I’ve become a bit obsessed, and I want to resolve this contradiction in my head relatively quickly 😀 What is the difference between a minarchist and a liberal (besides the prohibition of aggressive violence in the case of the former)? After all, not every liberal, for example, is “for” state social support, or views the state itself absolutely positively. In general, I would be glad to hear a coherent answer.
анонимный вопрос
Generally speaking, of course, if you want to get an answer relatively quickly, the most reliable way is to accompany the question with a donation)
Minarchism is the result of the continuous development of classical liberal ideas, so it is difficult to draw a clear line between them that all proponents of liberal discourse would agree upon. I would approach the distinction from the standpoint of which basic values guide the person we are trying to label.
If the focus is primarily on the protection of private property and the social contract, through which a government is created to protect the institution of private property, then we are dealing with a classical liberal. They tend to evaluate the state precisely by the criterion of whether it effectively protects private property or not, and they are willing to pay some minimal, reasonable, and fair taxes (don’t ask!) provided that the work of protecting property is performed conscientiously. Otherwise, if a long series of abuses by the government leads them to assume that it has become a tyranny, they reserve the right to overthrow and reconstitute that government.
However, if a person primarily emphasizes non-aggression and the voluntary nature of forming a complex of government services—where the actions of private individuals may be forcibly regulated, but only on the condition of compensation for inconveniences, and where the government clearly positions itself as a service—then the person is guided not by Locke and the Founding Fathers, but by Robert Nozick, and in that case, they are more likely a minarchist.
Finally, a person may fundamentally deny the state, no matter how minimal it is, but believe that a number of social guarantees are necessary to maintain civil peace, and that reasonable people are quite capable of funding them on a voluntary basis because it is ultimately in their interest. In that case, this is a left-market anarchist; such people exist too.
Lately in Russia, it has become very simple to understand who possesses political agency. They are the ones the state fights against. If the state is not fighting someone, it means they are either completely under control or staying out of sight: the Russian state seems to have completely forgotten how to tolerate those who conduct noticeable independent activities.
By this criterion, it is difficult to deny political agency to the Russian anarcho-communists of Narodnaya Samoborona: they are actively persecuted, and most of their activities are forced to take place under the mask of anonymity, but if anyone is caught, it is almost always criminal charges, torture, and other trash.
I tried to examine their platform to understand how promising these guys are as allies and how dangerous they are as enemies. On the movement’s website, it is presented as a rather voluminous text. It consists of four parts; I will go through them.
This section describes how ancoms view the modern world order and its main problems. It discusses the division of labor between countries: raw material providers, industrial nations, sources of labor migrants — and the post-industrial peak of the food chain, for which all the above categories of countries toil. It is pointed out that as wealth grows in industrial countries, production must be moved to places where cheap labor still exists. It is also mentioned that the social democracy of first-world countries is a fragile compromise between power and society, maintained only through the exploitation of the rest of the world. Countries that generate problems, according to the author, fight to raise their status within this system, rather than to change the system itself. Finally, it is explained that escaping the system within a single country is impossible, because isolation from the world economy condemns a country to barbarism and poverty.
I will note that the description is generally quite correct, while the analysis is conducted in terms of almost Marxism; and although the growth of welfare in developing countries is noted, the beneficial role of the market is ignored, as is the fact that the described distribution of countries according to their place in the global division of labor correlates best with the level of economic freedom in those countries.
This section provides a historical overview of the emergence of modern types of states, stating that modern states are a product of capitalism. It discusses the growth of inequality and globalization as a logical result of the functioning of capitalism. Examples are used to explain that the state is not required for the self-organization of society, but is needed only to legitimize plunder. It is stated that all forms of state organization fail to fully account for the interests of people, and therefore there is no need to try to improve the state; it must be abolished. It also discusses the dangers of new platform-type businesses, which, in exchange for their services, place a person in a serious state of dependence on them.
