Hermes in the Agora

Hermes in the Agora
(Communication, Cultural Mediation and the Anarchic Spirit)
By Nick Louras

I.

It is Hermes who concerns us here, god of language and magic, the subtle, but all-powerful, spirit of communication, invoked with every act of social intercourse, embodied in every word that reaches another’s ear.

At its most simple, Anarchy is Hermes unfettered.

So long as our modes of communication are restricted, directed, manipulated and controlled, there can be no liberty.

II.

But nor do tyrants possess any power except where individuals assent to use their language.

State is an illusion. Tin stars and six-shooters are real; police are not real. Flags are magical/demonic sigils imbued with power through fear, false-pride and consensus belief. In every parliament on earth, powdered whores enact a dreadful Grand Guignol and the people throw roses, for a moment believing it all true.

Antique “Movement” tactics drape flesh upon this ghost-State. To march in the streets is to recognize the authority you march against.

Let us begin to live free by admitting this much: Our enemy is a false paradigm.

III.

There are no top-down conspiracies. All conspiracies are grassroots. The average person will insensibly and emotionally defend the status quo. They will defend it with a tooth-and-nail tenacity in direct inverse proportion to the challenge of libertarianism. They will do this without prompt or manipulation because it is their life that is being challenged. Whether they like it or not, whether they know it or not, whether by design, by accident, by weakness, or boredom, most people have thrown their lot in with the status quo.

IV.

Important Questions that might lead to alternate paradigms are never asked. Thought has been arrested and made to stagnate by the triumph of false dichotomies. Ludicrous either/or premises redirect human passion away from creative imagination into the wasteland of dogmatism.

Fascism vs Communism, Left vs Right, Control vs Bedlam, Theism vs Materialism, Religion vs Humanism, Pragmatism vs Idealism.

These are tombstones, not choices!

False dichotomies are the product of mediation. There is no discourse outside The Media. We have delegated all conversation to “big” platforms that ostensibly put us in universal/instantaneous contact, but in reality “speak on our behalf.” These media outlets are owned/licensed/controlled by corporations, advertisers and government. They exist for no purpose except to reinforce the current paradigm. Purveyors of “news” are infamous perpetrators, especially when it comes to the false dichotomy, presenting every “story” as a conflict between two hyperbolic groups: corporations/labor unions, warmongers/demonstrators, Republicans/Democrats.

By limiting the argument to two non-insurrectionary options, they are assured of the continued dominance of the culture. All media therefore functions as an advertisement for the paradigm. Likewise: individuals who advance media-generated either/or arguments (see III).

There can be no pure interaction, no spontaneous culture, when everyone is using identical channels of communication, transmitting corporate logos and banner ads with their correspondences, or worse, conforming their identities to a template.

Notwithstanding early cyberpunk fantasy, it was inevitable that the Internet would become ad space – the same way the rest of our culture has (why wouldn’t it? The same people are using it!).

Indeed, technology has evolved into a means of homogenization and alienation. Home and personal media devices removed physical proximity and the shared experience. The forms of art and communication that were transferred from the public sphere to the domestic/bodily then dried up. (For example, truly independent cinema died with the drive-in and the local art-house; now only studios owned by corporations which also own multiplex chains continue to release films theatrically.)

V.

The government cynically declares itself an arbiter, the citizen’s advocate against big business. Of course, this uninterrupted sea of commercial homogeneity and Monolithic Culture is a direct result of government favoritism and collusion with corporations to subvert truly free (“Hermetic”) exchange.

Commercial media licenses, subsidies, interstate commerce laws, property and bartering taxes (i.e. punishment of alternative systems), nationalization and “public good” have all been employed to force the spread of Monolithic Culture. The push has been fast and overwhelming, with holdouts inevitably running afoul of eminent domain, rezoning, and governing-board fiat.

Even those individuals clever and brave enough to pursue lives outside the norm are shackled to the system by bureaucracy, taxation, ID/insurance requirements and monotonous surveillance. The state depends on universal adherence to one way of life for its revenue, its mandate, and its ability to act unchecked; thus renegades cannot be tolerated.

And so we watch populations move through the mainstream culture: irritable, unhappy, dangerous, they stare at the same television shows, eat the same poisonous food, serve their sentences in some variation on the same soul-crushing job (cynically antagonistic to those who suggest a ludic freedom).

VI.

Make no mistake, we are champions of the market: a free exchange of goods and ideas.

