Copyright 2002. Keith Preston. American Revolutionary Vanguard. All rights reserved.

A Reply to Matt Lancaster

I’m Still Not a Cultural Conservative

Matt Lancaster begins his rebuttal of my criticisms of Professor Hans Hermann Hoppe’s reactionary cultural conservatism by attacking my insistence that a sharp distinction be maintained between Enlightenment era classical liberal ideology on one hand and what I refer to as “the hierarchical, static, stratified order that comprised the Ancien Regime” on the other. For Lancaster, my view is “completely ignorant of classical liberal tradition. Surely they rejected the stratified class system of such places as India, but in reality, there were no classes per se in the ancient system of Europe. The estates existed to provide a structure similar to social classes,  but were always endowed with the virtue of social mobility. A peasant could become bourgeois and the bourgeoise could become noble. This was especially true in France, where the socialistic anarchists gained their best foothold. ”

When Lancaster speaks of “the ancient system of Europe” I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he is really speaking only of medieval Europe and does not presume that the Greco-Roman civilization of antiquity was an order devoid of social classes. I have noticed that some anarcho-capitalists and paleolibertarians, particularly those of a conservative Catholic religious bent, are fond of romanticizing the feudal Middle Ages as a proto-anarchist society. I confess that I, too, have a certain respect for the medieval world. The German Holy Roman Empire existed as a decentralized confederation of hundreds of largely sovereign principalities containing many diverse ethnic groups for nearly a thousand years. And many libertarians and anarchists maintain a fascination with the quasi-anarchies of Iceland and Ireland during the Viking era. Yet when Lancaster argues that medieval Europe lacked a system of static social classes one has to wonder just what sort of history books he has been reading.

Feudalism established itself through the process of conquest and expropriation of the lands of traditional indigenous peoples who had held them from time immemorial. This, of course, is the process by which the state was developed as described so eloquently by Franz Oppenheimer. Feudal society included not only largely immobile social classes but also slavery, serfdom, burdensome tax and labor “debts” imposed upon subjects by lords, military conscription, theocracy, religious persecution, racist pogroms and other ills that classical liberalism eventually rose up in opposition to. Nobles received their titles on the basis of heredity or political patronage rather than effort or merit. The Church was a state-sanctioned, legally protected social class all unto itself with its own coercively enforced laws and its own state recognized courts. The guild system secured monopolies in virtually every branch of medieval trade or professional work. Persons born into a certain place in the social hierarchy were expected to remain there for the rest of their life by tradition, custom and law. There were rare individuals born as peasants who demonstrated exceptional talents and were able to work their way up through the church hierarchy or even to become members of the royal court in some cases but persons such as these were quite uncommon. If classical liberalism was not a revolt against the medieval Old Order, then why did the founders of the United States specifically abolish the monarchy, constitutionally prohibit the issuance of titles of primogeniture and religious tests for the holding of public office, separate church and state and eliminate indentured servitude?

Lancaster criticizes the opposition to hierarchy common to many socialist anarchists (whose primary stronghold was Spain rather than France, by the way). Frankly, this is a criticism that I share. Perhaps I should have explained my position more clearly, but I was specifically referring to an unnatural, artificial hierarchy rooted in irrational systems of privilege, such as the arbitrary rule of power on the part of the state or those whose position of artificial superiority (classes, races, religions, etc.)  is created, protected or santioned by the state. I have no problem with natural hierarchy, natural aristocracy, natural elites or natural authority according to such criteria as superior intelligence, merit, skill, talent, leadership ability, experience, competence, virtue, character, initiative, courage or other such characteristics. I agree that many socialist anarchists miss the boat on this one and essentially throw the baby out with the bath water. I’ve gotten into it with left-wing anarchists over this point in the past. Lancaster says he does not “rightly understand Mr. Preston” concerning “the question of what state of affairs that classical liberals preferred”. Lancaster defends his position largely with random quotes from prominent statesmen and commentators from the classical liberal period. But not all such figures can rightly be regarded as classical liberals. Hamilton was a reactionary mercantilist and a monarchist. John Adams was similarly a mercantilist and a Calvinist. Even Patrick Henry favored a tax supported state church. Jefferson, along with Thomas Paine, was probably the most consistent classical liberal of the early American leaders. He favored “dividing the counties into wards” who would then manage themselves under a republic of republics with a natural aristocracy of enlightened philosophers rising to the top by virtue of example and ability. He warned against the “monied powers” led by the likes of Hamilton who tended towards central banking and mercantilism. And the man considered by many to be the godfather of classical liberalism, Adam Smith, issued a similar warning against the potential for centralization of power inherent in the then-nascent corporations. I sometimes call myself a “Jeffersonian-Bakuninist”.

