A Modest Proposal

To Purge all Parlor-Revolutionaries,

Quite often, especially in these post-Ron Paul days, I am asked by my comrades why I so detest the reformists in the broader libertarian movement. After all, they say, are we not all working towards the same goals? Are we not all libertarians? Are we not all fighting the same enemy? If only such were the case, but unfortunately it is not. Unfortunately, to reach victory we, the revolutionaries, must follow a path of truth, and though truth may be less kind than the reformists’ compromise, its path of success is undeniable.

Indeed, reformists are everywhere a disease, a terrible virus leeching off of the strength of Anarchist youth while injecting a poison into the veins of the libertarian movement. Extinguishing the burning flames of liberty within our comrades, those that may once have been fully hostile to imperial-collectivism and completely willing to die for their beliefs in freedom and justice, they spread their wings of preclusion and barrel their beaks into the fresh streams of Anarchist power snapping up the minnows of our movement like a hawk from the high hills of Gareb.

Oh, but the reformists tell you that they desire the same thing; they tell you that we are all in the same boat. But are we really? Are victory and defeat really so similar? But of course the reformists will not admit to being defeatists; they will not admit to their compromise, their abhorrent corruptions! They will lure you with a soothsaying tongue of deviation; they will attract the weak like a pedophile predator offering candy in a white van outside of the elementary school. Yes, the father of Agorism, Samuel Edward Konkin III, warned us of these defeatists.

Advises our dear comrade from his book the New Libertarian Manifesto,

since few libertarians are very consistent yet, deviationism will run rife and tend to overwhelm activism. “Get-Liberty-quick” schemes from anarchozionism (running away to a Promised Land of Liberty) to political opportunism will seduce the impatient and sway the incompletely informed. All will fail if for no other reason than grows individual by individual… The strategy of the first New Libertarians is to combat anti-principles which strengthen the Stare and dissipate anarchist energy uselessly. The general strategy outlines previously applies; get libertarians into counter-economics and get the most active of the Agorists to get counter-economists into libertarianism, (61-62).

Yes, driving the movement to its knees with their false promises, the reformists are the bearers of bad will and lost hopes; they are the essential definition of counter-revolutionaries in a war where no time or resources can be wasted. Indeed, as it almost seems they are too destructive to be true, we can almost wonder if they were sent by the state to deliberately destroy the product of years of our hard work - such would be the speak of a conspiracy theorist!

Like the never-ending story of man’s fatal demise, the counter-revolutionaries prattle on with their soothsaying and their bloodied knives neatly nestled next to their bags filled with their thirty pieces of silver. Oh, the reformists speak of changes brought down by votes calling them steps to a path, while knowing fully well that not only are these merely the exceptions to the rule – and counterproductive ones at that! – but that such “victories” can only be accounted for as the initial results of the radicals’ direct action forcing governments into a bind where the only two options are to concede liberty, as we desire, or appease a few of the “libertarian-junkies” with momentary relief while simultaneously derailing the entire movement all together! With the government on the libertarian-junky’s side then, it is no wonder why our libertarian movement, despite all the professed progresses pointed to by the reformists, continues to flounder in the puddles of despair with a bunch of parlor revolutionaries sitting sea-sick at the helm.

Indeed, the reformists, bromidic as they are, find it all too easy to praise themselves for maintaining “repeals” and libertarian “progresses” while ignoring the actual engines that support the continuously undermined revolution. Pointing towards the repeal of the Corn Laws in the 19th century, for example, the reformists, dressed in their usual cloth of deceit, speak highly of the politician credited for the repeals, Robert Peel, while completely ignoring such valiant examples of direct action as the continued riots in London after the initial imposition of the acts, the common harassment and assault against the dreaded extortionists that attempted to collect the fees of intimidation for their king, or the rampant counter-economic acts of smuggling shipments bypassing British law. Clearly, despite this pompous back patting, any attempt to claim victory by the incompetent hands of the parlor revolutionary is a slap in the face to the radical – and a most comical one at that!

However, not to take the credit for these moments of clumsy self-defeat, made by mere drunkards, rakes, and fools claiming the good name of libertarian, we radicals by no means find any particular pride in these specific conclusions to our momentous actions. Much like an inebriate adolescent stealing his father’s new car, a car used to further the health of his family, and crashing it in a dramatic blaze only to roll out reeking of rum and whores, the reformists ruin our movement’s diction and utterly destroy its potential. Taking the incentive and hope away from our comrades, substituting it for eased lullabies of a soothsaying Satanist in politician’s clothing, the reformists are collectively a rapist of the movement, a defeatist on the battle field, a deserter, a Benedict Arnold, a cross to bear, and a beast of burden that can neither be reasoned with nor converted.