Any vital & creative society depends for its life’s blood on the agora. Exceptional imagination & ingenuity command reward. Those with means must outfit adventurers seeking their own. We are no self-flagellating ascetics. There is joy in wealth (and we do not mean the empty “purchasing power” of the prefabricated consumer, but the abundance of the pasha. Every man a king! Exceed the nations of the earth in splendor!).

The (specious) argument that corporatism is a natural and inevitable outgrowth of the free market comes relentlessly from quarters with a vested interest in different modes of authority, and the most vocal champions of a so-called “free market” are only too happy to agree. A most tedious false dichotomy arises: the various Death-Marts on one hand and the most despicable anti-creative revenge-seekers on the other.

We reject this outright.

Corporate behemoths may borrow the language and (to a lesser extent) form of market participation. In truth, they are designed to have as little contact with the market as possible, functioning more like psychic infrastructure (the machinery of mass production/consumption), funded by the state and in turn generating enough tax revenue to perpetuate the state’s business.

Here, now and forever, we stand in opposition to Monolithic Culture, whether corporate, marxist, theocratic, or scientific-materialist.

VII.

It’s no accident that Hermes is also god of the marketplace, protector of merchants (and thieves). Communication can only exist where there is multiplicity of form, interplay between sovereign individuals.

Hermes does not care about “identities”: anarcho-capitalist, mutualist, co-operative, communalist. Whenever people come together to trade, barter or give freely, an agora is created.

VIII.

But always stifling this “Hermetic” agora, preventing it from taking shape in the open, is the false-market of the dominant paradigm.

To get anywhere, the state’s stranglehold on services, force and money must be removed.

Maybe somewhere there’s someone who’d like to employ the government in… some capacity. Fine. Then let them buy the services they want piecemeal on an open market. Likewise, if someone wants to carry the U.S. Dollar as opposed to a currency backed with gold, silver, or seashells, they should feel free to do that as well.

Competition, if sustained, will inevitably lead to the death of government.

Lysander Spooner’s American Letter Mail Company lasted five years before it was forced out of business for challenging the (still extant) monopoly of the U.S. Postal Service. During that time, the company sent mail from New York to Boston for 5 cents, drastically undercutting the 18 cents charged by the USPS. Before threats of imprisonment and endless legal battles shut Spooner down, he had forced the government’s rate to 3 cents.

In the 1840s, America was less than a hundred years old. Fascism (in the literal sense of a statist economy) was still being codified into law. Spooner caught the government by surprise. At first, its courts had no way of stopping him without putting the last nail in the coffin of “Constitutional Democracy”. We doubt something of this scale could be pulled off today. Over a hundred and fifty years of precedence favoring state monopolies have left neither the timeframe nor the loopholes to permit it.

We do hope modern-day Spooners will emerge despite this, but real results can be obtained far less dramatically.

There are whole markets that the government can’t reach, let alone control – black and grey markets, for instance; cash markets – and these provide us with the starting place for a free agora.

IX.

There are peaceful individuals everywhere involved in alternative-market enterprise, small-scale pot farming, under-the-table transactions, and the like, but few of them view their economies in a political/ontological light, and fewer still keep their eye on the big picture.

We must do more than create an alternative market; we must create an alternative reality.

The authoritarian paradigm brands every free man and woman a criminal. That is the height of nihilism for anyone who accepts it. A new worldview is the only answer.

This project – Anarchy – is about remaking the shape of culture and cultural interaction, each of us from our own personal paradigms, interacting always from a position of physical, intellectual and spiritual autonomy. The loose consensus reality of those participating must necessarily change. We’re talking about new “maps,” new aesthetics, new mores, new language, and this requires a certain magic.

It is up to each of us to reach this place on his/her own, nor is there one reliable path. Certainly the likeminded will attract one another, and this is good, wherever we can build our world with friends, we will find the labor easy, but many will find their convictions, lifestyles, politics, and dreams incompatible with others, and there’s nothing wrong with that. In the end we’ll all find our way somehow.

Our hearts will be our compasses, here as in all things.

X.

