Radical politics

[Holdek]

If I've offended you i'll apologise but i read and presumed you wouldn't care about a little personal critism. I'm being sincere if it bothers you i'll remove it.




They do, they also tend to have personal grudges against people in government and are often looking for someone to blame for their own lack of success. Most if not all of the anarchists i've met in the real world were clinging to it as the last thing that made them special or powerful as without it they would have to admit to themselves they had failed in one of the easiest contries in the world to live a successful life. No doubt there are some genuine ones but i imagine living off the grid without any support from society also removes them from being easily or often encountered.

Its perhaps significant that often only those with little to lose become anarchists but that is a discussion for another thread and another day.



Im not sure what response to give you here: yes it makes you an anarchist but for all the reasons i've already explained i think it also makes you wrong.

I think our discussion has similarly run its course.

Eh I don't know how productive it is to make generalizations about the psychological reasons people are interested in radical politics. It really does run the gamut, from academics to Internet edgelords to people who move to Alaska and live as far off the grid as possible in a civilized country. I mean I don't doubt what you say, and I agree that Sovereign Citizens and other vexatious litigants are annoying and possibly dangerous, but it becomes easier to cut off debate when you start focusing too much on the motives of the believers rather than the ideologies themselves.

 

[Vitriol]

Eh I don't know how productive it is to make generalizations about the psychological reasons people are interested in radical politics. It really does run the gamut, from academics to Internet edgelords to people who move to Alaska and live as far off the grid as possible in a civilized country. I mean I don't doubt what you say, and I agree that Sovereign Citizens and other vexatious litigants are annoying and possibly dangerous, but it becomes easier to cut off debate when you start focusing too much on the motives of the believers rather than the ideologies themselves.

I don't disagree as to productiveness, but i think it's as valid response to someone pointing out the social origins and status of followers.

 

[Holdek]

This kind of reminds me of Hilaire Belloc's statement:

As much as I ever did, more than I ever did, I believe in Liberalism. But there was a rosy time of innocence when I believed in Liberals.

 

[Dudeofteenage]

which end would you place them at? Im not sure i'm following your reasoning here i think we can find slavery in societies across the spectrum.

The idea that it was always wrong to own slaves, regardless of circumstances, has often been located a the "excessive belief in individual liberty" end of the spectrum.

 

[Vitriol]

The idea that it was always wrong to own slaves, regardless of circumstances, has often been located a the "excessive belief in individual liberty" end of the spectrum.

I'm not sure i agree- equality for all men and anti slavery rhetoric was also a large part of communist rhetoric Especially in south america and Africa. Conversely where the rule of law breaks down to the point that everyone is free to do whatever they choose the strong often make slaves of the weak as happened in the eastern congo in the past decade.

 

[DuskEngine]

I'm not sure i agree- equality for all men and anti slavery rhetoric was also a large part of communist rhetoric Especially in south america and Africa. Conversely where the rule of law breaks down to the point that everyone is free to do whatever they choose the strong often make slaves of the weak as happened in the eastern congo in the past decade.

Communism and other collectivist ideologies tend to emphasize communal self-determination and social autonomy from capitalism and imperialism, as opposed to liberal/libertarian ideals, which tends to focus on individualism and atomism before the state. Both of them are pro-'freedom' in some abstract sense.

I can't think of any contemporary ideology that's pro-slavery, except for Dark Enlightenment edgelord shit.

 

[Vitriol]

Communism and other collectivist ideologies tend to emphasize communal self-determination and social autonomy from capitalism and imperialism, as opposed to liberal/libertarian ideals, which tends to focus on individualism and atomism before the state. Both of them are pro-'freedom' in some abstract sense.

I can't think of any contemporary ideology that's pro-slavery, except for Dark Enlightenment edgelord shit.

i agree. And both extreme individualism and collectivism can in practice support slavery whether congolese warlords unfettered by state control or north korea officials using an all persuasive state to command free labour.

You mentioned earlier that these might be socially radical rather than political-economic. I think this is probably correct- while the slave industry (or any similar issue) is intertwined with economic issues, i dont think they are sufficiently entwined with a particular political point on the spectrum and therefore can be found throughout it.

I feel we're getting a little off from my original point which was simply that solutions at the extremes of anarchism and communism in practice do not make successful states.

 

[MerriedManJr]

If I've offended you i'll apologise but i read and presumed you wouldn't care about a little personal critism. I'm being sincere if it bothers you i'll remove it.




