Is Terrorism Justified?

Terrorism is the attempt to inspire terror in a population to make their leadership do something. That is entirely the opposite of anarchism, which aims to terrorise bosses by persuading the workers to do something.

In the specific context of a civil war I think that the act of fighting such a war will destroy any revolutionary movement. There will be times where self-defence is necessary but by and large the revolution will win because soldiers will ot fight against it. When we have white guard style enemies they will be heavily outnumbered and hopefully fight poorly.

"baddies"

Captain Soap - The term "biodiversity of tactics" was first coined, to my knowledge, by the Indian acivist Arundhati Roy. Roy rightfully points out that to isolate tactics in struggle because some people may find them unacceptable is counter-productive. Specifically she is talking about the use of force in certain situations, often seen as anethema to supporters of pacifism. As we are a biodiversity of people it seems apt that this is reflected in struggle.

The 'one man's terrorist...' quote while it is often used by national liberationists is still relevant because the use of force by anyone other than the State and its minions is construed as terrorism, which is clearly not the case.

Alderson I'd say in such an immediate situation as you describe I would resort to all means necessary in a desperate situation. With respect I think it's profoundly daft to even consider discussing nuclear weapons within the context of class struggle but yes there are some things not worth considering, such as the shooting of children. The dividing line is entirely relative to the particular struggle with which you are engaged. Speculation on the issue isn't especiallly useful as there are so many possible scenarios, however looking to struggles in the past does offer a perspective.

Yeah I was more nit-picking, wondering what the "bio" part refers to (I am a biologist so don't really understand its purpose when we're not really talking about living things). It sounds like it means the same thing as "diversity of tactics". I don't really understand what "biodiversity of people" means either - we are all the same species after all. But as I said, this is just nitpicking and I agree that in struggle it can be necessary to use tactics without (or against) majority approval. We aren't democrats, after all

This being a libertarian communist community, I'm surprised that no one has pointed out that the use of terrorism, i.e. the use of violence other than as punishment for intolerable behaviour or in self-defence, is fundamentally anti-libertarian. Libertarian socialism is not just "Marxism/Leninism Light", it differs from Marxism/Leninism in that it is inherently individualist, whereas Marxism/Leninism is inherently collectivist. Yes, an individual's rights ARE inviolable; no, the ends DO NOT justify the means! If that sounds bourgeoisie to you, you might be in the wrong place: libertarian socialism has it's roots in anarchism, not in Marxism.

Apart from this being a question of principle, the use of non-constitutional violence is counterproductive in the long run, anyway. The more a movement relies on violence to deal with opposition, the less support it will have from the population, leading to more opposition that in turn calls for more violence. This vicious circle helps more ruthless elements to gain influence and thus helps establish mechanisms of terrorism that are very hard to get back out of the system, as opposition may be suppressed at times, but never disappears completely. How I see it, the libertarian socialist answer would be to meet violent opposition with self-defense and non-violent opposition with integration in the decision-making process, like it or not.

As for those democracy-being-bourgeoisie comments, direct democracy always has been a key mechanism of anarchism/libertarian socialism. I also think there seems to be some misunderstanding about "class struggle", the term itself an unfortunate relict of Marx's historicism. The goal is not to kick a certain class of people off the face of the earth, but to fuse all classes into one in a society where personal gain and fulfillment are achieved by work and innovation, not by owning capital.

Excuse my bourgeoisie way of expressing myself, but if no one has the authority to inflict violence on anyone else, we needn't be having this discussion. If, on the other hand, there is any kind of executive body that is willing to inflict violence in the interest of the community, then rights need to be considered, whether you call that body a state or not.

That wasn't a definition, it was a differentiation. The point is, in an ideal anarchist (libertarian) society, nobody has the authority to impose their will on anyone else. That is the epitome of individualism. In a collectivist society (or more precise: a society with a collectivist mindset) such as Bolshevism, the interests of the collective are valued higher than the interests of the individual. That implies that the collective or their representative have the right and/or authority to impose their will on the individual. Neither of these mindsets have anything to do with the economy being collectivist or not, that's a completely different ball game. For a comparison of the different combinations of individualist/collectivist policies and economies, I recommend Government in th Future, an essay by Noam Chomsky.