And looking back, perhaps, we’ll find that we shared, if not a set of tactics, a loose credo:

1. To subvert the status quo. Our lives are antithetical to the Monolithic Culture. Our actions should be too. That doesn’t mean illegal, per se, but it can. The problem with this is that certain acts appear subversive, but are really status quo. Ultimately all “tactics” suffer this fate. As soon as enough people become aware of something it becomes fodder for satire and cannibalism by advertiser-sorcerers. A good example of this is graffiti, which has long been used for “guerrilla marketing.” Same goes for protesting (which is pure cliché now, appearing mostly in state-sponsored anti-smoking ads). Oddly, sex, whether illicit or not, and drugs, still maintain a certain sense of danger and taboo. We recommend using sex wherever it is subversive.

2. To affirm life. We don’t mean antagonistic when we say subversive. The point isn’t to be against the Monolithic Culture, it’s to be for a personal and fulfilling Other Culture. Think positive! Follow every pleasure and turn from every restriction. Cynicism and martyrdom belong to the death-cults. Abandon any work that isn’t motivated by joy!

3. To affirm the Romantic. Romance is forbidden by mainstream society. Anything with a hint of beauty/danger/inspiration is promptly seized, sterilized and put to work as a reaffirmation of the Culture (it wasn’t enough to kill the Gnostic Jesus, he had to be made a symbol of the Abrahamic religion and the Roman state he had sought to topple).

Artifice and beauty are weapons. Love and art are weapons. Use them to create a new language; Hermes will aid you. Employ symbols and sigils, codes and ceremonies, invoke strange gods, practice sex-magic, do whatever it takes to establish the reality of the personal outside the normative.

Apparently I am an Evolutionary.

Thanks to the Motorhome Diaries Crew for putting me on the Youtube. More stories here: http://evolutionaries.tumblr.com/.

I think this is a really great project. It fascinates me to hear other people explain their backgrounds and influences. Your story can be shared by clicking here: http://evolutionaries.tumblr.com/submit

ALLiance #3 is out now

View this document on Scribd

The Strategy of Propaganda

The Strategy of Propaganda

By Darian Worden

If left-libertarians are to influence people, our ideas must be sufficiently known. A strategy of propaganda that is defined by the general goals of the libertarian left is essential to success. It is necessary to distinguish between general communication and propaganda. The former is organic and ideally involves an exchange of ideas and knowledge between people, while the latter is strategically planned and involves one party sending messages to another. While this essay begins with examples of general communication to help distinguish between it and propaganda, the essay focuses on propaganda while recognizing that both have their place in advocating liberty.

For conversation (not debate or speech-making), throw out the passive-aggressive mind control, the Michael Cloud, and the guru of suggestion approaches to talking with people. Say what you feel like, just as anyone worth talking to would do.

I would expect that few discussions result in immediate “conversions” to libertarianism, as there are many rationalizations for authority that need to be overcome by each individual before arguments for liberty can be sufficiently persuasive. This is emphatically not an insult to non-libertarians – they are simply trying to hold onto their principles. Treating a unique individual as if she was simply a personality type to be decoded before a mechanized process of conversion can begin is certainly less respectful to her humanity than the realization that minds do not function on pure logic.

The best approach for discussions is to be respectful, but natural. A conversation should be two or more people learning from each other, not propaganda, and not a mind game.

Similarly there is no reason to act like it’s okay when your principles are intentionally insulted. Someone far enough from the libertarian left to post “you just don’t want a draft because you’re a bunch of lazy pussies” on a message board is unlikely to be swayed by one session of crafty reasoning, but others who witness your response might be impressed by the intelligent assertion of your principles and gain a new found respect for anarchism, voluntaryism, feminism, or whatever else you emphasize.

Now that we’ve hopefully drawn a distinction between general communication and propaganda, let’s begin strategizing.

Our propaganda goals should fit our strategic goals.

1. Exposure: How many people know much about left-libertarianism? Anarchism in general? Agorism? And so on.

2. Differentiation: What is related to us and what do we oppose? This could possibly be thought of as establishing a brief narrative of conflict and hero.

3. Plurality: We don’t want an army of armband wearers marching in lockstep (at least I don’t and I expect other ALLies don’t either). We are an Alliance, not a united front.

As ideology defines strategy, we should keep in mind the following.

1. We want to empower people, to liberate individuals. Therefore we ought to emphasize individualistic solutions and a plurality of ideas. A basic set of unifying principles should be proclaimed instead of rigid ideological uniformity.

2. Our revolution does not want to create a new authoritarian establishment. One consequence of this desire is that we must focus on building alliances and networks among individuals outside of the establishment and outside of traditional leaders.