They do, they also tend to have personal grudges against people in government and are often looking for someone to blame for their own lack of success. Most if not all of the anarchists i've met in the real world were clinging to it as the last thing that made them special or powerful as without it they would have to admit to themselves they had failed in one of the easiest contries in the world to live a successful life. No doubt there are some genuine ones but i imagine living off the grid without any support from society also removes them from being easily or often encountered.

Its perhaps significant that often only those with little to lose become anarchists but that is a discussion for another thread and another day.



Im not sure what response to give you here: yes it makes you an anarchist but for all the reasons i've already explained i think it also makes you wrong.

I think our discussion has similarly run its course.

All of your reasons as to why I'm wrong have been appeals to law and practicality. Laws only have force because of the hired muscle of the state enforcing them. It doesn't matter how old the laws are or how clever the writers of the laws are. Individuals have the natural right to act according to their conscience and this right is violated if the state uses its might to force somebody to obey a law or command they consider unjust.

The success of society is totally irrelevant. Radical thought is about pointing out the inherint contradictions of government and society while freeing your thought from the bounds of law and custom. People try to intimidate radicals by pointing out that anarchy is dangerous and implying that we deserve to live in war-torn countries. Refusing to let your thoughts be limited by fear is exactly what anarchism and individualism is about. I'm sorry, but I think that you're wrong because your thought is totally dominated by law, history, and tradition. None of these things are real, but they create an intellectual straightjacket which forces people to theorize within a pre-defined spectrum. I apologize again, but I just figured that this thread could use somebody who takes radical thought seriously.

 

[Vitriol]

I was just going to rate the post autistic and leave it at that but i think you deserve a bit better

Individuals have the natural right to act according to their conscience and this right is violated if the state uses its might to force somebody to obey a law or command they consider unjust.

Ok without refering to laws based on reason or practicality why is this true? Where does this right come from and why can't i use this 'natural right' to found a state and force others to obey me?

If it doesn't come from some concept of legal fairness or practical worth why should it exist?

The particular brand of anarchism you put forward is that advanced by the sovereign citizen movement.

People point out to anarchists that war torn nations or horribly tyrranous dictatorships are where your politics naturally lead because they do and consistently have. You said yourself that you don't care about the outcome of your theories- well most people do and so they consider them and overwhelmingly find them to be unfair. Far from expanding your thought you are focusing purely on an idealised concept that has no bases in reality and you are ignoring evidence that contradicts this as being 'limiting'. Law especially jurisprudal reasoning and history are very real and its bizzarre that by excluding them you think you are doing anything other than intentionally limiting your worldview.

 

[MerriedManJr]

I was just going to rate the post autistic and leave it at that but i think you deserve a bit better
Ok without refering to laws based on reason or practicality why is this true? Where does this right come from and why can't i use this 'natural right' to found a state and force others to obey me?

If it doesn't come from some concept of legal fairness or practical worth why should it exist?

The particular brand of anarchism you put forward is that advanced by the sovereign citizen movement.

People point out to anarchists that war torn nations or horribly tyrranous dictatorships are where your politics naturally lead because they do and consistently have. You said yourself that you don't care about the outcome of your theories- well most people do and so they consider them and overwhelmingly find them to be unfair. Far from expanding your thought you are focusing purely on an idealised concept that has no bases in reality and you are ignoring evidence that contradicts this as being 'limiting'. Law especially jurisprudal reasoning and history are very real and its bizzarre that by excluding them you think you are doing anything other than intentionally limiting your worldview.

I'm so glad that you feel I deserve better! Natural rights are based on how men exist in the state of nature and are admittedly somewhat metaphysical. You cannot use your natural right to force submission because you have no right to the life and freedom of another person. People can enter a social contract for mutual defense if they do so willingly and with full information. Rousseau said as much. But if you're born into a society then you have not entered this contract with full information, and thus should not be bound by it.

The most spectacular killing fields of human history were a direct result of state policies. 17 million people were sacrificed by their governments during World War One. State policies regularly lead to tyranny and bloodshed. You seem to have this idealized view that the laws of the sovreign are always just and that the majority is always correct.

And law is not real. There is nothing physically stopping me from murdering somebody. You may punish me afterwards, and that punishment is very real but the laws themselves are just there to justify the punishments. Jurisprudence is apologism for these punishments and by embracing it you are intentionally limiting your worldview.

 

[Vitriol]

I'm so glad that you feel I deserve better!

That came off more patronising than i ment. Apologies.

Natural rights are based on how men exist in the state of nature and are admittedly somewhat metaphysical. You cannot use your natural right to force submission because you have no right to the life and freedom of another person.