There were people arguing against democracy in general.

And the following quote in reference to the use of violence doesn't seem to me to be in accordance with libertarian democratic standards, either:

I didn't say Marx wanted to annihilate large groups of people, I said that a lot of people seem to misunderstand Marx's concept of class struggle, implying that it's all about proletariat vs. bourgeoisie, them or us. Yes, public ownership of means of production will lead to a single class society - call it a classless society, same thing.

Btw, I'm quite well read in Marx, well enough to recognize his subtle dialectics and historicism rooted in the philosophy of Hegel, a philosopher I have little consensus with.

Have you ever tried 'inflicting violence'? It really is tremendous fun, I'd reccomend it to anyone.

"Rights need to be considered." Why? Surely if said executive is under absolute democratic control, the violence it inflicts will naturally cause the greatest pleasure for the greatest number. "Rights" don't enter into it. It's a question of costs and benefits for the community, considered in terms of sheer human fulfillment, not some list of rights. Now, possibly by 'rights' you mean simply 'human pleasure', but that's not the usual meaning of the term.

How can you have an 'interests of the collective' that is seperate from the interests of the individual people in the collective? If what you're actually saying is that the interests of one individual are subordinated to the interests of many individuals, then I'm behind that 100%. I can't see why anyone wouldn't be, "individualist" or otherwise. Otherwise, I have no idea what you are talking about.

The majority aren't libertarian. Therefore, according to libertarianism, we shouldn't be libertarians until everyone esle is. We should clearly go along with the majority. Except without subordinating the individual to the collective.

Clearly the class struggle is just a misunderstanding based on Marx's historicism. After all, he invented it. And it's amazing that you've worked out that Marx's dialectics are rooted in Hegel - you should tell people about this, it seems like something the world needs to know.

Tan murkh hos.

~J.

PS: I missed a spot...

No, it isn't. Without reproduction, you die. We can't live without a constant supply of the means of life. Do you really imagine that people's mindsets have nothing to do with the way in which those minds are sustained? That people's ideas really do float above the material world like that? Sounds pretty ridiculous to me.

~J.

I see several flaws in that theory. I disagree that you can trade off harm and pleasure in absolute quantities regardless of qualities. Vote equals vote, but interest does not equal interest. Also, an individual is not free if she is exposed to the caprice of any given majority. A majority's impression of will on a minority is still an act of authority, no matter if the majorities and minorities chance every time. The closest we can get to freedom is by guaranteeing her the right of inviolacy in all her actions that are not in conflict with justified interests of others.

If, for example, a philosopher spends his time teaching any free, male citizen who asks to question tradition and the free, male citizens of the community decide via direct democracy to sentence him to death for "corrupting the youth", then I don't see how the sum of satisfaction achieved by those who wanted him dead weighs more than the harm done to him. You might argue that we can trust people to be reasonable, but a quick look on history tells me that relying on the people to be reasonable would be the Achilles' heel of any system. (Btw, the example above is the true story of Socrates.)

"The interests of one individual are subordinated to the interests of many individuals" = collectivism
"Inviolacy in all actions that are not in conflict with justified interests of others" = individualism

These two concepts conflict in that according to the former, an individual's freedom, well-being and even life may be sacrificed as pawns for some "greater good", according to the latter they may not. One could argue that (despite an atmosphere of fear of unjustly becoming a victim of the system) such "greater goods" weigh more than whatever would be sacrificed, but again history shows that such greater goods rarely turn out as hoped. Our moral responsibility towards every single individual is a bird in the hand, the ultimately just society is two birds in the bush. That's not to say we shouldn't reach out for those two birds, but while doing so we mustn't let go of the one we have (is that not dripping with rhetoric? ). And that brings us back to why the use of terrorism shouldn't be an option.

That is by no means in accordance with libertarianism, if you ask me. According to libertarianism, leave people to be the way they want to be and don't impose your will on them. (Of course, there is nothing to be said against educating those willing to listen.)

