The number of experiments being conducted in society at a given moment, or the conditional “revolutionariness,” has a good analogy with a car engine. In English, even the names coincide—you have surely noticed the RPM abbreviation on the tachometer, which stands for “Revolutions Per Minute.” If the needle is at zero, the car will not move at all; too low an RPM means poor traction and the engine may stall, and if it is in the “red zone,” the engine roars violently and fails very quickly. Only in a narrow range around 2K RPM is stable engine operation ensured, where it simultaneously provides good traction and does not fail too quickly.
Put simply, “revolutionariness” is an indicator of entropy in a system: the higher it is, the faster the development, but also the higher the probability of the system “spiraling out of control” and self-destructing. At a zero “revolutionariness” indicator, development stops, and for any living system, this means death.
A great example is the planned economy of the USSR. A quote from one article reviewing the reasons for its collapse:
“A mobilization economy of the Soviet type implies, suddenly, some task for the sake of which the mobilization is carried out. Previously, these goals were quite obvious—develop an industry like the capitalists, win the Great Patriotic War, create a nuclear bomb. Further it became more difficult: a developing economy requires the search for creative solutions for the further growth of the population’s standard of living/increasing labor productivity/searching for new energy sources and so on. In a market, this issue is solved by each agent individually at their own risk, and out of a thousand failed attempts, a couple or three correct solutions will be found. In a planned economy with a single decision-making center, experimenting is more difficult.”
Here lies the most hypocritical position of many authoritarian conservatives: they oppose any experiments in society, but at the same time, for some reason, they violently criticize the USSR. Although from the outside, it was precisely the Soviet communists with Gosplan who were the embodiment of the ideal world of conservatives, in which any experiments were maximally limited, providing a sense of “order” and a reduction of entropy. And the fact that zero entropy is death was perfectly demonstrated by the USSR in 1991, ceasing its existence. Worse still, the hypocrisy of authoritarians extends across the entire planet: they openly express a desire to ban any experiments globally (here one can recall American conservative organizations like the ADF, which pursues the goal of criminalizing homosexuality not only in the USA but also in other countries), while constantly criticizing modern globalists like Soros and Schwab.
Some people believe that a stationary bandit can be defeated exclusively by initiating violence against them. From them, one may hear calls for a violent revolution. To some, such an idea may even seem reasonable; however, look at this matter from another perspective. To carry out a violent attack, it is necessary to gather a group of people capable of it, for such a task cannot be accomplished by complete pacifists or those ready to use weapons only for self-defense. Such people will emerge, naturally supported by interest groups who are also not opposed to violence as a tool for achieving goals. These people will attack the government, maiming and killing everyone who gets in their way along the way, and seize power for themselves. What happens next?
Nothing will change! One set of violent oppressors in power will be removed, and other violent oppressors will take their place. Of course, it is quite likely that the new regime will be more liberal, as in such an unstable position, it will not risk immediately resorting to the methods of its predecessors. But the stationary bandit himself will not go anywhere; he will still try to build a monopoly on power through violence. Gradually, the new faces in power will also strive for increasingly harsh orders. This is how it has always been and always will be with monopoly political power. Or does someone really expect that people for whom using violence was previously the norm will suddenly become peaceful and kind pacifists after seizing power? It would be great naivety to believe so!
It sounds as if we are supporting the state. However, these are merely practical considerations. Since we want to achieve a free, non-violent society, it is more advantageous for activists ready for radical action to focus on balancing the potential for violence by ensuring universal armament, which will deprive the stationary bandit of the ability to effectively apply force. Or better yet, think in general about the methods of eradicating violence from society, which we constantly talk about. Non-violence and freedom cannot be achieved through the seizure of political power and a mere change of faces at the helm of the stationary bandit!
Six months ago, Mikhail spoke in Latin America and said that the state has no incentives to “leave you alone and let you live as you wish,” but it does have economic and power-based incentives not to do so.
And at the end of the lecture, he stated directly that libertarianism is a revolutionary ideology. And if you are not an extremist-revolutionary at heart, then you are not a true libertarian.
How do you feel about this statement and the lecture as a whole?