Why do i not have a right to the life of others? Where does this natural law come from? It has been rejected in the centuries since rosseau again and again because the reality is that in the 'state of nature' men abuse each other horribly and without exception one fights his way to the top and enforces his will. At that point in order to preserve is rule he eventually has to start appealing to his subjects for support by making rulings that the majority agrees to- thus starts the journey back to statehood and just law.

If you take away all law what happens when two disagree over their contract? The stronger enforces his ruling.

What happens if the nebulous natural rights are disputed? The stronger enforces his solution.

This way anarchy inevitably gives way to might makes right.

Yes our society is capable of horrendous things but the organisation the rule of law allows also provides the stabilie for all the advances civilization has made. Where under the rule of law society has the potential to commit atrocities in anarchies it without exception does. Yes millions die in wars between two organised powers but millions died in the anarchy of france or england, the chaos in the congo or liberia since government broke down there.

The reason law codes and governments are common to all societies is that without them society cannot exist and people start fighting and behaving unjustly to each other.

You argue that laws do not exist and we only follow them due to threat of force why tgen woukd anyone be bound to follow natural laws which are poorly defined and carry no punishment for there breaking?

 

[MerriedManJr]

That came off more patronising than i ment. Apologies.


Why do i not have a right to the life of others? Where does this natural law come from? It has been rejected in the centuries since rosseau again and again because the reality is that in the 'state of nature' men abuse each other horribly and without exception one fights his way to the top and enforces his will. At that point in order to preserve is rule he eventually has to start appealing to his subjects for support by making rulings that the majority agrees to- thus starts the journey back to statehood and just law.

If you take away all law what happens when two disagree over their contract? The stronger enforces his ruling.

What happens if the nebulous natural rights are disputed? The stronger enforces his solution.

This way anarchy inevitably gives way to might makes right.

Yes our society is capable of horrendous things but the organisation the rule of law allows also provides the stabilie for all the advances civilization has made. Where under the rule of law society has the potential to commit atrocities in anarchies it without exception does. Yes millions die in wars between two organised powers but millions died in the anarchy of france or england, the chaos in the congo or liberia since government broke down there.

The reason law codes and governments are common to all societies is that without them society cannot exist and people start fighting and behaving unjustly to each other.

You argue that laws do not exist and we only follow them due to threat of force why tgen woukd anyone be bound to follow natural laws which are poorly defined and carry no punishment for there breaking?

I agree with what you've written. The problems of autonomy, stability, safety, and governance have no solution which I know of. Law does not define natural law, but many philosophers believe that man has an inherit right to freedom of thought and action, as governed by his own reason. I agree with this and I can't help but think of a person whose will is totally guided by the reason of a sovereign (elected or not) as no better than a child or slave. And the rights of the sovereign are largely determined by their might. If my neighbour tells me to bow before him, I can ignore him and the police will protect me if he tries to force me to bow. If the King tells me to bow before him, I must or I will be attacked by his police and forced to bow. There are many ways to justify such a system, but in the end might still makes right if you're standing up to the government.

To me, anarchy is about pointing out the problems and refusing to stop asking about them. Would individuals trample your natural rights in an anarchic system? Probably. Does the government trample your natural rights right now? I think so. I have a considerable amount of faith in the goodness of my fellow man, but people might very well do bad things. I believe that radical thought is about the questions, not the answers. I just want people to cast aside the totems of law and tradition and seriously examine these problems using their own reason.

 

[QI 541]

Any anarchy will eventually turn into a government. People tend to be naturally inclined towards finding more efficient ways to do things, and organization tends to be more efficient. Or at least until corruption sets in.

I'd still rather live in an anarchy over a tyranny.

 

[Dudeofteenage]

Any anarchy will eventually turn into a government. People tend to be naturally inclined towards finding more efficient ways to do things, and organization tends to be more efficient. Or at least until corruption sets in.

I'd still rather live in an anarchy over a tyranny.

Remember, anarchists will tell you that they are not against organisation, simply against involuntary organisation.

You may or may not agree that this is possible, but a totally disorganised society is not something most anarchists (outside of edgelords who use the term without knowing what it means) aspire to.

I'm not sure i agree- equality for all men and anti slavery rhetoric was also a large part of communist rhetoric Especially in south america and Africa. Conversely where the rule of law breaks down to the point that everyone is free to do whatever they choose the strong often make slaves of the weak as happened in the eastern congo in the past decade.

I'm not sure I get your point, but I think you're saying that because communists supported the abolition of slavery, and communists usually aren't seen as extremist individualists, anti-slavery could never be seen as extremist individualism?