I will note that the historical analysis overlooks the fact that capitalism appeared not thanks to, but despite the state: the old aristocracy was quite satisfied with total stability, and only the military efficiency of capitalism forced the state to make concessions and restructure. I also consider it important to mention that the basis of capitalism is not so much wage labor as the possibility of replacing labor with capital — it is this that increases labor productivity and, subsequently, its price.
This section describes a wonderful humanity of the future, representing a federation of direct-democracy poleis — something like the Athenian League from Themistocles to Pericles, but without a hegemon polis, and with robots instead of slaves. Instead of the market, decentralized planning should be the basis of the economy, with the collection of requests from consumers and their aggregation in automated production management systems. The problem of corruption in management and distribution is solved by frequent rotation, full involvement of citizens in the process, and where possible, the replacement of elections for positions with a lottery. To simplify distribution, comprehensive prosumerization is envisioned, where people use 3D printers and similar tools rather than ordering a finished product. Money and private property are abolished.
I will note that the author is clearly more familiar with history than with economic theory, and perhaps his views on planning will change somewhat after becoming acquainted with the impossibility theorem of economic calculation under socialism. Also completely overlooked is the factor of the lack of natural motivation for innovations, and especially for their implementation, within a planned economy. Finally, it would be good to understand to what extent the factor of the tyranny of the majority is overcome in the new society, when direct democracy tramples human freedom, forcing the individual to submit to the collective on issues that do not actually directly concern the collective. These aspects are not analyzed in the text at all.
In the final and most extensive part, the methods for building a new society are discussed. It is stated that one should not search for a permanent revolutionary class; instead, it is more important to find those with whom there is a commonality of interests. The possibility of reforming the system is categorically denied, and the necessity of its collapse is postulated. Direct action is recognized as the best way to accustom people to anarchist doctrine — the transmission of the practice of self-organization to solve various tasks through direct experience and personal example. It is pointed out that although social revolution is the only possible way to transition to a new society, it is fraught with the emergence of a revolutionary dictatorship, through which the state inevitably revives. It is also shown that early ancom societies will be forced during the transition period to operate within the global market economy — which, in turn, can easily turn any cooperative into an ordinary capitalist enterprise; therefore, once started, one must not stop but finish off capitalism worldwide.
The prospects for Russia to become the flagship of the transition to a new society are seen by the author as extremely low, so a long period of underground activity with a gradual growth of the activist network is predicted. It is stated that it is important to create not large leadership structures, but a network of small groups with maximum participant involvement and an emphasis on passing experience from veterans to neophytes. The author suggests approaching violent actions with extreme caution, as they can both inspire supporters and lead to the destruction of cells and even networks due to the reaction of the state security apparatus. Pro-state paramilitaries are indicated as a suitable target for training and demonstrating combat capabilities, as the state will not step in for them. Finally, advice on conspiracy and psychological preparation is given.
The section ends with an ellipsis: the author lists many dangers, points out that none of the previously practiced paths is capable of leading to victory on its own, and that the movement will remain marginal for a long time.
I really liked this chapter, where the author finally moves from the shaky ground of theory to things he clearly understands well and weighs all dangers quite soberly.
Summary
For me, it was important to understand what these ancoms hate more: the state or private property. If it is the former, then we are on the same path for now. If the latter, then it is better to leave them to themselves and not touch them first, while being ready to respond harshly to violence. Fortunately, it seems there is more common sense in them than outdated political-economic ideas, and the obvious bandit that the state is appears to them as a more priority target than well-meaning but mistaken guys like us, the ancaps: they are nonetheless more ready to persuade us than to kill us.
Therefore, I would like to suggest the unknown author of the text discussed above, or any other sufficiently authoritative ancom, to return the favor and analyze the libertarian platform for strengths and weaknesses, inconsistencies, prospects for alliance, and so on. As a basis for analysis, I suggest using the text on libertarianism from the Libertarian Party website — it is detailed enough, yet relatively compact, and has the advantage of being a more or less official document, which my articles, for example, are not.