Anonymous question
With a feeling of slight nostalgia, I reread my post about the conversation between Svetov and Shulman. I noted that neither Svetov’s premonition of a civil war nor Shulman’s premonition that the government would continue to lose ground during elections came true. Instead, we have a hecatomb that Putin is orchestrating for his own voters by the hands of the AFU, which, of course, almost no one predicted back in 2018. I suppose this means that these voters are not actually that necessary to him.
In the Latin American lecture you mentioned, Svetov launched an interesting take: that we do not resist the state not because it has the biggest club, but because deep down we actually believe in its legitimacy, even if we position ourselves as ancaps. This corresponds with Belkovich’s well-known take that we already live under ancap; it’s just that all the territories have been divided among bandits, and people mostly endure their subordinate status without complaint, although, in general, they are not obliged to.
As justification for his thesis, Svetov brings onto the stage a poor Afghan with a Kalashnikov, who first drove out the Soviet and then the American “civilizers” because his belief that he alone knew how to live correctly was far stronger.
Since Svetov spent the entire first part of his lecture savoring how he was beaten and humiliated by representatives and henchmen of the state while he was organizing the coolest events in Eastern Europe, it can be concluded that he, too, believes in the legitimacy of the state deep down. After all, a proper, sincere ancap with a bunch of bitcoins would surely have found a way to personally avenge those miserable lackeys who dared to violate the NAP against him, and thus set a good example of how to deal with violators of the non-aggression principle.
As you may have noticed, my tone was always quite extremist even in Russia, and once I left the RF, it became completely unrestrained. In practice, however, my activism very rarely goes beyond tax evasion. Perhaps I am simply waiting for a talented libertarian revolutionary who will raise the people to the barricades for freedom and the market—so that I may stand under his banner. But for now, while the fiery libertarians limit themselves to looking reprovingly at the Latin American audience in search of radicals, I must also limit myself to purely peaceful activities in building my own village ancap.
Since I wasn’t far off the mark with the first part of my advice, and events unfolded quite closely to the proposed scenario (instead of arresting the entire headquarters — only the deportation of the president-elect; instead of diaspora activity — a nationwide strike), I will venture to suggest a tactic for ending the confrontation.
The essence of the tactic: no one allows any doubt that the president-elect is indeed Tikhanovskaya, and she continues to act precisely in this capacity. And what does the legitimate president-elect do? Of course, she schedules her inauguration.
There is no need to wait long. The inauguration is scheduled for the nearest Sunday, at the largest open venue in Minsk. Foreign leaders are officially invited to it. The Poles, Lithuanians, and Ukrainians will certainly agree, and another dozen leaders will announce that they are sending their representatives. Then begins a bombardment of the Belarusian Ministry of Foreign Affairs with notifications that the president of, say, Croatia gratefully accepts the invitation of the Belarusian side, arrives for the inauguration at such-and-such a time, and requests that a meeting be organized.
In the same way, the inauguration organizing committee with a straight face issues instructions to heads of agencies: organize traffic closures, provide security, set up a stage, seating for invited guests — and so on. If an official sends a refusal, an announcement of their removal from office follows, and a request is sent to the deputy.
In short, the winning side simply begins to give orders, and representatives of the losing side are faced with a choice: either they play by the new rules, or they personally drop out of the process, and tomorrow new faces occupy their offices. Orders are also given to the OMON squads — they are given a week’s leave; after all, they have just worked very hard.
Additionally, the defense side appeals to the investigative authorities with a proposal to close the cases of Tikhanovsky and Babarika in connection with newly discovered circumstances. The circumstances, in the form of a crowd of thousands speaking actively under the windows at that time, speak for themselves.
I will not elaborate on further details; I think the line of thought is more or less clear. Fake it until you make it.
After the first two acts of the play, only the final one remains to be played: we shall overcome
A certain anonymous organization with the nondescript name “Cell of Anarchic Action” is distributing the following manifesto across various near-libertarian resources (sorry guys, I corrected the spelling for you, otherwise it was impossible to read):
Revolutionary Ancap, or r-ancap
The ideology behind the active participation of anarchists in the revolutionary struggle against the state and the police.