 

[AP 297]

To me this debate is one as old as civilization itself. The question asked is "Where should the rights of the individual end and the collective desire of the general public for order begin?"

I know I am using very simple language to describe this, but this is pretty much it. How much of ourselves are we willing to submit or give up to live in a particular society?

Radicals are inherently flawed because their values are outside of the degree(either authoritarian, libertarian, or simply different) that most people would be willing to governed. Unless they can convince most people to agree to their laws and ideology, they will be met with significant opposition and eventually lose power for being ineffective. Ideological purity really does not leave much room for compromise or developing policy that is acceptable enough to survive a decade or 2.

As for the power to use force to govern people. That is very limited. Eventually people vote with their feet or lost productivity. It is why many Statist governments have to keep people inside and use coercive force. Still such societies are limited in what they can accomplish because they limit their own citizens in what they can accomplish. You cannot really govern people by force, you can at best only push them.

Unless people are willing to invest themselves in a society, it will exist as the sum of its parts. A society that people invest nothing in(Anarchy) is without order, laws, loyalty, or anything of value. People don't believe in it enough to establish any sense of self order or governance among themselves. A society ruled by a military dictator is often aloof and without the support of the general public. They can expect little outside support except from their cloistered military supporters. Most people will simply do as little as they can to get by. The general public not consider such a society worthy of their appreciation and it will be sabotaged internally at every point possible.

 

[Dudeofteenage]

To me this debate is one as old as civilization itself. The question asked is "Where should the rights of the individual end and the collective desire of the general public for order begin?"

Is that the debate we're having? That sounds like a liberalism vs dirigism debate, rather than a radical vs moderate debate. You could have the debate you're describing between two radicals, two moderates, or a radical and a moderate.

Radicals are inherently flawed because their values are outside of the degree(either authoritarian, libertarian, or simply different) that most people would be willing to governed. Unless they can convince most people to agree to their laws and ideology...

That's what most radicals are trying to do. Radicalism doesn't necessarily imply authoritarianism - it might, and we can all think of examples where it did, but there have been plenty of moderate authoritarians, too.

Unless people are willing to invest themselves in a society, it will exist as the sum of its parts. A society that people invest nothing in(Anarchy) is without order,

Once again, a mischaracterisation of anarchism. You might believe that this is what anarchism would inevitably lead to, but it is definitely not what anarchists are aiming for or advocating.

 

[DuskEngine]

As for the power to use force to govern people. That is very limited. Eventually people vote with their feet or lost productivity. It is why many Statist governments have to keep people inside and use coercive force. Still such societies are limited in what they can accomplish because they limit their own citizens in what they can accomplish. You cannot really govern people by force, you can at best only push them.

Everything the state is involves coercion and force. Some of them are just nicer about it, but there's no state without force.

There are currently, have been, and will be states that completely fail at providing their citizens a standard of living, freedom from violence, human rights or anything else we consider part of a state's purview. But a state that loses its monopoly on violence is no such thing.

Radicals are inherently flawed because their values are outside of the degree(either authoritarian, libertarian, or simply different) that most people would be willing to governed. Unless they can convince most people to agree to their laws and ideology, they will be met with significant opposition and eventually lose power for being ineffective. Ideological purity really does not leave much room for compromise or developing policy that is acceptable enough to survive a decade or 2.

I don't think many anarchists would be interested in forcing people to live without a state. If someone consents to being governed, then more power to them (or less, as it were). Anarchists just don't consent to being governed.

 

[AP 297]

Is that the debate we're having? That sounds like a liberalism vs dirigism debate, rather than a radical vs moderate debate. You could have the debate you're describing between two radicals, two moderates, or a radical and a moderate.

Moderatism is better thought of as the larger agregate agreement among the general population on a particular view or level of governance.

That's what most radicals are trying to do. Radicalism doesn't necessarily imply authoritarianism - it might, and we can all think of examples where it did, but there have been plenty of moderate authoritarians, too.

Radicalism always implies a level or degree of governence (too little or too much) that is outside the regular accepted spectrum of society as a whole at a single point. Radical can be any degree of governance or policy position. It is always outside the norm or the standard that everyone mostly agrees to. It also tends to be more ideologically pure because it has not been tainted by the views and temperance of the general public.

Once again, a mischaracterisation of anarchism. You might believe that this is what anarchism would inevitably lead to, but it is definitely not what anarchists are aiming for or advocating.

Anarchism is I guess what you would characterize as self governance without a state. A state exists because of the level of individual investment each person places into a society. Whenever resources are pooled and people gather in a civilized manner. There is a state. States are simply a function of civilization. If you want to live without a state - your options are to live as a hermit or revert people back to hunters. Even then though, if you are doing it in a group you are creating a situation of shared will and rules. When you get people together in such a circumstance you have governance and a state. You cannot separate the two.