A long-term goal of libertarian left propaganda is to hack away at rationalizations for oppression. It will be easier for people to reason themselves to freedom when the sacred cows that block the way have been pulverized by the relentless action of libertarian propagandists.

There should not be a one-size-fits-every-scenario set of rules for propaganda. Instead, the overall goals of a libertarian left propaganda campaign must be kept in mind.

1. Misinformation must be countered. Assertions of authority need to be challenged.

2. Propaganda should grab attention. There are many creative ways to do this, and if fostering more creativity among the populace is a goal, then creativity should be emphasized.

3. Positive and negative must be shown. Liberty is good; oppression is bad. It is important to connect cause and effect by presenting something we uphold as the solution to something we oppose.

4. It is okay to have some detailed messages that consume much time and attention provided there are hooks. However, propaganda should usually be designed to be effective even if only a small part of the material is taken in at a time.

5. Propaganda ought to be thought provoking. It is not necessary to provide answers all of the time if people are asking the right questions.

6. The Alliance of the Libertarian Left is decentralized, so propaganda strategy ought to take decentralization into account. We currently have several bases to download materials from, and the tools to create and distribute propaganda are widespread in the information age. Each local sub-campaign has access to or can create a variety of materials that together facilitate the goals of libertarian left propaganda.

7. Most obvious, but essential to remember, is that the tone and content of propaganda must promote the values of the libertarian left. Materials should be both ideologically sound and free of anything that could be understandably mistaken for authoritarian messages.

Likely audiences should be taken into account. Generalizations can be made but their limits should always be remembered. For example, it might be useful to emphasize theory to students to supplement or subvert lessons from classes, give workers messages focusing on economic empowerment, and show already disaffected people ways of undermining the status quo. This is obviously not a comprehensive study, but perhaps an area where research could be done.

Psychological needs for independence and rebellion can be well provided for by such an anti-establishment ideology as left-libertarianism. The need for fellowship can be satisfied by solidarity (not lockstep unity) and cooperation within the freed market (not dealing unfairly through authoritarian privilege). The desire for empowerment is provided for by the very nature of left-libertarianism and its attitude of “Revolution begins with YOU.”

It should be asked whether it is best to emphasize expected commonalities or expected differences with the audience. The answer depends on the scenario and the purpose of the materials used. The goal is ultimately to have others overcome their differences with us. Sometimes it might be better to explain why we differ on an issue and sometimes it might be best to build a commonality before examining different approaches to common problems.

Propaganda should also take the times into account. Though it may be overly optimistic to believe that we are in the end days of the modern state, the best tone and focus of propaganda today is perhaps different than what it would have been in the heady days of American empire, when supposed victory in Iraq followed supposed victory in Afghanistan and the economy appeared strong.

Let’s take a moment to think about what authoritarian movements offer people. Desires that people have are co-opted, influenced, and/or manufactured by those who want to be in charge. Leninism and Nazism promised followers a part in building a better future. This future was meant for those whom the leaders chose. To foster unity behind the leader, the act of joining the followers was presented to individuals as a method of empowerment and those who were not followers or who were designated as enemies were attacked. United States imperial expansion after September 11 worked in a similar manner. The overwhelming mass murder of people Americans identified with left many feeling vulnerable. The state promised security, and many individuals felt empowered by getting behind the state as they were now part of something that they thought did heroic deeds. Similarly, the Obama campaign profited from the sense of historical significance that it inspired in voters. By supporting the political ambitions of one black man, the voter was told that he would himself be sitting with Rosa

Parks, marching with Martin Luther King, and putting his own hands into building a new tolerant and enlightened nation.

The above paragraph should certainly not be read as examples of what to do. Authoritarian ends are served by authoritarian means. They are examples of what we must undermine. To create the most free world imaginable we must make sure we do not say “empowerment comes from us” but that “empowerment comes from yourself.” To do otherwise only sets people up to fall for the tricks of leaders. Our goals require severing identity from statehood and authority, and putting peoples’ desires back into their hands.

We have many tools at our disposal, which brings us to our final numeric list.

1. Printed literature and posters: The New Jersey Alliance of the Libertarian Left (nj.libertarianleft.org) has many downloads and links to other left-libertarian materials. The enterprising ALLy can create her own materials. Powerful graphics and publishing tools can be acquired on the white market or through counter-economic means, open source software can be downloaded, and with a little planning word processors and MS Paint can be used for simpler things. If you don’t have access to a printer, your friends might. College students are often expected to waste paper, so you can help them fill their quota.

