Why Voluntaryism is not enough.

A.3.6 What is Cultural Anarchism?

For our purposes, we will define cultural anarchism as the promotion of anti-authoritarian values through those aspects of society traditionally regarded as belonging to the sphere of “culture” rather than “economics” or “politics” – for example, through art, music, drama, literature, education, child-rearing practices, sexual morality, technology, and so forth.

Cultural expressions are anarchistic to the extent that they deliberately attack, weaken, or subvert the tendency of most traditional cultural forms to promote authoritarian values and attitudes, particularly domination and exploitation. Thus a novel that portrays the evils of militarism can be considered as cultural anarchism if it goes beyond the simple “war-is-hell” model and allows the reader to see how militarism is connected with authoritarian institutions (e.g. capitalism and statism) or methods of authoritarian conditioning (e.g. upbringing in the traditional patriarchal family). Or, as John Clark expresses it, cultural anarchism implies “the development of arts, media, and other symbolic forms that expose various aspects of the system of domination and contrast them with a system of values based on freedom and community.” This cultural struggle” would be part of a general struggle “to combat the material and ideological power of all dominating classes, whether economic, political, racial, religious, or sexual, with a multi-dimensional practice of liberation.” In other words, an “expanded conception of class analysis” and “an amplified practice of class struggle” which includes, but is not limited to, economic actions like strikes, boycotts, job actions, occupation, organisations of direct action groups and federations of libertarian workers’ groups and development of workers’ assemblies, collectives and co-operatives” and political activity” like the “active interference with implementation of repressive governmental policies,” the “non-compliance and resistance against regimentation and bureaucratisation of society” and “participation in movements for increasing direct participation in decision-making and local control.” [The Anarchist Moment, p. 31]

Cultural anarchism is important – indeed essential – because authoritarian values are embedded in a total system of domination with many aspects besides the political and economic. Hence those values cannot be eradicated even by a combined economic and political revolution if there it is not also accompanied by profound psychological changes in the majority of the population. For mass acquiescence in the current system is rooted in the psychic structure of human beings (their “character structure,” to use Wilhelm Reich’s expression), which is produced by many forms of conditioning and socialisation that have developed with patriarchal-authoritarian civilisation during the past five or six thousand years.

In other words, even if capitalism and the state were overthrown tomorrow, people would soon create new forms of authority in their place. For authority – a strong leader, a chain of command, someone to give orders and relieve one of the responsibility of thinking for oneself – are what the submissive/authoritarian personality feels most comfortable with. Unfortunately, the majority of human beings fear real freedom, and indeed, do not know what to do with it – as is shown by a long string of failed revolutions and freedom movements in which the revolutionary ideals of freedom, democracy, and equality were betrayed and a new hierarchy and ruling class were quickly created. These failures are generally attributed to the machinations of reactionary politicians and capitalists, and to the perfidy of revolutionary leaders; but reactionary politicians only attract followers because they find a favourable soil for the growth of their authoritarian ideals in the character structure of ordinary people.

Hence the prerequisite of an anarchist revolution is a period of consciousness-raising in which people gradually become aware of submissive/authoritarian traits within themselves, see how those traits are reproduced by conditioning, and understand how they can be mitigated or eliminated through new forms of culture, particularly new child-rearing and educational methods. We will explore this issue more fully in section B.1.5 (What is the mass-psychological basis for authoritarian civilisation?), J.6 (What methods of child rearing do anarchists advocate?), and J.5.13 (What are Modern Schools?)

Cultural anarchist ideas are shared by almost all schools of anarchist thought and consciousness-raising is considered an essential part of any anarchist movement. For anarchists, its important to “build the new world in the shell of the old” in all aspects of our lives and creating an anarchist culture is part of that activity. Few anarchists, however, consider consciousness-raising as enough in itself and so combine cultural anarchist activities with organising, using direct action and building libertarian alternatives in capitalist society. The anarchist movement is one that combines practical self-activity with cultural work, with both activities feeding into and supporting the other.