Everything the state is involves coercion and force. Some of them are just nicer about it, but there's no state without force. There are currently, have been, and will be states that completely fail at providing their citizens a standard of living, freedom from violence, human rights or anything else we consider part of a state's purview. But a state that loses its monopoly on violence is no such thing.

It is all a degree of what people will allow and tolerate. Force is only a tool of power. There are other forms of power too like Economics. I would argue economics is a far more powerful force than military might. Don't believe me, look at Napoleons army and its march through Russia. The French Army was stronger by far, but the Russians by destroying their own farmlands and forcing the French to over extend their supply lines caused one of the largest armies in the world to it knees. Economics allows armies to exist. Economics is the basis of nearly all human interaction and trade. States allow economies to thrive by creating consistency and states kill economies by doing the latter and destroying individual productivity.

Down to even the lowliest item a rifle there are scores of individual parts and pieces that make that weapon work and keep it operational. Without economic activity provided by state security and individual enterprise that gun would not exist. States allow people to pool resources and establish ground rules of accepted individual behavior. Militias and police arise when there are people who will decide they want the benefits of Civilization without the costs and decide to break the rules and norms agreed upon by the general public. Where things to astray is when certain leaders start taking liberties with the power that civilized society brings and start taking the people and economy for granted.

I don't think many anarchists would be interested in forcing people to live without a state. If someone consents to being governed, then more power to them (or less, as it were). Anarchists just don't consent to being governed.

Than by default, they reject society and civilization in the process. They are throwing both away to live by themselves by rejecting every demand that civilization requires.

 

[Vitriol]

I agree with what you've written. The problems of autonomy, stability, safety, and governance have no solution which I know of. Law does not define natural law, but many philosophers believe that man has an inherit right to freedom of thought and action, as governed by his own reason. I agree with this and I can't help but think of a person whose will is totally guided by the reason of a sovereign (elected or not) as no better than a child or slave. And the rights of the sovereign are largely determined by their might. If my neighbour tells me to bow before him, I can ignore him and the police will protect me if he tries to force me to bow. If the King tells me to bow before him, I must or I will be attacked by his police and forced to bow. There are many ways to justify such a system, but in the end might still makes right if you're standing up to the government.

To me, anarchy is about pointing out the problems and refusing to stop asking about them. Would individuals trample your natural rights in an anarchic system? Probably. Does the government trample your natural rights right now? I think so. I have a considerable amount of faith in the goodness of my fellow man, but people might very well do bad things. I believe that radical thought is about the questions, not the answers. I just want people to cast aside the totems of law and tradition and seriously examine these problems using their own reason.

i can agree with that, I just feel that when they do so they will inevitably come up with a system similar to what we have now. as far as disagreeing with the sovereign i have said plenty times that where the sovereign is not willing to bow to the collective will of the people there is legitimate grounds for revolution.

Remember, anarchists will tell you that they are not against organisation, simply against involuntary organisation.

You may or may not agree that this is possible, but a totally disorganised society is not something most anarchists (outside of edgelords who use the term without knowing what it means) aspire to.

i think it amounts to the same thing, if you have a society where people can opt out of laws as they like you have a society that de facto has no law.

I'm not sure I get your point, but I think you're saying that because communists supported the abolition of slavery, and communists usually aren't seen as extremist individualists, anti-slavery could never be seen as extremist individualism?

my point was just that slavery and anti colonialism etc have at various points been supported and opposed by societies across the breadth of the political spectrum and that while these are radical social issues there is nothing to tie them specifically to radical political ones. political extremes which i believe are inherently flawed and doomed to fail.
my point was anti slavery could never be exclusively linked to extremist individualism.

 

[Dudeofteenage]

my point was just that slavery and anti colonialism etc have at various points been supported and opposed by societies across the breadth of the political spectrum and that while these are radical social issues there is nothing to tie them specifically to radical political ones.

I'm still having trouble following you, I'm afraid. You seem to be drawing a distinction between "social issues" and "political issues" and it's tempting to jump on that. But it seems you are saying that we can't consider anti-slavery activism to have been an extremist individualist stance at any point in history because it eventually became mainstream? That's precisely my point, though. I mean, how do we know that the positions that you view as extremist, and thus unworkable, right now won't eventually become similarly nebulous and broadly supported across the spectrum? By that standard, it's impossible to say that any position is extremist, because we don't know how it will be adapted in the future.