by Chris Matthew Sciabarra
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/notablog/archives/001836.html
I have been remiss in not mentioning that references to, and republications of, my work have been featured on the website of Center for a Stateless Society. From the mission statement of the Center:
The Center for a Stateless Society (C4SS) is an anarchist think-tank and media center. Its mission is to explain and defend the idea of vibrant social cooperation without aggression, oppression, or centralized authority. In particular, it seeks to enlarge public understanding and transform public perceptions of anarchism, while reshaping academic and movement debate, through the production and distribution of market anarchist media content, both scholarly and popular, the organization of events, and the development of networks and communities, and to serve, along with the Alliance of the Libertarian Left and the Molinari Institute, as an institutional home for left-libertarian market anarchists.
One does not have to be a bona fide member of the Center, or an anarchist per se, to appreciate the fact that these folks are attempting to forge the way for a form of dialectical libertarianism, insofar as they refuse to focus strictly on the political, to the exclusion of the personal and the cultural, the social-psychological, the linguistic, the philosophical, and so forth. One of the reasons I’ve been critical of some forms of libertarianism is that there are what I have called “dualistic” tendencies among some libertarians to sharply separate the political from the personal and the cultural, as if dispensing with the state is all that is necessary to achieve a noncoercive society. As I have argued in my “Dialectics and Liberty Trilogy,” the political is as dependent on the personal and the cultural as each of these levels is dependent on the others. It is the classic case of reciprocal interdependence:
My “Dialectics and Liberty Trilogy” consists of three books that proclaim the virtues of dialectical thinking in the service of a radical libertarianism. The essence of a dialectical method is that it is “the art of context-keeping.” It demands that we study social problems by grasping the larger context within which they are embedded, so as to trace their myriad—and often reciprocal—causes and effects. The larger context must be viewed in terms that are both systemic and historical. By systemic, I mean that social problems need to be understood in ways that make transparent their relationships to one another—and to the larger system they constitute and that shapes them. By historical, I mean that social problems need to be grasped developmentally, that is, in ways that clarify their development over time. Grasping the larger context is indispensable to any “radical” politics worth its title. To be radical is to “go to the root.” Going to the “root” of social problems requires understanding how they came about, where they might be tending, and how they may be resolved—by overturning and revolutionizing the system that generates them.
The three books of the trilogy are: Marx, Hayek, and Utopia; Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical; and Total Freedom: Toward a Dialectical Libertarianism.
The first book, Marx, Hayek, and Utopia, published in 1995 with the State University of New York Press, draws parallels between Karl Marx and F. A. Hayek with regard to their surprisingly convergent critiques of utopianism. Both thinkers exhibit an appreciation of context in distinguishing between dialectical, radical thinking and nondialectical, utopian thinking.
The second book, Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical, published in 1995 with Pennsylvania State University Press (and soon to be published in an expanded second edition) details Rand’s approach as an instance of highly dialectical and radical thinking, which recognizes that social problems and social solutions must be understood systemically, across three distinctive, and mutually supportive, levels of generality—the personal, the cultural, and the structural, and dynamically or developmentally, inclusive of past, present, and potential future manifestations of the problems we are analyzing and attempting to resolve.
The third book, Total Freedom: Toward a Dialectical Libertarianism, published in 2000 by Pennsylvania State University Press, offers a re-reading of the history of dialectical thinking, and a re-definition of dialectics as indispensable to any defense of human liberty. It includes a critical discussion of the work of Murray N. Rothbard, who was one of my most important influences.
One can never be sure of every last implication of one’s work when one creates it. That’s the nature of what is often called an enterprise of “hermeneutics“, which is a fancy term to designate the art, nature, and evolution of interpretation. As different people relate their own unique contexts of knowledge to one’s work, they are more than likely to find implications in the work of which not even the author may have been aware. It therefore gives me great pleasure to see that those on the “libertarian left” are drawing from some useful aspects of my work.