R-ANCAP proclaims the following ideas:
1) Active NAP. If a person becomes an ancap and is ready to accept the NAP as a non-aggression pact, they must recognize that once they have accepted the NAP as an idea, they must abide by it. However, the state obstructs this, as it is the greatest violator of the NAP; therefore, after acceptance, any violent action directed from the state can be regarded as a manifestation of clear disagreement with the observance of this pact. This means that violent actions can be taken against the state, and its property can be seized and made private, as well as resistance offered to laws, police, officials, etc.
2) Agorism. Revolutionary anarcho-capitalism recognizes agorism as the basis of resistance to the state. Resistance and ignorance of it; a shadow market instead of a legal market, unions of squats forming districts that are their own closed system with an economy and rules in the form of contracts. Also, the creation of one’s own currency or method of exchange.
3) To achieve their goals, it is sometimes necessary to enter into alliances with other anarchists, creating solidarity and tolerance among anarchists, and sometimes full-fledged unions where the economic agenda is currently ignored, focusing only on the political and social—namely, the destruction of the state and opposition to coercion by other people.
4) Active Armament. Our goal is to demonstrate readiness and to arm ourselves actively to justify our capabilities for our own protection and that of other people in any case. This means only one thing: the creation of militias to protect demonstrators and private property that the state encroaches upon.
5) Instead of rights. Utilitarian ethics are also called teleological (from the Ancient Greek “teleos” – goal). Besides immediate pleasure, any utility can serve as the goal of a morally correct choice. The greater the utility, the more correct the action. But in striving for utility for oneself or one’s loved ones, a person may harm others. Therefore, one should act in a way that brings the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people. And moral principles? They should be followed, but where they conflict with practical considerations, their conventionality must be recognized. We can protect our capabilities by guaranteeing them through alliances, contracts, and our own strength, both physical and intellectual.
6) Direct Action. Actions undertaken by individuals or groups to achieve political, economic, or social goals by means that exclude the need for intermediaries. In other words, actions aimed at solving a problem directly by one’s own efforts.
The ideal example of organization is a communitarian confederation, where communes are united into a confederation.
The NAP refers only to attack, and only to violent attack, or one that led to suicide. The latter only in the presence of substantial evidence.
Attitude toward parties. For the complete rejection of political parties, even libertarian ones, considering them traitors and advocating only for associations and political clubs of interest.
Commentary by Ancap-chan
As Mikhail Svetov has repeatedly mentioned in his speeches, if the authorities do not hear those who speak from relatively moderate positions, they are replaced by real radicals. And when these radicals seize the agenda, it will be too late to talk about lustration; defenestrations will come into fashion. In the example of the aforementioned manifesto, we see one of the early examples of the changing rhetoric of protest.
Yes, it could very well turn out that another “New Greatness” stands behind this manifesto, and after some time, the security forces will simply chop off another branch. Or maybe not.
Now, a bit about what is wrong with the ideas presented. I will not argue that the NAP is not a contract, because that is unimportant. I will not say that one cannot offer forceful resistance to any attempts at state aggression. Of course, one can. I will not argue about which way of organizing society is ideal. Of course, everyone has their own; ancap simply implies non-violence when entering associations, and from there, let the market decide. I’d rather talk about utilitarianism.
The logic of human activity suggests that if there is a goal, a means should be selected for it. If the goal is the destruction of the state, the solution suggests itself: create an organization for the destruction of the state. Hence the ideas about revolutionary cells and so on. The problem is that an organization is easy to create, but difficult to dissolve. First, you carry out an Islamic revolution, then you have an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The stronger the regime, the stronger the organization needed to overthrow it must be, the less likely this organization will be to dissolve, and the more likely it will be to terrorize peaceful citizens after its victory.
Therefore, the whole point of tactics for achieving ancap is to weaken the state, not to break it immediately. Minarchists reduce its powers. Panarchists carefully cut the state along the grain so that it begins to bend and satisfy various private requests. Agorists gnaw at the roots, starving the state, and this parasite dies from neglect. But if you start breaking it by force, then instead of the absence of a state, in the best case, you get a failed state. We’ve been there.
