“Those who assume (often unconsciously) that it is impossible to achieve their life’s desires-and, thus, that it is futile to fight for themselves–usually end up fighting for an ideal or cause instead. They may appear to engage in self-directed activity, but in reality they have accepted alienation from their desires as a way of life. All subjugations of personal desires to the dictates of a cause or ideology are reactionary no matter how ‘revolutionary’ the actions arising from such subjugations may appear. ”

–The Revolutionary Pleasure of Thinking for Yourself by Anonymous

Anarcho-Capitalism died January 7, 1995 with the death of Murray Rothbard. Since then this semi-revolutionary ideology has stagnated in a maze of consciousness (self evident, universal, and objective axioms). It’s been diverted from action by the subjective, and become bogged down in semantics. The ideas presented as new are merely old ideas restated, but evolution in thought is slowed when the infusion of new data is halted. This is the case with Voluntarism (Anarcho-Capitalism through axiomatic justification), and also true with Consequentialism (Anarcho-Capitalism justified through efficiency). Ultimately Voluntarism and Consequentialism are ethical theories, which are important to individual decision making, but are not strategies in and of themselves.

Lost in the maze of consciousness, the mind wonders and begins to fail to distinguish reality from the models and values an individual holds dear. AnCaps cry, “In an AnCap world things would be different!” Yes, if things were different they would be different, but they’re not different. This is the world we live in. Property is a matter of control. It’s not a matter of rights. It is easy, and comforting, to assume axioms to be universal, but they aren’t, and whether or not something is a “law” is more about custom than about “natural” rights.

AnCaps avoid action with the subjective argument, “voting is bad because it shows support for the State.” But they pay taxes, which not only shows support, but actually supports the State. It’s a non-argument. The idea that voting is bad in and of itself is a subjective value judgement, and has zero bearing on reality. So, instead of acting to improve our position through voting with what little efficacy it can have, AnCaps don’t, leaving less opposition in the process. Voting can be a form of obstructionism, giving us time to come up with meaningful solutions. The State doesn’t need you to vote in support of it. The government goons are ready to take what they want. We shouldn’t pretend like they need a reason. Reform, abolition, and obstruction are tools available to us, and if we want to get off of the tax farm we need to be willing to utilize those tools, even if we find them distasteful.

Bogged down in semantics, people constantly argue over what real property is. Property, says the rhetorician, is acquired through homesteading. No. Property is a matter of control. The methods used to achieve that control do not change. The specific plan may vary, but strategic planning is always required to achieve control. Questions of “legitimate” property, and property “rights,” while good to ask, are merely one step in the process. What you think is “legitimate” is a guide, but it is not an action. More important than personal value judgements are the social implications of one’s ideas and practices.

Most stories of AnCap conversion begin with the individual being a Statist of one variety or another. Then, for one reason or another, they realize the horrendous nature of the State, and through investigating other ideas find Anarcho-Capitalism, see that it is so much better than the State, and stop looking. Education stops. If the AnCap continues researching, great, but if they stop looking outside their frame of reference they get stuck there. Without another frame of reference with which to examine their beliefs they become stagnant, and uncritical of their own philosophy. Education is reduced to indoctrination, and an ideologue is formed. Similar things happen within traditional schooling, and within scientific communities.

The difference between indoctrination and education is that with indoctrination one stands within the body of the cannon and absorbs its teachings, while with education one stands outside the body of the cannon and examines it critically. How does one examine anything critically without having a set of ideas, and a body of knowledge for comparison? In public school not only are critical thinking skills brushed over, but the children are given one single perspective with which to attempt to find themselves. It’s no wonder that society at large is made up of drones. It was designed to be.

For a philosophy to continue evolving, and adapting, it needs new information, and new ideas. It must let go of the cannon. It is time to move past ethical arguments, and the ideal, and to begin looking for solutions. Crying, “I have my rights!” and “You don’t own me!” will not stop the master from imposing its will.

So, where should we look for new ideas? We should look to the Left. We should look to the State. We should look anywhere men struggle, and ask “What are the lessons to be learned?” By knowing your enemy, you make it possible to defeat them.

Rights are concepts. If you want them realized you need to take action. In Fascism it is said that the individual finds meaning with the collective, that the State is a means for the individual to achieve results, and that the purpose of the State is to establish and maintain the nation. In Fascism the nation is a cultural identity. Nations are not States. The State is the means of actualizing the national identity. By learning about Fascism (an ideology that achieved results) perhaps we can learn things to help us in our struggle.

