years, whereas supporters of “human rights internationalism” typically regard secession as an abhorrent idea.
To my mind, Live and Let Live is the defining philosophy of the American rebel. The idea that communities should be forbidden, regulated, overseen or shut down is the defining characteristic of American authority.
Lyons says ‘well, you align yourself with right-wing groups, therefore you are right wing.’ I say, ‘let them have their raceland, and no more.’
“To RJ Jacob: Pan-secessionism is based on the premise that the large central state is the main part of class rule, and that dismantling the large central state would result in smashing the ruling classes. I believe this is an illusion — a utopian fantasy. Capitalism is a system that includes the state but is not ultimately created by it. If you don’t attack that larger system you are reconfiguring capitalism, not ending it. Same for racial oppression, and male supremacy, and national oppression, and so on. Assuming that pan-secessionists succeeded in smashing the state — that they didn’t simply get coopted by a declining but still powerful U.S. empire, extending its current policy of outsourcing social control tasks to client states, private contractors, gangs, etc. — the result would still be a world of tremendous inequality, exploitation, and violence, but even more of the lines would be drawn geographically than they are now.
The idea that Lyons is going to smash capitalism, states, gangs, private contractors, “rightists”, etc. etc. etc. without relying on Marxist class rule or a state is a utopian fantasy.
Lyons is simply in the business of killing “rightism” and anyone who might fit the description of an accomplice should be attacked. He’s more interested in spitting on conservatarianism than advancing anti-statism. As a result, he’s more likely to be on good terms with an Obama cultist than a Misesian. He’s really not that big of a deal. White nationalism is not allowed, even if it is voluntary, it’s not allowed! And so he goes after group X which is not white nationalist by tapping into the collective fantasy and shutting down response sections. Lyons wants every individual to behave in a certain way — particularly along the lines of Aristotle’s Nicomachean ethics while claiming that his army of dogmatists will not use the threat of force to eliminate the capitalist, or to reliably enforce the social value agenda. But only a central state could guarantee the mega “positive” “liberty” he wants. He’s a statist. He’ll figure that out when shit hits the fan.
“result would still be a world of tremendous inequality, exploitation, and violence, ”
Welcome to the real world. It’s called life.
I’m interested in liberating myself, not world security.
“Pan-secessionism is based on the premise that the large central state is the main part of class rule,”
Correct.
“and that dismantling the large central state would result in smashing the ruling classes.”
Correct.
“I believe this is an illusion”
Well, it’s not going to give us peace, love, and understanding like an Elvis Costello song but it’s better than state-socialism.
Now that’s what I call passive-aggression! Lyons has a go at “Rightists”, placing ATS under that banner; he offers up incomplete representations of various ATS contributors’ views (including Yours Truly); then he gets all restrictive and aversive when he’s called out on it, shutting down debate.
“Three Way Fight”? More like One Way Lunge!
More like “One way only”
I noticed he keeps refering to elusive ways in which social control takes root in small scale institutions, and yet never mentions any specifically. I will infer from this that either A) he considers himself intellectually superior to ATS and therefore is exempt from doing so or B) he’s running out of ideas and wants to end the conversation as soon as possible. My guess is that the truth is a combination of both. He recalls nothing so much as a secular leftist version of Bob Larson, studiously keeping tabs on any and all “satanic”/”fascist” elements supposedly poisoning society.
“I would tend to look first to people who have been silenced or marginalized within these communities, such as queer Hasidic Jews, for guidance or leadership in this area.”
Sounds like the premise for a Monty Python sketch.
Seriously thought, this is the problem with these guys, he has no qualms at all about wondering how he might go about inflicting his values on a community which isn’t asking for his Solomon like judgement. He has gone so far as to wonder about how he might co-opt elements of that community in order to give himself some imaginary legitimacy when he imposes his dull 20th century agenda on it. I would imagine this is how Rumsfeld thought about invading Afghanistan (to liberate the women!).
The big laugh comes however later on when he rejects secessionism on the basis would lead to; “the rise to dominance of new imperialist superpowers”. This from a guy who two paragraphs earlier was musing on how he could re-order Amish and Hasidic societies!
To be fair I don’t see Lyons even pretending to be anything other a bog standard Statist lefty dreaming of his benevolent enlightened dictatorship armed to the teeth with the power of the state. He effectively argues that decentralisation would mean accepting “inequality, exploitation, and violence” (like centralisation has, or could, stop any of that) and the implication is that the state is absolutely necessary as the lesser evil (at best).
Talking of inequality how come he doesn’t accord Orania the same rights as the Amish? How come some queer white isolationists doesn’t get a say? (Of course, because they don’t exist as it is impossible for any official “favoured minority” group member to be anything other than a gold plated progressive).
And he wonders why no left wing thinkers were included in the list of radical political philosophers?
BTW hadn’t someone better go and tell the Afghan Resistance that they’ll never be free of Imperialism unless they get a powerful central state? I’m just worried that having defeated both the Warsaw Pact and NATO without one they might not have grasped this vital fact?
I would stand by my comments that Lyons’ original critique of my work is probably as good as I would ever expect to get from the hard Left. But after observing his most recent round of comments, I find it increasingly difficult to take him seriously.
Philosophical differences aside, the main factual quibble I have with his discussion of us is his persistence in conflating ATS with vulgar libertarianism of the “low tax liberal” type. I mean, this website is littered with material that is critical of capitalism and discusses possible alternatives. It’s also a bit odd that he dismisses us as pie in the sky utopians and cynical, cold-hearted anti-humanists at the same time.
I suppose the biggest problem I have with Lyons is that he never explains what he’s actually for other than, apparently, expanding the welfare state and holding Pride Marches in Hasidic communities.
>To my mind, Live and Let Live is the defining philosophy of the American rebel.
If it isn’t, the person isn’t a rebel for long, or will be in a life-long rebellion against everything and everybody (such as the AnComs and most of the increasingly entrenched, politically as well as mentally, hard left it is part of).
“I suppose the biggest problem I have with Lyons is that he never explains what he’s actually for”
All ATS critics abstain from full engagement.
“All ATS critics abstain from full engagement.”
They do this because their intention is not to refute ATS as an intellectual competitor, but to fend it off as a threat to their turf.
“They do this because their intention is not to refute ATS as an intellectual competitor, but to fend it off as a threat to their turf.”
Right.
Yep
What’s particularly hilarious is when Lyons criticizes us as unrealistic utopians, while at the same time promoting the concept of an entirely reconstructed humanity exhibiting, on a universal scale, perfect equality of, well, just about everyone, everything, every time every place, without presenting any ideas on how to actually achieve such an other-worldly ambition.
I’m not even sure how Lyons defines “capitalism” in the first place. The way he describes “capitalism” it sounds like some all-encompassing evil metaphysical entity like Satan.
Yea. His argument against the state being the central vehicle of the ruling class hints to a Marxian view of the state. Capitalism is the primary enemy, etc. Take out capitalism, and all states wither away. Calling us unrealistic utopians for believing that the state should be taken out first is probably not an anti-ATS theme, but something he would argue against with all anarchists. He seems to have a serious fear of falling into global private tyranny. Even CHOMSKY admits most of the big corporations would go bankrupt within months in the absence of corporate welfare.
For a “revolutionary insurgent”, Lyons is afraid of everything
His Marxism shines through clearly enough.