[Cross posted at The Kingdom of God is Within You]In the general context of the libertarian movement there seems to exist two patterns of strategic theory to achieve the end goal of Anarchist activism – a libertarian society. On one side there exists the reformist menace, a group so insecure and cowardly that they rely on the fading strength of parliamentary wash-ups and political opportunists to do the work that each individual ought to do for himself; on the other side breathes a powerful and growing camp of revolutionaries leading the way of change by combining their contempt for politics with a new wave of agitation for direct action. This situation argued elsewhere, however, the current point of interest does not so much hinge on dramatic poetry and passionate rants, as other articles have[i][ii][iii][iv], so much as it attempts to take a look at theoretical axioms commonly agreed upon by both camps of libertarian strategists. Yes, this article’s intent directly appeals to the more conservative/reformist camp and their enthusiastic love for the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises and especially his theory of the impossibility of socialist calculation. Far from being a discussion of political economy, however, the question of state-socialist economies will here be applied to the reformist plan to achieve the societal liberation that free market Anarchism aims at. Proving that reformism, once applied to Mises’ implications of socialist calculation, cannot possibly be looked at as any kind of path to freedom then, hopefully the reformist camp will see the light of reason emersed in Misesian spices.
First, however, to address the arguments proposed by the reformists properly, their very plan for achieving the libertarian society, a society absent a state, must be revealed. Indeed, the reformist’s plan comes down to a step by step process of small reforms within the United States government aimed at an attempt to restrain the politicians from acting within their nature. Delegating down to a plan of fighting government internally to break it down entirely, the reformists speak mostly of “steps” to gaining their liberation from the cold clutches of the state – though the ad hoc nature of their arguments seem to make the details of their intentions slightly more ambiguous (see a comparison between the Ron Paul movement’s goals in late fall and early winter[v] to its claimed goals in early spring[vi]). Conflating their system with one of incrementalist phases, claiming a monopoly on a realistic approach to change, the reformists, narrow minded and pompous, shut off completely to external logic and consistency in favor of the compromise of a crazed lunacy that suggests the nature of an entity can be overcome by the will of a handful of old men spitting and drooling into their couch cushions every night in their father’s mothball filled coats – still that’s progress from not knowing where they were sleeping to begin with.
Yes, this strategy certainly belongs to the reformists, conservative-libertarians usually associated with Lew Rockwell and the Ludwig von Mises Institute, but curiously enough, the support for a Ron Paul type step by step approach to decreasing the size of the state appears to be a direct contradiction of the Misesian background that almost all Free Market Anarchists – regardless of conservative or leftist creed – share. To understand this, take an excerpt from Mises’ Planned Chaos, a book devoted to the explanation of how middle of the road policies and rhetorical devices of conservative jargon lead to state-socialism. According to Mises, when the state intervenes in the market economy on behalf of one market variable, essentially fixing prices and wages, it must,
go further and further, fixing the prices of all factors of production – and forcing every entrepreneur and every worker to continue work at these prices and wages. No branch of production can be omitted from this all-round fixing of prices and wages and this general order to continue production. If some branches of production were left free, the result would be a shifting of capital and labour to them and a corresponding fall of the supply of the goods whose prices the government had fixed. However, it is precisely these goods which the government considers as especially important for the satisfaction of the needs of the masses, (24).
Adding still,
Price control is contrary to purpose if it is limited to some commodities only. It cannot work satisfactorily within a market economy... Production can either be directed by the prices fixed on the market by the buying and by the abstention from buying on the part of the public. Or it can be directed by the government’s central board of production management. There is no third solution available. There is no third social system feasible which would be neither market economy nor socialism. Government control of only a part of prices must result in a state of affairs which – without any exception – everybody considers as absurd and contrary to purpose. Its inevitable result is chaos and social unrest, (25).[vii]
The conclusions drawn by the great, free market economist Ludwig von Mises seem clear here. Given the involvement of the government in one area of the economy, unless it is removed entirely from all market variables at once, one step towards a free market economy in the marsh of state-socialism will only result in a further sinking towards the bottom of an unpleasant floor laid with the stench of mud and feces.
Indeed, to deny that state-socialism only results in planned chaos where every single move contradicts every other move displays a surprising lack of understanding, or perhaps just a willed ignorance, for the principles of Mises. Even in an instance where the general tide swings towards liberty, without instant and total abolition of the state the blame for all the damage felt by the people, an inevitable in a state-socialist economy, will fall squarely on the shoulders of those in power – the reformist libertarians. As demonstrated by Mises, by attempting to play in the mud of the state’s economy, no matter what intentions to clean up the marsh, the murk’s victory is a certain one forever creeping up the body of those that jump gleefully into its muck. By cutting off one head of the hydra-leviathan, not only do libertarians drain themselves in a flare of roundabout activity, but they cause ten more to grow in its place. Indeed, the harsh fall of the government is a guarantee and with it must come considerable pain to the people, but if that pain is accompanied with a continued existence of the state, with the incompetent boobs in the reformist camp of libertarianism sitting on the throne, no victory for liberty will ever occur – only reactionary hate for the philosophy and those claiming its name. Absolutely, the best that can be hoped for is a revolution walking the lines outlined by Samuel Edward Konkin III in his New Libertarian Manifesto – where the use of the counter-economy doubles as a weapon against the state and as a crutch for the innocent to rely on when the state-socialist economy inevitably collapses.
Applying the principles of Mises to revolutionary strategy seems to create an obvious glass through which to look here. With the reformist strategy supporting a state-socialist whack-a-mole game, where one step towards a free market results in three more towards continued oppression, the only other option, and fortunately the most efficient one, must be pursued. Direct action, specifically Agorist action[viii], then seems to be the train that each and every self-respecting liberty lover should embark upon if he wishes to establish and maintain a libertarian society in the near to distant future. Absolutely, if one rightfully understands that reformism is an impossibility and a counter-productive one at that, then one must also understand that revolutionary Market-Anarchism is a fast sailing ship, powerful and decisive in its course of action.
[i] de Cleyre, Voltairine. "Direcet Action." Molinari Institute. 1912. Molinari Institute. 29 Apr. 2008
[ii] Adami, Niccolo M. "Purge the Parlor Revolutionaries." Polycentric Order. 27 Apr. 2008. 29 Apr. 2008
[iii] An Apolitical Approach to Libertarianism." Brainpolice. 5 Apr. 2008. Ludwig von Mises Institute. 29 Apr. 2008
[iv] Molyneux, Stefan. "The Ron Paul Revolution – A Postmortem (& Prescription)." Freedomain: The Logic of Personal and Political Freedom. 6 Feb. 2008. Freedomain Radio. 29 Apr. 2008
[v] Murtaroe, Kathryn. “How a 'Third-Tier' Candidate Wins the Primary.” Lewrockwell.com 9 Nov. 2007
[viii] Adami, Niccolo M. "The Virtues of Agorism: A Direct Action." Polycentric Order. 16 Apr. 2008. 29 Apr. 2008
Posts
1 comments:
Being new to freedom from statist thinking Agorism is still new to me. I will deffinitely start to research it more indepth.
Post a Comment