Anarchoblogs

ALLiance is in need of a logo and I am willing to pay for one! The logo should represent the Alliance of the Libertarian Left mission statement while being approachable to people new to ALLs politics. I’d rather not have an anarchy sign in the logo, but am open to anything that fits the open statement above.

Please contact me if you are interested: chris (at) chrislempa.info.

I’ve decided to open some space in ALLiance for advertisement. My plan is to negotiate rates based on a) what is being advertised, b) ability to pay, and c) whether or not you are a contributor.

ALLiance is distributed on the web via Scribd.com and Issuu.com (amongst other places). It is also embedded on a number of websites. ALLiance has been featured in Rational Reviews News Digest, Liberty Pile, and Strike The Root.

Unlike a lot of web based journals, ALLiance is also printed. I have sent copies throughout the United States and internationally. Recently, ALLies brought copies to the Free State Project’s Porc Fest. Corvus Distribution is also selling copies.

The next issue will be sent to infoshops and zine distros throughout the country. Please email me – chris(at)chrislempa.info – to secure advertising space. The deadline is August 1.

Please note that ad rates will be solidified with issue number 4, so get in on the action now!

ALLiance Issue 3 submission deadline is August 1!

It’s that time again. ALLiance a journal of theory and strategy is seeking submissions. Please consider submitting an article, poem, artwork, etc. The only submission guideline I have is that your work fits under ALL’s “mission statement”:

The Alliance of the Libertarian Left is a multi-tendency coalition of mutualists, agorists, voluntaryists,
geolibertarians, left-Rothbardians, green libertarians, dialectical anarchists, radical minarchists,
and others on the libertarian left, united by an opposition to statism and militarism, to cultural
intolerance (including sexism, racism, and homophobia), and to the prevailing corporatist capitalism
falsely called a free market; as well as by an emphasis on education, direct action, and building
alternative institutions, rather than on electoral politics, as our chief strategy for achieving liberation.

Ideally submissions will be received by August 1. However, other arrangements can be made. Issues 1 and 2 can be found here: http://www.scribd.com/Christopher%20Lentil. Submissions can be sent to chris (at) chrislempa.info

Issue 1

Issue 2

I’d like to open my response to James N. Dawson by quoting the Alliance of the Libertarian Left website

The Alliance of the Libertarian Left is a multi-tendency coalition of mutualists, agorists, voluntaryists, geolibertarians, left-Rothbardians, green libertarians, dialectical anarchists, radical minarchists, and others on the libertarian left, united by an opposition to statism and militarism, to cultural intolerance (including sexism, racism, and homophobia), and to the prevailing corporatist capitalism falsely called a free market; as well as by an emphasis on education, direct action, and building alternative institutions, rather than on electoral politics, as our chief strategy for achieving liberation.

It is with that definition in mind that I decided to start the project known as ALLiance a journal of theory and strategy. The left libertarians don’t have a set of rules to follow. In fact, on some key issues we disagree, sometimes quite vehemently. The most recent example was the Affair d’ Keith Preston. The debacle started over what I think was an over the top essay by Preston. His intention, I believe, was to use shocking language to express his point regarding the big tent. While I feel that Preston’s language completely ruined any points he was trying to make, I don’t disagree with a good portion of his writings. I still refer people to his writings, but I now make a disclaimer.

Of course the same can and is said with just about every author. Some of my ALLies spend a lot of time dissing primitivists and green anarchists, but I draw a lot from the thought and writings of John Zerzan and others in that milieu. I have suggested that people read Lucy Parsons, Murray Rothbard, John Zerzan, and Kevin Carson all in the same breath. Does that mean I agree with everything they say? I was drawn to radicalism through the environmental movement. Fortunately I have am tolerant enough to ignore the environmental insanity coming from Rothbard and his disciples. I believe that there is more to the natural environment than natural resources. There is something to be said for walking barefoot in an old growth forest.