2. Videos: Youtube and other video sharing tools open a world of opportunity for anyone with video editing or animation skills. A video with enough hooks can go viral or be embedded where useful.

3. Social Networking: The obvious Myspace and Facebook present opportunities to share all kinds of information in graphic or textual form. In addition, there are social networking pages and forums that center around specific communities that may not have heard the libertarian left word yet. It might be beneficial to think of oneself as contributing to said networks, not taking them over.

4. Entertainment: First, understand that bias is not the same as propaganda. Creative works are always written through the biases of their authors and will likely reflect those biases. Propaganda, however, can involve intentionally making a political message entertaining. Such efforts don’t have to beat viewers in the face with ideology, but can include desirable themes in the background.

5. The Streets: Street theater, graffiti, event disruptions, flyers, banner drops, etc can put dissent right in the faces of everyone who cares to look. While establishment media is likely to ignore small actions, the way your action and message will be presented by them should always be taken into account and contingency plans put in place.

6. Show and Tell: Building alternative networks, structures, and services can be used to present the gathering revolution to people. Mutual aid and counter-economics are both suited to this idea.

Propaganda is often treated as a dirty word implying some kind of deception. This is primarily due to the skillful use of propaganda techniques by unsavory and unpopular characters. When the same techniques are used by unsavory but popular characters, it is usually called “information” or “truth.” A successful Alliance of the Libertarian Left must use the strategy of propaganda in an honest and unashamed way if we are to combat the lies of the oppressors.

Darian Worden is a writer and activist from New Jersey. See his works at darianworden.com.

Active Listening as Conflict Resolution

In the book Solving Tough Problems Adam Kahane lays out a methodology for dealing with tough problems in the most difficult situations.  Kahane played an integral role in the Mount Fleur Process which brought together representatives from Apartheid-era South Africa. Participants discussed what South Africa would look like after Apartheid. After the Mount Fleur Process, Kahane took part in similar gatherings throughout the world (Follow this link to learn more about Kahane’s work).

Many aspects of the book will be useful to people in their everyday lives, I would like to focus on listening. In his book How to Win Friends and Influence People, Dale Carnegie tells us that by “becoming genuinely interested in people” and “be[ing] a good listener” are two important roles in building successful relationships. That’s great, but what is listening and how do we do it?

Perhaps you are rolling your eyes at the thought of this silly question, but I have been involved in many frustrating conversations with non-listeners. These “conversations” generally become a waste of time and quickly deteriorate into mindless arguments, with people talking past each other.

Adam Kahane details Otto Scharmer’s Four Ways of Listening:

1. Downloading - listening from within our own story, but without being conscious that what we are saying and hearing is no more that a story. When we download, we are deaf to other stories; we only hear that which confirms our own story. This is the kind of nonlistening exhibited by fundamentalists, dictators, experts, and people who are arrogant or angry.
2. Debating - listening to each other and to ideas (including our own ideas) from the outside, objectively, like a judge in a debate or courtroom.
3. Reflective Dialogue – listening to ourselves reflectively and listening to others empathetically-listening from the inside, subjectively.
4. Generative Dialogue – listening not only from within ourselves or from within others, but from the whole system.

According to Kahane and Scharmer, downloading and debating repeat already existing ideas. Nothing new is created. Reflective dialogue and especially generative dialogue can create new social realities. This is intimidating to think about, but can be done quite easily.

The website PersonaDev offers 10 Tips to Be a Better Listener. There are plenty of articles dedicated to active listening, but I think this one is short and to the point. I’m going to provide an excerpt, but I highly recommend the reading article and website.