The words of Voltairine de Cleyre resonate here,

The words of resonate here,But the evil of pinning faith to indirect action is far greater than any such minor results. The main evil is that it destroys initiative, quenches the individual rebellious spirit, teaches people to rely on someone else to do for them what they should do for themselves; finally renders organic the anomalous idea that by massing supineness together until a majority is acquired, then through the peculiar magic of that majority, this supineness is to be transformed into energy. That is, people who have lost the habit of striking for themselves as individuals, who have submitted to every injustice while waiting for the majority to grow, are going to become metamorphosed into human high-explosives by a mere process of packing!

Absolutely, it is the reason why our libertarian movement so consistently fails today. Packed primarily with the weak, the paltry, the timid, we have a movement filled with few more than parlor revolutionaries – reformists! Working towards the complete demise of the Anarchists’ cause then, these beasts of burden, these cowards, these fools can be defined in no better terms than as counter-revolutionaries. They are the snakes, the sniveling brats of the family, and the frightened daughters of liberty walking demurely into the black night well behind their more radical siblings. A Tory in drag, the reformists identify primarily with the conservatives and so thus will their demeanor dictate – conservatively, frightened of change, and far too weak to be granted a place in this revolution!

So, when my comrades, my friends, and my allies ask why I detest the parlor revolutionaries, I reply thus: There is no greater burden to a movement than compromise – it is an ultimate corruption of the spirit, a sapping of hope, and a disenchantment with principle. Here, I can only say that I, as the brother of a movement thieved and kicked to the ground in a huddle by the reformist, identify with the brother of a sister raped by his supposed ally. Indeed, the reformists are a disease, a cancer, and a virus, so only after this cancer is purged, only after this tumor is removed by force, can the body of the libertarian movement succeed; only after the radicals stand up to the reformists, only after the counter-revolutionaries are beaten back to the swamps will there ever be a realization of libertarian principles.

So then let this be a beginning of a beginning of a revolution. Let this commence a New Libertarian Alliance, not just against the state, but against all enemies of freedom and radicalism. Make no doubt about it, our revolution will be sweet, our revolution will be pure, but this can only be so after the disease of compromise is purged and the trials of the reformists resolved.


Posted at The Kingdom of God is Within You and Polycentric Order.

boinks the parlor revolutionaries in heinee :slight_smile:

Was it at least consensual?

Ha! Maybe.

Purges are not cool.

Yes, they are. At least if you are on the non-purged side. And until the paranoia spreads and everyone becomes a target since the party operatives have to meet quotas. Everything up till that point is like a carnival ride with cotton candy in hand…

Thoughts after reading this:

  1. “A Modest Proposal” is an inapproporiate title for this screed, as it lacks sarcastic wit (purple prose isn’t the same thing)

  2. In communication, brevity is gold

  3. All will fail if for no other reason than Liberty grows individual by individual…” isn’t a very strong argument against reformism.

  4. Everything sounded very threatening at the end, advocating force and all against reformists, but how does this work exactly? What on earth is a guy like you going to do to a guy like me? Counter-economy me to death? [:)]

I chuckled at the way you phrased that, but it raises a good question. I agree with Niccolo in principle - I think reformism is bad for liberty, and could even be fatal to our particular movement. But the counter-economy is open to everyone. How does one “purge” dissenters from a movement that hinges on non-aggression?

Force is out of the question. So do you boycott them? I think that would be counterproductive. Every transaction made within an alternative market benefits the agora, whether it is between two agorists or not. Calling for a schism is fruitless, then.

The only thing we can do is educate. And while I admire your passion, Niccolo, and agree with you - you don’t educate anyone through ostracism.

Fight the aggression of attempting to derail a movement with an equal amount of aggression.

How much aggression is that? What type of aggression? What mode of aggression? I don’t know the answer to any of these, at least not yet, but I do know that it can range from anywhere to simply harassing all attempts by the reformists to drag the libertarian movement into the mud of conservativism through blacklists to a physical upheaval of any of their counter-revolutionary activities.

I saw the word “comrades” and stopped reading. If it’s anything similar to what you’ve said in the past, you want to make people suffer more in hopes they are compelled to join your revolution.