The problem with people is stupidity and bad biology, culture is just as side effect of that. And frankly, all your leftist cultural wonking is just as crazy and mind-controlling as any theocracy that ever lived; equality is such utter nonsense I am amazed anyone not suffering from a head injury could believe in it.

You want to make people libertarian then make them egoistic, unresponsive to social pressures and extremely greedy bastards; you’ll find statist power structures will collapse without the herd mentality and plebian cultism of the sort you’re promoting here. If people mind their own business and don’t give much of a damn about anyone else they might be surly but they’re sure as Hell not going to be obedient; and that goes for both Right and Left-wing theocracies.

Don’t you people have your own websites? We’ve seen this CAPITALISM IS NOT ANARCHISM stuff enough to not care over here. In fact, I am sure every link and everything you said has been brought up like 500 times by assorted black flag types. We don’t care. We’re an-caps, if you don’t want to call us anarchists, go ahead. Doesn’t matter what you want to call me, anarchist, nazi, time traveler, vulgar libertarian; whatever - I know what I am, and I don’t value the opinions of lefto nuts.

Given the option between Bob Black and Commodore Vanderbilt, the choice is clear.

The NAP is just the valuing of equality of aggression. I hate to say it to you Ricky, but you’re an egalitarian too.

Equity is not the same as equality.

Define it however you want (a common theme amongst the right); the NAP says I have a right to the same amount of aggression as everyone else (i.e. none). It says aggression should be valued equally across all sectors of society. It strives for equality, ergo, egalitarian law.

Any kind of liberty is egalitarianism. It just depends on how far you want to take that.

Did you not catch the posts a while back where I said that the NAP is legally tautological? Any legal system whatsoever involves the NAP. I’m a propertarian-contractarian; and all property and contracts are unique.
You’re just grasping at straws, lefto.

Equality is sameness of value, and egalitarianism promotes it beyond equality under law, but into social and economic aspects as well. The Non-Aggression Principle does nothing of the sort. Egalitarianism is actually very anti-libertarian in that it holds an opinion on how people should think (we are all equal, I am not better than anyone else) and how we should treat each other.

Did you not catch the posts a while back where I said that the NAP is legally tautological? Any legal system whatsoever involves the NAP. I’m a propertarian-contractarian; and all property and contracts are unique.
You’re just grasping at straws, lefto.

My post is specifically referring to Rothbardian “egalitarianism v nature” philosphies.
Your straws weren’t even on my radar.

Equality is sameness of value,

Correct. And the NAP values aggression equally for all sectors of society.

and egalitarianism promotes it beyond equality under law, but into social and economic aspects as well.

You’re generalizing here. It doesn’t matter what traditional leftists do. The NAP still values every person equally in terms of aggression; they should neither give nor recieve.

The Non-Aggression Principle does nothing of the sort. Egalitarianism is actually very anti-libertarian in that it holds an opinion on how people should think (we are all equal, I am not better than anyone else) and how we should treat each other.

If we are not equal why should one have equality under the law? Shouldn’t the elite’s have a better place in it? Why give legal protection to non-property holders, black people, jews, or anyone else you subjectively deem “non-elite?”

Twist the words any way you want, equality under the law is still egalitarianism.

Yeah, we’re the ones ‘twisting words’.

Crankity Crankshaft.

Look, in my view this whole ‘NAP’ thing is a red herring. Law presumes you’ve decided not to fight and seek either agreement or arbitration. It doesn’t presume anyone is equal, or that ‘all aggression is equal’, or that people have ‘equal rights and wrongs’ or any such nonsense. Law is law precisely because it recognizes the unique traits and decisions of particular circumstances, it may invoke equiproportionality but so does engineering; is engineering ‘egalitarian’?

You’re really straining with this lefty nonsense.

Yeah, we’re the ones ‘twisting words’.

Crankity Crankshaft.

