Keith Preston and Revolutionary Strategy

A poster on Reddit’s Anarcho-Capitalism discussion forum describes my views as follows:

Here are some things to know of Keith Preston:

A. He’s a strong revolutionary voice within the anarchist circles.

B. He’s a panarchist and pan-secessionist.

C. He is pretty much equivalent to a classical anarchist, like Spooner, Tucker, Bakunin, Tolstoy; etc. He does like anarchocapitalists and Murray Rothbard, though

D. He believes in Bakunin’s idea of revolutionary strategy, where a professional vanguard is dedicated to making Revolution (not quite the Leninist variant, btw, which emphasizes party line and military dictatorship)

E. He likes the left libertarians and has left libertarian views himself. However, I think he, like Roderick Long and Gary Chartier, is one of the few great left-libertarians and scholars. Keith Preston himself is strongly anti-PC and, by logic, anti-SJW

F. He has plenty of good material on his site, particularly on the issue of Revolution.

As for the article itself, the basic gist is forming an effective anti-statist resistance in North America, which would involve a vanguard of professionals leading various coalitions of anti-leftist, anti-statist forces, from libertarian and non-libertarian sides. That means putting the people against the Establishment, the ruled against the ruled.

So that’s that.

A reader comments:

It is very interesting that he has some appreciation for Rothbard. I bet he really hates Hoppe, even though in practical and political terms, Hoppe’s decentralization, regionalist and local secessionism is the closest thing in Anarcho-capitalism to what Keith Preston might be proposing. And everyone in the LvMI, especially the ones with affinity for Hoppe’s ideas, are strongly anti-PC. Just look at the titles of Woods and Murphy’s books. Not to mention, Higgs, Salerno, Block and Rockwell.

Everything Preston writes about, I can immediately translate in my mind to Anarcho-capitalist strategy and implementation, in one way or another. It makes me very curious to know more, but I would say I own a lot to learning Rockwell, Hoppe and Rothbard’s approach to be able to see that value in Preston’s work.

I would generally concur with much of this with the following qualifications:

Since the subject of my views on Hoppe came up, here’s a few pieces I wrote in response to DTGTF:
hose were written in the early 2000s. Since then, I’ve come to regard Hoppe’s thought as less original and more of a regurgitation of Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, and I’ve come to develop a better appreciation for the immigration restrictionist position as well. Attached is a another essay I wrote on Hoppe’s cultural conservative in response to criticism from Matt Lancaster on my earlier piece.
Also, I’m not really anti-Leftist as much as I am merely anti-totalitarian humanist and anti-Communist. I’d argue that I represent the Nietzschean-Stirnerite Left rather than the Rousseauan-Marxist Left, which means I take a horseshoe approach to the ideological spectrum and end up crossing over to the right or center on certain things.

Categories: Activism, Strategy

Leave a Reply