And after both sides are convinced that there is a minimum understanding between them, it will be possible to consider the possibilities for cooperation.
Anarchy and Panarchy are not two opposing forms of social organization. In fact, Panarchy is primarily a method of solving the problems of social organization, and through these methods, anarchy, as well as statism or communism, or any possible social model, can be realized and implemented by those who share the idea.
Panarchists call for freedom of action for statists, as well as for all others. Everyone could have the regime and conditions they chose; in that case, they would no longer need to fear or fight one another. No more forced “marriages” with any government, army, trade union, or school. Every individual should be free to secede from any of them by making a unilateral declaration and to join or establish any alternatives they may like, always at their own expense and risk.
Panarchism is nothing other than the freedom of disconnection and connection, consistently applied in spheres where it has not yet been realized, namely in political, economic, and social relations.
Libertarians say: Let those who believe in religion have religion; let those who believe in government have government; but let those who believe in freedom have freedom and do not force them to accept a religion or government they do not want.
Charles T. Spreading
Anarchists should not threaten their faith with destruction, but they may try to convey it to them through their words or their own joint and competing examples of living.
There is no difference between consistent libertarianism and anarchism. Their common foundation is voluntarism, self-reliance, natural rights and freedoms, individual sovereignty, and free choice. It is only a matter of consumer sovereignty in relation to so-called “government services.”
Full suffrage includes the right to vote for oneself outside of any compulsory political, economic, and social system and in any system that corresponds to one’s own individual choice or invention, and to have, in addition, all other electoral powers you wish to have — but only among like-minded volunteers.
The opposition of party politics to party power does not require the opposition of political, economic, social, and military policy to individual separatism, but rather requires such consistent opposition to territorial statism and extraterritorial autonomy. Only complete extraterritorial autonomy for all dissenters can establish peace, justice, and freedom for all.
Panarchism proposes providing the possibility of conscientious objection to military service, compulsory taxation, trade unions, school attendance, and other specific compulsory practices, but also an overarching objection against all compulsory, exclusive, territorial, political, economic, and social systems, institutions, and practices. The practice of panarchism implies individual secessionism and personal or non-territorial legal organization on a voluntary basis, regardless of whether the secessionists and voluntary partners are anarchists or statists.
Panarchists will also be mistaken and repeat mistakes. But they will do so with a decisive difference:
Their mistakes will be made only at their own expense, not at the expense of politicians, bureaucrats, and ruling parties, largely at the expense of other people, even dissenters.
Panarchy also relies on the full recognition of all individual rights — to the extent that they are known, publicized, and understood. Since individual rights offer only options or spheres of free action, no matter how natural they may be for fully adult and enlightened people, they do not obligate people to use them to the full extent.
The goals and means of panarchists could be summarized with statements such as: statism for statists, anarchy for anarchists, free trade for traders, protectionism for protectionists, non-violence for pacifists, defensive force for those who see its justification against initiated aggression, capitalism among consenting adults, and any type of socialism for those who desire it for themselves.
Panarchy, once realized, will give anarchists the opportunity to enjoy anarchic relations with each other, right here and now, without interference from statists. Moreover, once anarchists accept panarchist tolerance, they will have a common platform with statists and all other minority groups who wish to maintain or implement various ideals among themselves, following panarchy.
A video with an interesting initiative has appeared on the “Dobroum-TV” YouTube channel. Anyone who wishes can, downloading and printing a flyer, distribute it in the mailboxes of an apartment building, verifying this action with a video recording, and then send the resulting proofs via direct message to a specially created Telegram account, and receive a reward in Bitcoin at a price of approximately 10 rubles per flyer.
Of course, you won’t make much money from such work, because small-batch printing will eat up most of the reward. The feeling of moral satisfaction received is far more important.
Those who enjoy this activity can also have fun by pasting anarchist stickers. To do this, you need to contact a special Telegram bot, which ensures anonymous communication. You will be provided with stickers; all you have to do is complete the quest of creatively pasting them in various unexpected places.