Left libertarianism, you see, is a truly big tent. Sometimes it may seem too big, but I surely like it that way. It definitely leads to a unique, multi-faceted approach to challenging power. “Joining” ALL has helped me accept both anarcho-syndicalist and market anarchists. I am now exposed to more viewpoints than I was before. Favorably quoting John Zerzan and Murray Rothbard in the same conversation is quite fun. I have also found that it opens the door to more people. To people who normally wouldn’t listen to me. The Alliance of the Libertarian Left is not a single strain of thought nor is it really an ideology. It is something larger.

Now for a direct response. In particular, I would like to respond to the following paragraphs:

I seem to be asking different questions and focusing on different problems than left-libertarian anarchists. What IS aggression? What are proper responses to aggression? What intellectual systems, theories, etc., in response to or dealing with aggression are optimal? Anarchism? Minarchism? One or more syntheses of these? Something as yet unthought of?

How much should I RESIST aggression, and if I resist it, in what ways? By speaking out against it? What would be the consequences of such verbal protest? Ridicule? Threats, by government, and “good” citizens? Do I have the courage to speak out? To civilly disobey? Do I have the support of other libertarians? How much should I, and CAN I, EVADE aggression? How much should I submit to it? If there are no perfect freedom paradigms—theories, philosophies, ethico-political systems—with their consequent strategies, how much can I comfortably compromise, and “get behind” “the least of all possible evils”?

For me, these are deep and serious questions. I’m sorry Chris, your anarchist allies haven’t quite answered them for me. It seems I must solve these maddening puzzles alone.

These are the exact questions that I deal with/think about everyday! Force and aggression are THE problems. It’s too easy to say “the state” is always the aggressor. Much like it’s too easy to say that corporate power is worse than state power. What does that mean? What does any of it really mean? Papers of the Libertarian Left, #2 is an essay called The Morpheus Proposal by Jim Davidson. In it he writes

I submit that there is no government. “The government” is an illusion, sometimes consensual. In fact, there are only individuals. Individuals in “the government” get away with murder, theft, lies, deceit, fraud, violence, viciousness, and betrayal. Were those individuals without governmental sanction, they would be merely bullies, killers, and thieves. They would deserve no greater respect and no swifter punishment. As “the government” however, they are understood to be immune from prosecution, immune from lawsuits, immune from criticism. Even their own treason against the constitution is considered acceptable, whereas it is considered treasonous to accuse them of treason.

I believe that similar, if not exact, words can be said for corporations. The problem, to me, is how do we deal with smug people that will do anything to get ahead? People who will loot, rob, maim, and kill just to get ahead? This isn’t an issue of “the state” v. “the corporation” Limiting it to such is part of the problem. Observations lead me to believe that the same type of person is drawn to the multi-national corporation and the state (see Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, et al). Before I get attacked, I am not saying that there are no honest business people. However, the owner/president of a contracting business is much different than the CEO of Halliburton or Kellogg, Brown, and Root. Also, I think there is a difference between someone running for a City Council position and someone running for Senate. The general question seems to be, how do we curb the aggression brought on by these individuals or groups of individuals? It isn’t enough to simply oppose the state. Afterall, if the state as we know it were to disappear right now, something very similar (if not identical or worse) would replace it. There needs to be a mental revolution along with the building of “alternative” institutions. Community Supported Agriculture, food cooperatives, buying clubs, and Homeschool Cooperatives are a few ways that people are currently working to rebuild the current system. No doubt there are many other examples, many right in front of us.

Anytime we shift our dependence away from an aggressor is victory for personal liberty. Different people see aggression in different places. I think that’s alright. It becomes a problem when our struggle against aggression hinders others ability to live a peaceful, healthy life.

James raised a lot of good, important questions in the cited passage. Frankly, it is up to each person how much and how they are going to resist aggression. It is also up to each person which forms of aggression they will focus on. I cannot, nor would I want to, tell you how and what to resist. I can invite you to work with me, but ultimately you must choose if you think it is a worthy project and/or goal. What is important to me is that you don’t get in the way. For example, some people believe extreme tactics are the only way to bring about change. Many people believe these tactics may be effective but are scared at their illegality (i.e. tax resistance, tree spiking, creative vandalism, sit-ins). It is often said that while you don’t have an obligation to take part in activities which make you uncomfortable, you also shouldn’t become a snitch.