I think the left wants you back!

You’re assuming they’d take part in purely Agorist activites; they wouldn’t. Reformists are cowards - they haven’t the bravity or the intelligence to participate in the complex plans of Agorism - they’re still stuck in the 19th century, like those that believe in the LTV.

Calling for a schism is not what I’m advocating though; a schism implies that the other side is libertarian as well - I propose that we no longer consider reformists to be libertarian at all - or at least, not New Libertarians. I propose that we blacklist the reformists and berate them as the repulsive beasts of burden that they are. I propose that we develop a movement cut from any ties to the reformists completely devoted to one pure way of revolution.

The purpose of this article was more or less to motivate Agorists to get out there and work at a high pace to protect and advance the revolution.

My goodness! Once a smug leftist, always a smug leftist!

Once a conservative, always a conservative (and yes - libertarianism is not conservative).

Oops. Comrade is a swear word for conservatives posing as libertarians, I forgot. As far as “suffer,” I don’t know where you get this idea. The only thing I’ve ever wanted to do was to help humanity - which is why I came to Agorism in the first place.

As far as the “left,” they don’t call it left-libertarianism because conservatives infiltrated the liberty movement.

That negates the basic premise of Agorism - that people will participate in the Agora because it is a better alternative than the state. A proclamation that reformists aren’t assets to the counter-economy assumes that either the Agora will be completely ineffective, or that only Agorists are smart enough to know that it is effective.

An advocate of non-aggression is a libertarian by definition. At the very most, I will say that a reformist cannot be an Agorist, but Agorism is a strategy; a method, defined by libertarian beliefs, not defining them.

Well, you do that. Meantime, I’ll be recognizing and utilizing everyone who will participate in the counter-economy as the assets they are. Anyone who participates is of qualitative benefit to the counter-economy, and I will not assume to be equipped with the superhuman wisdom and virtue (not to mention condescension) necessary to make a quantitative judgment about their worth to liberty - other than the amount of production they bring to the counter-economy rather than the state.

Then it should have done so.

“Left” and “conservative” aren’t opposites. Leftists are often very convservative about things they don’t want to change.

Libertarianism and conservatism are polar opposites in my view. In terms of the classical political spectrum, “right” meant the conservatives/tories (moderates, monarchists, mercantalists, theocrats, militarists, reactionaries, etc.) and “left” meant the classical liberals and libertarians (radicals, abolitionists, anarchists, revolutionaries, etc.). The “left” represents a low time-preference or progressive view of history/change, while the “right” represents the stagnation of a back-ward looking attitude and an obcession with tradition. One strikes at the root and challenges the status quo, the other legitimizes the status quo or yearns for an idealized past state of affairs to “turn back the clock” to.

You speak of “leftists” in the contemporary context of the term. I use it in its original sense, which is basically synonymous with radicalism. If the original meaning is applied to most of today’s “left”, then indeed they truly are quite “conservative”. But then the deeper problem is that the contemporary libertarian movement itself is far too conservative. That’s why “left-libertarians” like to disinguish themselves from what we consider to be the conservative infiltration of the movement, which is manifested in the vulgar libertarians, the pragmatists, the neocon libertarians (including many contemporary Objectivists), the paleocons and the closet monarchists. Yes, I’d like to ideologically “purge” these elements.

No offense implied, but the definitions of words change; why not change with them?

Right, so if they didn’t participate in those activities - as many reformists indicate that they will not - then they obviously do not possess the intelligence to discern between best alternatives.

Most people do have this intelligence, however, and so it shouldn’t be a problem. I did not say only Agorists have intelligence though, but I did characterize reformists as being unintelligent - which most are.

Remember, I’m using parlor revolutionary and reformist in the same sense, that is libertarians who are informed of the arguments but are just too dense to grasp them.

I disagree. To be a libertarian one must actively practice libertarianism as well as adhere to its principles. Political reform is not a libertarian action.

No. Agorism is the strategy of libertarian philosophy. That is, Agorism is libertarianism in practice. As humans are acting entities, they can only be defined by the way they act - the way they practice. Simply saying that I advocate liberty is not enough, I must also actively promote it and consistently practice what I adhere to. If I don’t, then how can I be said to adhere to it?

How is this different from what I’m suggesting?

Why past tense? Why not future? Or better, present?

Definitions do not change - their uses and misuses do.