When I speak of “bourgeois morals and manners”, I am referring, very broadly, to the brand of social customs that became dominant among the expanding middle class during the Victorian era. To a large degree, this is simply a more academic-sounding way of describing such cliched middle class Victorian norms embodied in quaint expressions like “cleanliness is next to godliness” or “idle hands are the devil’s tool”. Used as a pejorative, “bourgeois” in this sense is typically a synonym for priggishness, rigidity or pretentious piety. Lancaster argues “that very few people enjoy dealing with rude slobs or violent brigands”. Well, sure, no doubt about it, but such was the case long before the advent of Euro-American bourgeoise society. Lancaster wonders whether I consider myself “as one of these reckless and immature bohemians” or whether I regard “libertinism” as the most preferable system of personal values. While this is an ad hominen attack of a reductio ad absurbum variety, it is a refreshing one nonetheless. I am so used to being denounced by anarcho-leftoids and Marxoids as a “fascist”, “racist”, “nationalist”, “reactionary”, “right-wing authoritarian”, “petty bourgeoise”, “third positionist neo-nazi” and other antiquated slurs that it is welcome relief to be suspected of “bohemianism” or “libertinism”. I hate to disappoint you, Mr. Lancaster, but I’m just an ordinary average Joe working stiff, white, male heterosexual “root of all evil in the eyes of the left” type. I’m thirty-five years old. I’ve been employed full-time by the same company, where I hold a managerial position, for the last eleven years. I am an investor and aspiring enteprenuer. Most of my waking hours are devoted to work, business or politics. I abstain completely from alcohol, tobacco and drugs. For God’s sake, I haven’t even been to the movies in probably three years. If this be libertinism, God help us libertines.

As for my criticisms of Hoppe’s views on immigration and race, I do not believe that Hoppe is racist on a personal level and certainly not as venomous a one as George Lincoln Rockwell. However, to my mind at least, his comments on these matters go way beyond simple preference for immigrants who already know English or possess the capacity for skilled labor. In his chapter on immigration, he repeatedly emphasizes a preference for racially homogenous societies and specifically depicts immigrants “of color” , to use one of the left’s favorite phrases, as antithetical to civilization, progress and order.  I have no problem with either voluntary racial separation or voluntary racial integration. “Voluntary” is the key word here. I am all for repealing laws against mere private racial discrimination, whether practiced by whites, blacks, Jews or anyone else. I am all for denying non-citizens access to government entitlement programs. I am for eliminating entitlements altogether. But to enforce the type of immigration laws Hoppe advocates “as long as we have a state” would require a massive police state apparatus, a Berlin Wall along the Mexican border, converting the already fascistic INS into a domestic occupational army, police harassment of anyone looking a little darker than usual, detaining “illegal” migrant farm workers and others in the state’s horrendous prisons and detention camps, grossly impeding the right of American citizens to travel as they please, the issuing of national identification cards, etc. A war on “illegal” immigration would be no more successful and every bit as destructive as the war on “illegal” drugs.