The Alliance model is a good one in that it allows for a broad range of people to come together for a common cause. In this case it is freedom from aggression. Minarchists, anarchists, and all in between are encouraged to join the ride. Afterall, we have a long way to go.

James N. Dawson wrote me the following letter after reading the beta issue of ALLiance. Despite our differences, I really respect James and am a fan of his publishing efforts. I am publishing his letter in full with the hopes that ALLies will respond thoughtfully. If I get enough material it will be turned into a zine. My response will be published this weekend. Comment away!

Dear Chris,

Thanks very much for the inaugural copy of ALLiance. I really appreciate your sending me a paper copy. There was a discussion on Yahoo’s LP Radicals a while back about the merits of e-newsletters versus paper sent through the post office. One member disdained the idea of paper as an ecological waste, saying everybody but a few “luddites” was on the internet anyway. But a few others defended a multi-media approach to communciation, using what I found to be quite well founded and reasoned arguments. Anyway, I often have difficulties with my “ancient” Dell L800CXE computer, Windows ME operating system, and my clunky old cathode ray tube screen. Sometimes with this primitive setup, and a dial-up connection out in the boondocks, downloading and printing PDF’s isn’t always an easy option, and reading a document of any length on screen is a chore I just don’t care to take on. So, I very much appreciate your offering a nice, comfortable hardcopy through the gold old fashioned post office for us “technologically challenged” libertarians.

I’m flattered by your invitation to write something for ALLiance, but as you might have seen from my very occasional and sporadic posts to several libertarian Yahoo forums, I’m hesitant to identify myself as a “left” libertarian. I’ve tried to explain why on Left Libertarian 2, though I’m not sure if anyone found my reasons coherent. I’m comfortable with the compound, “liberal libertarian”. In a letter to the late Chris Tame, I wrote of a “larger libertarianism” I envisioned. I like Phillip Jacobson’s, Three Voluntary Economies.

My focus is much more on personal freedom and the individual’s pursuit of his or her own happiness than patriotism, the Constitution, and free market economics. I believe that the rights to life, liberty and property are essential tools to the securing of these supremely valued life goals. I suppose many left-libertarians would see me as a “right” libertarian because of my basically “old school” propertarianism, but I definitely do not see myself as such.

I’ve been reading debates between minarchists and anarchists for decades, beginning in the late 80’s in The (Libertarian) Connection. Erwin S. “Filthy Pierre” Strauss, the current and long-time publisher, and Jim Stumm, publisher of the long-running Living Free, were the two main minarchists arguing against the anarchists, who included Bob Shea, Brick Pillow, John Zube, and Jackpine Savage. While for most of my libertarianism I’ve been pretty much a “default” minarchist, and upon reflection, may lean that way today, on a more intellectual level I’ve taken a more or less neutral stance toward these two main libertarian forums. I find that BOTH have ethical, pragmatic AND DEFINITIONAL problems.
I can’t remember where I read it, but an anarchist once wrote to a minarchist, that as a means of defining libertarianism, he found the “maximum freedom principle” much too vague. Well, I find the central concept of anarchism vague—”the state”. The best I’ve been able to come up with is that “the state” is nothing more than a mental construct shared by billions of human beings involving premises and behaviors among and between “rulers” and “ruled”. It seems to me like anarchists have reified this complex process of human behavior and ideas in much the same way that patriots and nationalists have reified “their country” and “America”. (By the way, I am neither a nationalist nor a patriot.) Maybe it isn’t so much that I favor or accept “the state” as a necessary evil, but am uncomfortable on an intellectual level with a facile acceptance of a grossly under-defined and subjective concept as an almost concrete, objective and independently existing entity. An enemy that is at best only semi-real, seems like a poor foundation for any political theory, including anarchism. Likewise, opposition to “statism”, including, presumably, radical minarchism. (Statism and statist, were once often used by libertarian minarchists to describe a political philosophy they adamently rejected, but now it seems to be used, dare I say co-opted, by anarchists as a subtle smear-word for non-anarchism/ists, including libertarians.)