Here are some of the references to, and republications of, my work at the Center for a Stateless Society:
On the Shoulders of Giants by Kevin Carson
They Saw it Coming: The 19th-Century Libertarian Critique of Fascism (translated into Spanish as Lo Vieron Venir: La Crítica Libertaria Decimonónica del Fascismo) by Roderick Long
Engagement with the Left on Free Markets by Kevin Carson
“Capitalism”: The Known Reality by Chris Matthew Sciabarra (posted by James Tuttle)
A Crisis of Political Economy by Chris Matthew Sciabarra (posted by James Tuttle)
Dialectics and Liberty by Chris Matthew Sciabarra (posted by James Tuttle)
Support C4SS with Charles Johnson’s “Liberty, Equality, Solidarity” by James Tuttle
Discover more from The Libertarian Alliance
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It does not seem to be true to say that the political depends on the personal or the cultural: indeed, it looks like a recipe for a new totalitarianism [at first glance].
It is true, of course, that liberalism takes the main load in the anarcho-liberal outlook. Mere anarchism would not ensure liberalism but liberalism would ensure a somewhat tame state.
Dialectics has many silly associations over the years. Karl Popper’s essay “What is Dialectics? is a useful criticism of the meme. It is in his book Conjectures and Refutations (1963) p312ff.
Marx assumed intrinsically utopian null set ideas, like class struggle, surplus value and communism to cite but three out of a lot.
The less said about daft Ayn Rand the better.
Many assume a difference between interpretation and factual claims but clearly any interpretation must be a factual claim ipso facto.
I see, so Karl Marx and F.A. Hayek were similar (not just similar in that they were both men and so on – but similar in their ideas).
And, no doubt, Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard were “really” enemies of large scale private ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and against “capitalists” employing large numbers of people.
And hot is cold. Water is dry. And 1+1=78.
And (of course) A is not A.
Seriously……..
A person should say what they believe (where they stand) and say it plain.
Hiding behind waffle language about “dialectics” (and other such) is no good.
My favourate short attack on “Market Socialism” is titled “This Square Circle,..”
Now “Libertarian Leftism” is not the same thing as “Market Socialism” – but it is similar in this respect. A basic (a fundemental) error – masked by endless complex language and (twisted) book learning.
I still wish somebody would give me a clear definition or explanation of what “left-libertarianism” or “libertarian leftism” IS. I did finally run a across a statement by Rod Long saying he is a “peace activist,” but that’s just one particularity about one particular person.
I don’t know why leftists generally and “left-libertarians” in particular are so unwilling to explain their understanding of the exact meaning of the label which they themselves adopt, FOLLOWED BY an explanation of why it applies to them.
Julie – the above ariticle and links are (to the person who wrote it) a definition of their beliefs. Believe me you do NOT want further definition and explination from these people.
It is better to deal with the old Chicago Machine than the new Comrades.
The old Machine would just break your legs and steal your wallet – the new Comrades (marching with the Marxist and “anarchist” teacher union types and so on) will break your legs, steal your wallet, AND give you a lecture on how your property was not “justly acquired”.
Break you legs and steal your wallet, sounds like the local justice authorities!
I have finally gotten an answer to my question. I thought I’d have another look at c4ss to see if there was anything interesting there (interesting: a clinical term, as a coroner might examine what’s left in the victim’s lower intestinal tract, looking for clues). Even the article descriptions on the main page seemed more informative than usual–or maybe I was just more motivated to read instead of a a quick look, gag reflex, move on. *g*
As it happens, Gary Chartier wrote up some sort of piece on that very issue, “The distinctiveness of left-libertarianism,” in which he does state its positions, and compare and contrast them with leftism generally and with more usual forms of libertarianism. A Jeff Tuttle reeads this paper for 20 minutes on YouTube:
As you say, Paul, after all that I needed to shower … I found just the thing, a 10-minute video of a montage of clips of Ayn Rand called “In Defense of Capitalism.” Like leaving a pit of vipers and going out into the light, :>)))
Julie – as you know, when you ask for something there is the danger you may be given it…….
I played both videos at once, Fasinating sound effect, I guess I must be in
the middle.
Indeed, Paul “Ask and ye shall receive, right in the chops!” LOL
Gosh, Karl, you must seasick from the mental upping and downing and backing and forthing…. 😉
Links–I can only take so much slumming at a time, Paul! :>))))!!!!
I used to go to sea lot, only got sea sick once in my whole life on the way
to the scilly ilse in a very bad sea, I F-ing hated it, glad only once, never
had it happen before. I like the sound of the duo video though.
I’ve still got that token that came off the sunken schooner it make one think
about how some people hold another persons life, but that’s another story.