Finally, you can also take your own initiative to decorate your city with various creative works, from graffiti to tombstones for Putin, or set up a fund to pay for such activities. The latter is especially convenient if you are physically outside Russian jurisdiction but do not agree to simply passively observe what is happening in your homeland. A government that legislatively prohibits showing disrespect toward it looks especially funny and ridiculous, so why deny yourself the pleasure of having some fun?
I have already given a brief overview of some Telegram channels here, explaining why I subscribed to them and why I recommend them to others. Today will probably be the most exotic recommendation.
Paris Burns is a channel run by hardcore classical anarchists. There is little reasoning there; it is more of a report on practical activities. Direct reports on the life of the yellow vest movement in France, news about the case of Azat Miftakhov and other anarchists persecuted by the state, reports from crypto-forums and squats, practical techniques for online anonymization, and much, much more. I don’t encrypt my activities with the same thoroughness as these guys, but if the state starts picking on not only left-wing anarchists but also ancaps, I will have someone to learn from.
If you have a lot of strength and energy, I separately recommend browsing the channel for the “stigmergy” tag and considering whether to participate in a fun direct-action quest. If the idea seems attractive, contact the special bot, where they will explain the details, and then you can finally decide for yourself whether you are ready to join in.
Have you encountered similar strange announcements in public places?
1. What qualities does a person need to live in ancap? And to build it? 2. Given that full freedom will be provided — are there any customs or traditions that could more or less objectively negate such qualities in some perspective (and which should be avoided for practical reasons)? For some reason, as an illustration of this, Svetov’s favorite Amish, who reject technical progress and are quite isolated, come to mind.
Atomic Tram
It seems that in the dispute between Marx and McCloskey, you are on the girl’s side, and like her, you believe that having a certain technological framework is not enough to transition to a certain type of society, but a certain ideology is also needed. I also think this is the case; otherwise, my activity in instilling ancap values in people would be pointless.
I see two such key human qualities. First, a strive for freedom, otherwise where would anarchy come from? Second, a strive for wealth, otherwise where would capitalism come from?
Without the first, we easily get a classic pyramidal society where it is normal to be humiliated and to humiliate others — for the sake of grabbing a piece for oneself. Without the second, we will have an excess of conservatism, where anyone who achieves slightly more success than others would rather throw a party for the neighbors, where all the surplus is eaten up, than invest these funds to achieve even greater success in the future. Google what a potlatch is, and you will get a good illustration of what I mean.
And from here we smoothly transition to the second part of the question.
We have a society of people who value their freedom, strive for wealth, and therefore built an ancap around themselves, meaning a free market, which is then supposedly meant to resolve anything. What human quality, not contradicting the two basic ones for ancap, could gradually undermine them and lead to the destruction of a free market society?
Perhaps I can call such a quality oversensitivity. If a person is too bothered by too many things in other people, it will hinder cooperation. Yes, he may still be freedom-loving, yes, he may still strive for wealth, but he’s surrounded by such assholes! One person’s child tortures a cat; how can you buy groceries from him? Another has disgusting musical tastes, so he shouldn’t even hope for interior design. The third is a sexist; it’s a disgrace to even shit on the same hectare as him. And so the person begins to rush around, wondering where to run and where these wretched little humans will finally stop irritating him.
So ancap also cannot do without a certain healthy thick-skinnedness. The institution of reputation, so loved by ancaps, is the Trojan horse capable of “resolving” even the market!
I would say that the “left-wing movement” is precisely a typically eclectic trend, as it is a set of completely incompatible concepts. Here you have freedom of expression and political correctness. The absence of exploitation and high taxes. The right to work and war against strikebreakers. Freedom of conscience and sharia. The dictatorship of the proletariat and parliamentary democracy.