Lol.

Extended above, senor.

Love the Carnegie icon, BTW.

Look, in my view this whole ‘NAP’ thing is a red herring. Law presumes you’ve decided not to fight and seek either agreement or arbitration. It doesn’t presume anyone is equal, or that ‘all aggression is equal’, or that people have ‘equal rights and wrongs’ or any such nonsense. Law is law precisely because it recognizes the unique traits and decisions of particular circumstances, it may invoke equiproportionality but so does engineering; is engineering ‘egalitarian’?

You’re really straining with this lefty nonsense

Once again, try to define it how you want. You still either think everyone has a right to arbitration or you don’t. That’s equality under the law. If you don’t what do I care? I’m referring to NAP libertarians or anyone else who thinks everyone has a right to legal representation.

(PS engineering is not a political theory)

Thank you RJM.

I’m gonna hate myself for starting pointless debates with you Epicurus, but how on earth can you say

Twist the words any way you want, equality under the law is still egalitarianism.

?

This reminds me of the time when you said that giving to charity is no different then wealth redistribution.

I don’t believe people have a ‘right’ to anything intrinsicaly, rights are a matter of contract and it is a logial and legal, not a moral, concept. It’s got nothing to do with equality, it’s got to do with the logic of law. Specifically, no one has a ‘right’ to arbitration or security, you get whatever you can convince other people to give you.

That’s equality under the law.

People are not ‘equal’ under the law, a gangster is not equal to a stock broker, a land lord is not ‘equal’ to his tenant, they are all separate and unique people. Jurisprudence is a profession and a system of thinking, not some kind of ideal form.

I’m referring to NAP libertarians or anyone else who thinks everyone has a right to legal representation.

What kind of crazy libertarian things people have a right to legal representation? Who is to provide this right? Shall we conscript lawyers?

(PS engineering is not a political theory)

As I am well aware, but so what? All of this classical liberal rightsism is a bunch of mystical nonsense.

Anyways, I don’t know what you think you’re even accomplishing with this semantic equivocation, as liberal egalitarianism has nothing to do with tortfeasors and adjudication.

a land lord is not ‘equal’ to his tenant,

The tenant can be “equal” to the landlord if he becomes one. And even then, we have to take in consideration the expenses of property, size of property etc.

The tenant can be “equal” to the landlord if he becomes one. And even then, we have to take in consideration the expenses of property, size of property etc.

Well, the point would be that as landlord and tenant they have opposite rights and duties by contract, precisely contrary to equality; if the tenant is a landlord in his own right he is a landlord over different properties with different tenants and specific rights and duties in relation to them.

There is no ‘equality before there law’, there is not even any such thing as ‘the law’; there are people who work within a legal framework and those who are outlaws; and no presumption of ‘equality’ applies to either group or between these groups; it is precisely their differences that make invokation of law useful.

I don’t believe people have a ‘right’ to anything intrinsicaly, rights are a matter of contract and it is a logial and legal, not a moral, concept. It’s got nothing to do with equality, it’s got to do with the logic of law.

Should or should not every person be given the privelage of legal representation?

Specifically, no one has a ‘right’ to arbitration or security, you get whatever you can convince other people to give you.

Ok, you’re certainly no “libertarian.” So my argument doesn’t apply to you at all.

People are not ‘equal’ under the law, a gangster is not equal to a stock broker, a land lord is not ‘equal’ to his tenant, they are all separate and unique people. Jurisprudence is a profession and a system of thinking, not some kind of ideal form.

Should a gangster be able to represent himself (or choose representation) in a court? Should only one side be able to present their case, or both? To both parties have an EQUAL right to representation?

What kind of crazy libertarian things people have a right to legal representation? Who is to provide this right? Shall we conscript lawyers

Once again, either people have a right to show their side of the story, or they do not (whether they represent themselves or get a lawyer. Nice try, but swing and a miss).

It’s always a semantics issue with you. Sadface.