Insurrection can be summed up with the invitation, “The revolution has already begun. Will you join us?” Individualist insurrectionary anarchy is about attaining freedom now, today. It rejects the notion that we need to wait for the rest of society to achieve liberty. Admittedly insurrectionary anarchists act in isolation, whether solo or as a member of a small team.

“Let us take the hypothesis of a ‘minoritarian’ subversive practice that refuses the Leninist model. In a libertarian perspective one either abandons all insurrectional discourse (in favour of a declaredly solitary revolt), or sooner or later it becomes necessary to face the problem of the social implications of one’s ideas and practices. If we don’t want to resolve the question in the ambit of linguistic miracles (for example by saying that the theses we support are already in the heads of the exploited, or that one’s rebellion is already part of a wider condition) one fact remains: we are isolated, which is not the same as saying we are few. ”

– At Daggers Drawn with the Existent its Defenders and its False Critics, by Anonymous

Platformism is a tactic of organizing for specific purposes and then disbanding. The Platform arose out of the strife of the Russian revolution and the resulting civil war. The Platform was a set of suggestions about how libertarian communist organizations should be run. One such suggestion is ideological unity. An organization, say the Platformists, that has 200 members and half believe in class struggle and the other half doesn’t, would be better off as two organizations working towards their ends, rather than as one constantly bickering over what it should do. The Platform was not a manifesto, it was a document aimed at discussion, and the authors never claimed to have all the answers. This is the fundamental reality. There is no panacea. There is no single set of solutions. Each problem requires a unique solution.

In order to solve the nuanced problems of the real world we have to look beyond the black and white. Things in life are rarely all or nothing events, and the more complex the situation becomes the more this is true. It is said that one is either “part of the problem, the solution, or just a part of the landscape”. A fourth option is that one is both a part of the solution and a part of the problem.

This is not to say that no one is working towards solutions. Such a notion is obvious hogwash. But it is necessary to analyze the methods being used and figure ways to improve them. Where did these methods succeed, and where did they fail? What unforeseen consequences arose out of action?

“If we refuse centralisation we must go beyond the quantitative idea of rallying the exploited for a frontal clash with power. It is necessary to think of another concept of strength—burn the census lists and change reality.”

–At Daggers Drawn with the Existent its Defenders and its False Critics by Anonymous

Strike the root, they say, but how can the root be struck when it is unclear what the root is? The root is the State and the government! Okay, but what is a government? Is it enough to say that a government is goons and papers? No. It is not enough to say that government should be opposed. For while this is true, government is an effect as well as a cause. The government is the result of a demand in the market for power.

“Being against government is also being against what Proudhon termed ‘external constitution’, which is the manipulation of a collective or individual by means of something external to those collectives and individuals. A legislated law is a form of external constitution because the law is imposed and not something mutually agreeable, even if the act a law forbids or necessitates would be under normal circumstances (i.e. we don’t need a law that says not to murder people, because it’s not a mutually agreeable thing to murder)” – Anonymous neo-Proudhonian anarchist

In Proudhon’s work external constitution is the phrase he uses to mean hierarchy or archy.

In November 2011 Davi Barker wrote an article called “The Law According to the Somalis“, a review of a book in which the distinction between “law” and “custom” is made. Any attempt to formulate a legal code by definition becomes an external constitution and is governance according to Proudhon. The difference between an Anarchist and an AnCap is a difference of opinion on the legitimacy of outside control. The Anarchist rejects this control out of hand. The AnCap rejects this imposition in so far as the nation-State decrees it. An undeniable, fundamental fact of human existence is the social nature of the species. The problem with implied consent, or social contract is that these things are not mutual (reciprocal, equal, and agreed to by all parties involved). Customs, are not contracts or laws. So, the question one needs to ask is, is capitalism the best property custom? Or is it just the one that AnCaps are used to, and therefore support?

Ultimately, it seems that a common problem between Anarchists and AnCaps is that both groups are attempting to write a universal law. If we accept that people are individuals, who can and should make their own decisions, than we need to expect the results of action to be diverse. The world as it is today is one possible world, but it is not the only possibility. The global hegemony is at odds with individual freedom.

“Relations of affinity do not exist on the basis of ideology or quantity, but start off from reciprocal knowledge, from feeling and sharing projectual passions.”

–At Daggers Drawn with the Existent its Defenders and its False Critics by Anonymous

The point, if there must be one, is to draw your own conclusions. Analyzing reality from multiple perspectives is good praxis.

Tags: Anarcho Capitalism, Murray Rothbard