Similarly, anarchism is eclectic if considered without specifying terms via hyphens. The only thing all anarchist trends have in common is the indication of the possibility and desirability of liberating society from the state. Otherwise, anarchists have a complete muddle, from “property is sacred” to “property is theft,” from apologists of the labor theory of value to marginalists, from those who see the basis of all prosperity in the division of labor to those who see in it the root of all evil.
Anarcho-capitalism can be quite clearly depicted as the intersection of sets. You know, all those circles with shaded areas, reminiscent of the currently fashionable multicolored blobs. Everything that does not contradict economic theory is taken from anarchism, and everything that does not contradict the NAP is taken from capitalism. The result is a quite coherent doctrine, practically cleansed of eclecticism. This is easily verified: ask the same questions to a wide variety of ancaps, and you will receive answers that are very close in content. Such a trick would not work with eclectic doctrines.
I could have drawn two blobs who are friends by organism, but I’m too lazy
(I would like to ask this question someday to the evangelist of libertarianism for all of Russia, Svetov, but an ordinary person cannot live on Mikhail alone!)
Doesn’t a Homeowners Association (HOA) seem to you as a quite decent, relatively closely related to anarchism in general, socially appealing, and also relatively organizationally easy way to start your own local community?
In general, your logic is completely correct: since ancap is the natural state of society, it manifests most fully precisely in the primary cooperation between people, where state interference is absent or minimal. That is, in HOAs, dacha and garage cooperatives, shadow entrepreneurship, joint procurement organizations, and similar associations. In short, everywhere where people unite voluntarily, are guided by rules they developed themselves, delegate exactly those rights that they themselves possess, and exactly the minimum they deem necessary…
Of course, an HOA is not the most successful example of such an association, as they are more regulated than many others. Nevertheless, HOAs know how to quite effectively resist the state’s encroachments on their autonomy: they choose their own service providers, policies for the use of common property, and so on. It was the HOAs who complained the loudest when mandatory capital repair fees were introduced, and they largely managed to ensure that these fees were not thrown into a general pot but remained in the account of the HOA itself.
The following important step toward strengthening local self-governance suggests itself. The election law allows persons elected by residents’ meetings to be part of Precinct Election Commissions (PECs). Currently, the vast majority of PEC members are employees of municipal infrastructure institutions: schools, kindergartens, and the like. Some are “by place of work.” Some are “from parties.” But de facto, these are all employees of the same collective. Meanwhile, imagine a PEC that includes six apartment buildings, each with an organized HOA, and a representative from each HOA sits on the commission! And another four or five people from parties, as is customary. If such a thing were to start—people would begin electing municipal deputies en masse, and from there, it’s not far to human governors.
In general, my message is this: primary cooperation around one’s own selfish interests is the most reliable and well-trodden path to building a civil society, and whether some piece of the state will manage to be preserved in the process, or if it will be possible to get rid of it entirely—that is already largely a matter of faith.
The market will decide, amen!
Who is in favor of nominating Mikhail Svetov as a member of the PEC from the PRG?
This kind of rules are developed in precisely an anarchic way. There was no state on the roads when the first cars appeared, and when there were enough of them for a need for interaction rules to arise. Which side to drive on, how to yield to each other at intersections, how to best mark the roads — all this began to emerge even before the state intruded upon the roads.
It was only later that the state placed traffic controllers at intersections, and then traffic lights, thereby giving birth to traffic jams. It was only later that the state began to set speed limits and fine those who exceeded them. And finally, it was the state that built a vast number of highways at the taxpayers’ expense, creating non-market competition for many other ways of moving.
People easily create spontaneous order in any situation when they truly need it, and they solidify successful practices so as not to rediscover them every time, for laziness and egoism are the best harmonizers of society. Even under ideal conditions, the state is capable of creating only a passable crutch for such spontaneous order, and trying to beat with a stick everyone who sabotages the use of the crutch.
What are you staring at? Take the crutch and get going!
Also, anarchy created bitcoins, which can be used for donations: 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8