The debate between minarchists and anarchists, at its core, often resembles an elaborate exercise in semantical gymnastics. Some anarchists advocate, or at least condone, “anarchist governments”. (I’m not the only one who’s confused by this concept.) Kieth Preston, in his Liberty and Populism: Building an Effective Resistance Movement in North America, writes of “anarchist” “city-states”, “anarcho-papis[m]“, and “anarcho-monarchis[m]“! In the same essay he writes that most anarchists favor the “town meeting” approach of “direct democracy”. To decide what? Whose fate???! It makes me nervous to think it might ever be mine.

Is the system or systems, method or methods, advocated by anarchists truly any better, any more supportive of individual freedom, than libertarian minarchy, or are there patterns of, and tendencies toward, oppression, injustice, AND AGGRESSION, that are camouflaged by abstruse, academic, anarchist theories, and bold and heroic slogans? Is the anarchist “intellectual class” or “vanguard” Keith Preston calls for in the aforementioned work, our wise and learned advisor, or latter-day Napoleans, leading us trusting lumpen-proletariat, anarcho-foot-soldiers to our brave new Animal Farm?

Now don’t get me wrong. There are plenty of valid doubts one may have about minarchism. I’ve had them myself, and continue to. But whether anarchy is BETTER, or even SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT, remains an open question I’ll take my sweet time in answering. Stefan Molyneux’s accusation that people who don’t embrace anarchism “cling” to “the state” is in many cases completely off the mark. Thinking libertarians may have very well-considered reasons for being cautious and non-committal about the anarchy-minarchy question. They may find his entire paradigm pat and simplistic. One part of it that I’ve found glaringly dubious for years is the perception of humans as some kind of “homo economicus”, who calmly and efficiently calculate their cost-benefit ratios, focused quite rationally and single-mindedly on their “self-interest”. Millions, nay billions, of this planet’s masses are mystical, emotional and often suicidally tribal. Molyneux’s neat and tidy analysis of how “dispute resolution organizations” will function suggests to me a very poor sense of mass psycho-sociology. How many potential libertarians turn deaf ears to this and similar “lessons” in how “anarchy will work”.

At this point, somewhat shame-faced, I must admit I have little better to offer. At 50 years of age, I’m seriously re-assessing how much time I want to contribute to this so-called freedom struggle, or to argue with other libertarians over what ideologies, paradigms, programs or strategies I am willing to accept and “get behind”. Two years ago, after 19 years of membership, I quit the Libertarian Party. Electoral politics are ethically messy and often quite boring, with little gain for the time and effort invested. The Libertarian Reform Caucus has made this even more so. And, as I’ve just explained, I have intellectual reservations about anarchism.

I seem to be asking different questions and focusing on different problems than left-libertarian anarchists. What IS aggression? What are proper responses to aggression? What intellectual systems, theories, etc., in response to or dealing with aggression are optimal? Anarchism? Minarchism? One or more syntheses of these? Something as yet unthought of?

How much should I RESIST aggression, and if I resist it, in what ways? By speaking out against it? What would be the consequences of such verbal protest? Ridicule? Threats, by government, and “good” citizens? Do I have the courage to speak out? To civilly disobey? Do I have the support of other libertarians? How much should I, and CAN I, EVADE aggression? How much should I submit to it? If there are no perfect freedom paradigms—theories, philosophies, ethico-political systems—with their consequent strategies, how much can I comfortably compromise, and “get behind” “the least of all possible evils”?

For me, these are deep and serious questions. I’m sorry Chris, your anarchist allies haven’t quite answered them for me. It seems I must solve these maddening puzzles alone.

If you’re not too put off with this rather contrary letter, I would like to continue to receive your journal. Maybe there are things I can learn from it still. We could see.

Best of luck to you and your comrades in your personal freedom struggles,
James N. Dawson