Тег: power

Svetov

There is something humiliating about reacting to an information agenda set by other people whose influence far outweighs their usefulness, so this post appears somewhat late, after everyone who wanted to has already spoken out. The formal reason for this text was a question from a subscriber who introduced himself as Tidvik’s dad:

Please share your opinion on Svetov’s latest text about abandoning idealism and merciful rule. Is this a departure from libertarian ideals and a transition into cynical realpolitik? Or is it simply disillusionment and an admission of the opposition’s impotence? And what does Hoppe have to do with it?

On March 5, Mikhail Svetov posted the text Farewell to Idealism (on the mercy of power), which he characterized as “my best text since the state is anarchy” (I also did not want to react to that video, and I also managed to hide behind answering a subscriber’s question).

In the video “The state is anarchy,” Svetov attacks the idea of natural rights and explains its emergence by stating that people had only just killed God and were fascinated by materialism. In the new article, Svetov, on the contrary, repents for having been an idealist (though he says “we” instead of speaking for himself, and his former party colleague goes hard on this topic).

Actually, I rather admire it when a person states: “previously I said this or that, such and such facts forced me to change my position, now I believe this or that.” All Svetov lacks is to add, “because of my mistake, I caused harm to such and such people, I apologize, and I am ready to compensate somehow, if possible.” However, even Navalny never managed to reach such heights of self-awareness. But even this is already better than the classic mid-air flip-flopping, where a change in discourse goes uncommented, and reminders of former views are met with bewilderment, in the spirit of “Did I say that? I can’t believe it. Next question.”

As usual, Svetov introduces strange definitions of terms. If he previously defined anarchy as a state of war of all against all (meaning that since 2019, he can no longer call himself an ancap), he has now defined power as the ability to induce desired behavior from people. Thus, power belongs to a good advertiser whose product is bought, to a good orator whose agenda catches on with the masses, to a rapist dragging a victim into the bushes, and to an official issuing a demolition order for a house. And, of course, to a tyrant deciding what to smear on his political opponent’s underwear. Such a definition does not allow a libertarian to distinguish which power is worth striving for and which is not, but now Mikhail can confidently assert that “there is no scenario in which principles can rely on anything other than power.” Of course it would be, if we expand the definition of power so disgracefully that it includes absolutely any influence.

Svetov’s post was quite warmly received by the Center for Republican Research. It was dedicated two whole reviews from different authors — Daria Kormanovskaya and Andrey Bystrov. Mikhail was congratulated on his position approaching the republican one, recommended literature, and noted minor flaws — in short, they effectively welcomed him into their ranks.

It is also said that his post was warmly received by official Russian propaganda, but fortunately, I am not obliged to familiarize myself with it, so I am completely unaware of the details.

Among Svetov’s sharp critics, I would mention Michael Naki, who emphasized the most important thing lacking in Mikhail’s activities: for quite a long time now, they have been far from any practical application. Mikhail Svetov’s last practical project was the late Moscow club Novaya Iskrennost. But since emigrating, he has focused entirely on maintaining his information resource, which, nowadays, amounts to nothing; bloggers have become as common as dirt, and the activity itself has significantly devalued, unless, of course, a blogger directs their earnings toward something practical, such as Michael Naki organizing fundraisers for the AFU. So it turns out that in this Farewell to Idealism, Svetov simply stated that you, supposedly, are doing everything wrong, but did not outline new landmarks for his potential supporters. It is not surprising that quite many readers concluded: Svetov is suggesting you throw up your hands and surrender to the mercy of the authorities, claiming they are more merciful than how you write about them.

I think Svetov doesn’t engage in practical activities simply because he is bad at it. All the public organizations he belonged to were dismantled by him. His offline business was opened flagrantly late and, quite predictably, was killed by the merciful authorities. So he devotes himself to those pursuits he still feels an affinity for: following the news, commenting on it, and occasionally reflecting on the vanity of existence. Maybe just let the old man rest in retirement instead of demanding action?

And finally, some positivity so as not to resemble Mikhail Svetov. If you want action, in conditions where the merciful authorities are diligently weeding out any public organizations, then the action must be partisan. If you believe it is more important to weaken Putin—your path leads to Rospartizan. If you believe it is more important to empower yourself and gain that very strength without which there is no right—your path leads to agorism. Implementing various agoristic practices is exactly what I am doing.

What matters is not what people strive for, but how they do it

Voluntarist, Bitarch

The fundamental difference between the idea of a free society and any statist ideology is not which specific model of social organization their proponents strive for, but the methods they use to realize these aspirations. If the difference consisted only of end goals, there would be no fundamental difference at all. Indeed, any model of socio-economic organization and system of relationships between subjects can be implemented in a free society based on the principle of non-violence, voluntary agreements, and within the framework of free associations. In contrast, political ideologies always propose one specific social model that must be mandatorily implemented for all people, including through violent coercion.

When people encounter an idea of social organization that is unfamiliar to them, they almost always start asking questions such as “how will such-and-such a problem be solved within the framework of this idea.” Such an approach to understanding ideas is not surprising, as most of them offer a specific and single solution for everyone. People are used to the idea that a universal goal must be chosen, mandatory for everyone under threat of violence. However, if one tries to explain the ideas of freedom within these boundaries, it will likely fail—the listener will evaluate your answer based on their own preferences and conceptions of possible solutions, which may not coincide with your positions at all. Obviously, in their eyes, this will make the ideas of freedom appear unattractive, or even completely untenable.

Of course, modeling possible solutions is important, and the resulting answer can still serve as a convincing argument; however, it cannot be anything more than a supplement to the main argumentation. And the main argumentation itself must show people what was mentioned in the previous paragraph—that a specific and mandatory solution does not exist!

But how, then, will a particular problem be solved? Very simply—in the way the person themselves wants, based on their own preferences and views. In whatever way each person approaches the solution to their problems, that is how they will be solved. As for questions and problems common to many people, they will be solved based on how people agree to solve them. Each person can unite in associations with other people to create their own social order, which extends to the members of that association.

Therefore, it is necessary to ask the listener how they themselves would solve a particular problem if the ability to make the decision were in their own hands, and if the implementation extended to those who have corresponding agreements with them or participate in the same association. Their answer to your question will also be an answer to their own question. Only in this way can the idea of a free society be explained most accurately and attractively. Only then can it be conveyed that it consists of a method—freedom of activity, agreement, and association, as well as non-violent coexistence—while the goals themselves can be completely different.

Of course, this will not sound convincing to those who unconditionally believe that the realization of their personal aspirations, or the aspirations of some association sharing their views, requires the violent coercion of other people to accept their ideals. In such a situation, it is likely necessary to use arguments demonstrating the negative externalities of violence and discrediting it as a phenomenon as a whole. But if even this does not sound convincing, then all that remains is to end the conversation. After all, explaining something to people who have strong violent convictions (or even tendencies toward committing violence) is simply pointless; they can only be pressured by condemnation, ostracism, and various sanctions, and one should prepare to defend oneself from them, for they will seek to force you into submission by power at the first opportunity.