Todd Lewis and I discuss the case for anarchism against the state.
On Sunday October 11th Derrick Broze spoke at Libertyfest in NYC about the history of the word Libertarian, the history of alliances between radicals on the left and right, a highlight of the work of Karl Hess and Samuel Konkin III, and the need for less ego and dogma in the interest of building new alliances between radicals across the political spectrum.
Radical means taking a direct action approach to your activism. By using Agorist methods of building counter-institutions to the state in the areas of economics, media, education, and others we can create a competing infrastructure that could use a variety of mutual aid strategies to create interlocking communities that voluntarily associate, and trade. We encourage tax resistance, and using black and gray markets to make your money outside of the state’s central economic system. We also encourage the spreading of propaganda against the state whenever and where ever possible. Creating affinity groups, or freedom cells is an incredibly necessary way to build solutions on a local level.
Libertarianism is a political and philosophical position that values liberty, specifically individual liberty, as of utmost importance in our lives. The historical usage of the term began with Anarchists of the 19th, and 20th centuries. Libertarian has always meant anti-authoritarian, and individual. Beyond that, a Libertarian can support whatever economic system they choose as long as it does not result in Authoritarianism, Statism, or the trampling of individual rights.
Alliances are a union or association formed for mutual benefit, especially between countries or organizations, or a relationship based on an affinity in interests, nature, or qualities. It is wise for radicals that are anti-state, and anti-authoritarian on all sides of the spectrum to focus on organizing together for common ground issues and putting aside dogma to build a network that can support communities without the state.
From Syndicalists to Individualists, Mutualists and Agorists, Voluntaryists and Market Anarchists, Panarchists and Anarchists without Adjectives, and other self-identified radicals – this talk is aimed at those who are against Authoritarianism, Statism, and Oppression in all forms. This talk is aimed at those who recognize the power of the Individual and seek to work together as a whole.
We will work with others regardless of their preferred economic systems. As long as individuals are capable of forming alliances without using force on one another they should seek to form temporary alliances around common ground issues or immediate threats. It is also important to remember we do not need to sell out our own individual principles in the interest of these alliances.
Find more videos like this at: http://www.theconsciousresistance.com
Caity and Dan welcome back Antony Sammeroff for a second time to the show.
Antony begins by explaining the difference between ‘libertarianism’ and ‘voluntaryism’ and moral philosophies versus political philosophies. We talk about labels and how they are used in society. We get into terms like ‘anarchist’ and ‘anarcho-capitalist’ and the baggage that comes with them and the importance of living your values.
We chat about political debates and how to conduct them with others, government cuts and the current anti-cuts movement in the UK, if Hitler was charismatic or not and being perceived to be a Tory.
We go on to point out the problems with the Conservatives, Labour and the Scottish National Party, pro-state attitudes that are so common in Scotland, the expansion of libertarianism world-wide and the internet as a tool for political and philosophical debate and Caity tells us what anarchy means to her in a philosophical context.
As we wrap up Antony tells us of his plans for the future, we talk about consequential and de-ontological libertarianism, the nonsense of lifeboat situations and Peter Hitchens and the drug war that he supports.
Caity and Dan are back chatting about a new approach to politics (caring even less), we thank the Labour Party for being such a disaster and entertaining us, having fun and not being a downer about politicians, what we found funny and bizarre about the recent UK general election, laughing instead of ranting, why we don’t argue online, still liking artists even if they are arseholes, if fame stops you from being a real person, Russell Brand and his endorsement of the Labour party.
We discuss surreal podcasting, where we stand on the five dimensional political compass, why Dan isn’t fancy, if Scotland will creep to independence slowly, not being part of politics, our refusal to get into petty arguments anymore and personality politics. We wonder why some people assume that politicians are paragons of virtue, why we’re going to have more fun than complain and Nicola Sturgeons similarity to teachers.
We finish with talking about political personality cults and how we hope to expand the website in the future.
Download (right click save as)
By Dan Greene
I don’t vote anymore. I did for many years with a sincere belief that democracy was the best way for human civilisations to organize themselves. I even looked down on – and argued with – non-voters with derivations of the old “People fought for your right to vote” drivel that people now say to me. I now describe myself as a libertarian and a market anarchist.
So you can imagine how uninterested I was when the UK government called a general election on May 7th of this year. However, while talking to a minarchist friend of mine in the US he asked me the question “If you had to vote in this election then who would it be for?” I was kind of struck dumb for a second because while the Libertarian Party in the US may be a big party (although it seems to make absolutely no real impact as far as I understand it) there is nothing comparable to said party in this country.
So instead of picking a party I found myself beginning to explain how a libertarian political option just simply cannot exist right now in the UK. Yes, there is a libertarian party here but they are small, stand no candidates and many libertarians I know in the UK have more of an anarchist leaning and simply aren’t interested in them. So why can’t a strong libertarian party exist in the UK right now?
One of the first problems in the UK is that while the Labour Party pretend to be ‘centre-left’ and the Conservative Party pretend to be ‘centre-right’ the fact is that neither party has a strong ideology anymore and in reality there isn’t one on the left and one on the right, they’re bang in the middle practically embracing each other in this mixed economic mess where we have a sort of freeish market where business is taxed and regulated by government on one hand and massive state programs like our socialised health care system (the NHS) exist on the other (that would be the left hand presumably).
The piece-meal approach and the political need for categorization also leads the left to valorize people in terms of their membership in various oppressed and exploited groups, such as “workers”, “women”, “people of color”, “gays and lesbians” and so on. This categorization is the basis of identity politics. Identity politics is the particular form of false opposition in which oppressed people choose to identify with a particular social category through which their oppression is reinforced as a supposed act of defiance against their oppression. In fact, the continued identification with this social role limits the capacity of those who practice identity politics to analyze their situation in this society deeply and to act as individuals against their oppression. It thus guarantees the continuation of the social relationships that cause their oppression. But only as members of categories are these people useful as pawns in the political maneuverings of the left, because such social categories take on the role of pressure groups and power blocs within the democratic framework.
This essay shows that, although many left anarchists disagree with ARV’s goals, many realize something is deeply wrong with their tactics and overall frame of reference.
The anarchist current in North America (esp. the US) has all the trappings of a social movement, without the movement. The what of a social struggle, with little to no conception of the how, or the why. We ask ourselves what makes sense in terms of action and organizational form, with little attention given to the context, or the conditions in which it makes sense to do anything at all. We seek blanket solutions, models and forms, things that could be applied everywhere—and are effective nowhere. We build models for resistance and solidarity, with no concept of how these things could be weapons. We seek answers where there is merely the silent face of the world that confronts us. More…