1. Be Legitimately Interested: Be interested. Drop whatever you were doing and focus. Stop focusing on the email you were writing or the article you were reading and really listen. Put yourself in the speaker’s place and make his or her problems your own. The speaker will consciously or subconsciously pick up on this and you will learn more from the conversation. However, if you are in the middle of something just a little too important to drop…
2. Be Honest About Your Time: If you really are in the middle of something important, tell the speaker. Apologize and plan for another meeting where you can ensure your full attention and focus. This will let the speaker know that you appreciate their coming to you and you want to give them your full concentration. It’s much better than lending half-an-ear and not listening well.
3. Accept the Speaker’s Point-Of-View: At least until he or she is done speaking. Some of us have the desire to get our point across and a word in for every sentence spoken. Even if you disagree with the speaker’s stance on a subject, allow him or her to finish their thought before voicing your disagreement and then only if necessary. Remember, you are trying to be a listener, not partake in a discussion.
4. Use Body Language, Eye Contact, and Repetition: Using body language and eye contact the right way can really have an impact on the speaker. To show you are listening and interested, lean slightly forward in your chair. Not so much that your elbows are on your knees, but enough so you aren’t reclined back on your chair. Make consistent eye contact, but do not stare. Make noises like “mm-hmm,” or say “I see,” and frequently repeat what was just said. These actions show that you are interested and actively listening.
5. Go Beyond the Words: Good listeners are actively thinking not just about what was said but also why and how it was said. Why did this person come to you to talk (or be heard). Is there excitement in their voice? Resentment? Jealously? Once you determine the motive of the speaker, can you react more smoothly to their words.
6. Get Rid of Distractions: Just by slightly closing a door or turning off your monitor you can portray to the speaker that you are genuinely interested in what they have to say. Focus.
7. Avoid Planning Counterarguments: It is a natural response to automatically start planning a counterargument as soon as something is mentioned. As hard as it may seem, don’t. Mentally record your disagreement and formulate a response later after the whole message has been received.
8. Be Aware of Your History with the Speaker: As a corollary to tip 5, think about how your history with the speaker may affect what is being said. Is there potential for flared feelings? Sympathy? Fear? Figuring this out will help you better understand the speaker’s motives and, thus, respond accordingly.
9. Ask Questions: If there is something said that is not clear to you, ask for clarification. Be careful not to use questions to rebut or represent your point-of-view. Only ask questions that’ll help your understanding of what the speaker is saying.
10. Watch and Learn from the “Good Listener”: We all know one or two “Good Listeners”. Next time you are speaking to them, really pay attention to what they do. One can read a ton of articles and not learn as much as they would from actively watching a good listener in action.

Being a good, active listener makes life a lot easier. Your conversations will be more enjoyable and less nuanced. More importantly, your active listening will encourage others to do the same. Whether you are trying to solve a tough problem, perform a group mediation, or plan your weekend, everything will go a lot smoother and more will be accomplished.

The large scale implications are what interest me the most. In our current society, people are quick to call the police if a problem or disagreement arises. A more ideal situation would involve people talking out their issues either by themselves or with a mediator. A lot of conflict can be resolved by listening and understanding the other person’s motivations.

Peer mediation is a common model in elementary and high schools for a reason. . .it works. Children and youth are encouraged to work problems out amongst themselves. A group of youth mediators told me that mediation works and has led to a decrease in violent behavior amongst their peers. Active listening plays and important role in mediation and conflict resolution.

These thoughts will be expanded in the next issue of Black Oak Presents.

ALLiance Logo Needed!

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.

Advertise in ALLiance

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!

What I’m Reading

Here’s a look at what I am reading or have recently read. What are you reading?

Books
Reminiscences of the Cuban Revolutionary War by Che Guevara
An interesting look at the Cuban revolution. This is Che’s account of the battles and overall life of being a guerilla fighter. Very interesting thus far.

Summer in a Jar
A great book on canning and food preservation in general.

Zines
Fight Boredom – compilation zine
From the description, “Fight Boredom is a compilation zine. It’s all about having good times in a small town.” Amber is very creative. This zine shares ideas on how not to be bored. She lives in a small town, but much can be applied to people living in Chicago, LA, or any other big city.

Well worth the $2.00. If you have a few extra bucks I recommend picking up all three issues.

Web
Anarchy: But Seriously, Folks
Thomas L. Knapp’s latest at the Center for a Stateless Society.

Barter Networks and the Counter-Economy
Kevin Carson continues the exploration of different economic models.

The Real Unemployment Numbers
Wait, the reported unemployment numbers don’t tell the truth?

The Political Economy of Peer Production
An introductory essay on Peer to Peer production.

Peer to Peer and Human Evolution
A more extensive look at Peer to Peer production.

ALLiance is Seeking Submissions

Want to advertise? Check this link: http://chrislempa.wordpress.com/2009/07/13/advertise-in-alliance/

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, and to the prevailing corporatist capitalism
falsely called a free market.

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

View this document on Scribd

Issue 2

View this document on Scribd

Join the ALLiance: A reply to James N. Dawson

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.