Lancaster claims two of my positions contradict one another. I argued that “Euro-centrism, Christianity, bourgeois morality and the nuclear family” could certainly exist in a stateless society but that these views would not necessarily be dominant and that cultural conservatism is not necessarily a correct position for anti-statists to adopt. I did not mean to imply that anti-statists should not be cultural conservatives. I was simply arguing against Hoppe’s position that “libertarians must be conservatives and conservatives must be libertarians” as I believe he puts it. In many ways, contemporary Afghanistan, at least in some regions, is a more stateless society than contemporary America. There is no police force or central government. Disputes over “crimes” or “torts” are settled through blood feuds rathers than through statist courts and legistlation. Women wear the veils and burkhas because of tradition, custom, social pressure, social status or religious belief rather than state decree. There are little if any taxes, regulations or government agencies. A similar situation exists in Somalia, as previous writers for ASC have pointed out. Neither of these are Western or Christian nations nor are they predominately populated by “white” people nor do they have a particularly large middle class, in the Western sense. Interestingly, when I have pointed this out to “leftwing” anarchists, most of them simply dismiss such claims on my part, usually making some non sequitur argument about how no one can be a “true” anarchist without accepting what amounts to Euro-American liberal and leftist ideas about race, religion, feminism, homosexuality, transgenderedism, speciesism, non-violence, blah, blah, blah. While Lancaster argues that “western-style philosophers will be among the first to ‘dominate’ part of the intellectual life of a stateless society” the actual empirical evidence, which I described in part in my criticisms of Hoppe, indicates that stateless or quasi-stateless societies have existed and still exist in parts of the world where most people have never even heard of “western-style” philosophers. He mentions the “Confucian opposition to trade and the merchant class” while neglecting the classical Platonic and medieval Christian disparagement of the same.

My claim that urban black America might develop a strong matriarchal culture in the absence of the welfare state is misinterpreted by Lancaster as sympathy for matriarchal GOVERNMENT among the urban black population. It would seem that an anarchist such as Lancaster would be able to understand the difference between culture and government. I agree that the nanny state has virtually destroyed the black family to the point where male leadership is often completely absent and the strongest figure in the family is frequently a matriarchal woman such as a grandmother, great grandmother, favorite aunt, etc. This is precisely why the resurrected black family in a post-welfare state society would likely be matriarchal, at least in the early stages of its development.

Lancaster claims “taboos against non-marital sexual relations and abortion would likely be strengthened immeasurably” following the demise of the state. Perhaps. No one can safely predict the future. All we can do is study what actually transpired before the rise of modern conceptions of the state and analyze the economics of the relationship between the state and social, cultural, sexual and family norms. As parents would be more dependent on their children for their care during old age, aborting pregnancies for the sake of convenience or economics might become less common. At the same time, however, those with unwanted children will not be able to pass the costs on to the state via the welfare system, state run orphanages or adoption agencies, etc. So more pregnancies of this type might result in abortion. Infanticide of unwanted children was widely practiced in many, if not most, traditional societies, including those that achieved a relatively high level of culture and civilization like Rome and China. In comparatively stateless traditional African societies, unwanted babies were sometimes fed to the crocodiles. I am not advocating or glorifying this.  I am simply trying to work out some theoretical model of what sort of social practices might develop in a stateless order using the not entirely full proof benefit of past cultural experience.

As for Lancaster’s claim that past societies “have had harsh social taboos and even punishments for adultery”, he is in fact quite correct. These “taboos” are rooted in the fact that throughout most of history women were considered the literal or de facto property of their fathers or husbands. Screwing another man’s wife was an offense against his property, sort of like an unauthorized use of a vehicle in our own culture. Despoiling a man’s virgin daughter made her “used goods” and therefore of less value on the wife market and less likely to attract a wealthy and powerful husband. I have known anarchists with all sorts of bizarre beliefs but I have yet to meet any who defended the notion of property rights in women.

Finally, Lancaster claims that I have imitated the example of G. W. F. Hegel and disregarded facts that are incongruous with my theories. Maybe. But Lancaster has, as I see it, failed to explain exactly what these facts are. Instead, he relies on misinterpretations, misunderstandings and oversimplifications of my actual views, combined with ad hominem attacks and flagrant disregard for widely established historical facts that are typically recognized by competent scholars of virtually all ideological inclinations. Perhaps I have not satisfactorily proven my case. But Lancaster has not disproven my positions. I do thank him for his interest in my work, however.