I don't see what here gives cause for sarcasm. Marx's collectivist view on what society's priorities should be are based on his historicism, which he inherits from Hegel's historicism, which is highly problematic from an epistemological point of view. Read Karl Popper: The Poverty of Historicism (Popper being the authority in philosophy of science).

I guess I was asking for it, someone was bound to come up with "life is economy, economy is life" argument. Yes, that is true to a wide extent, but we must account for the fact that the word collectivism gets used in two different senses: in an economical sense where it means sharing the means of production (see Merriam-Webster) and in an socio-idealistic sense where it (more or less) has the definition I gave (actually, you gave - the Encyclopædia Britannica gives a similar one) above. Both authoritarian socialists and liberal capitalists like to pretend that the one consequently leads to the other and that both are the same thing, usually using the "life is economy, economy is life" argument, but in reality they are not: economic collectivism (sharing the means of production) IS compatible with idealistic individualism (inviolacy in all actions that are not in conflict with justified interests of others), whereas idealistic collectivism is not, as argued above.

But if you don't believe me, read the essay by Noam Chomsky I recommended last post, he's a renowned and leading libertarian socialist, in case you didn't know. In the essay he compares four forms of government: economic liberalism with socio-idealistic individualism (classic liberalism), economic liberalism with socio-idealistic collectivism (state capitalism), economic collectivism with socio-idealistic collectivism (Bolshevism and other form of authoritarian socialism) and economic collectivism with socio-idealistic individualism (libertarian socialism) - coming to the conclusion the libertarian socialism is best (of course).

Of course you can't. That would be a perfect, utopian society. I am arguing for a society that is somewhat closer to this than what we currently have: where violence, as well as all other human abilities, are collectively controlled by all (and therefore deployed for the good of all).

So you in fact agree with the views you are reading into the earlier posts on this thread: by your definition of oppression, democracy is oppressive.

And who will keep the lists of justified and unjustified interests, and how will they be determined, updated and, most importantly, enforced? Who will be our shield against the 'violation' of those actions which are 'justified'? Whose watchful gaze will keep lookout for the violators and whose wrathful justice deal out punishment to them?

Your 'right of inviolacy' is a hollow freedom - a freedom from that leaves us with freedom to nothing at all. It is absolutely identical with the self-ownership rights which the liberal far-right bleat about in their impotent utopias. Your anarchism is little better than Murray Rothbard's.

"The interests of one individual are subordinated to the interests of many individuals" = collectivism
"Inviolacy in all actions that are not in conflict with justified interests of others" = individualism

So in fact, individualism has nothing do with being in favor of individuals, of their pleasure, of their development, their flowering and self-expression. Individualism actually means the iron rule of 'justified interest' over the right of individuals to associate for their own interests, whether they are justified or not. Indeed, only one thing seems missing in your perfect world - the invincible, all-seeing knower and enforcer of justice. For he cannot be democracy, which has already been heartily denounced. God, perhaps? Buddha? Vishnu? Or you yourself?

I did not say 'some greater good' I said the maximum pleasure for all the individuals concerned. It's by no means a vague or shadowy concept, it's quite clearly stated.

Once could, and I would argue that greater pleasure (let's not use good, 'tis a vague term) is greater than lesser pleasure. That is, I would argue that if I did not want to get weird looks and a sympathetic 'are you feeling all right, son?' from whoever I was arguing with. Granted, there will be mistakes; granted, sometimes it won't work out as planned; but surely if human beings are even slightly rational it will work out more often than not.

I should add that plenty of harm has been dealt by those arguing for the 'inviolacy' of others too. It was 'self determination' that justified the Falklands war - indeed, almost every war in recent history has begun with someone or other claiming that such-and-such a person or persons is having their 'sovreignty', 'self-determination', 'justified interests' or some such meaningless term infringed upon.

If it is 'morality' that motivates us, we surely have a 'moral responsibility' to bring about a 'moral' society. Even accepting your own moralistic framework, it would be impossible for me to agree to your claim that moral responsibility and the pursuit of justice are two quite distinct things. The only difference you can put between them is that 'history shows' that the pursuit of justice oft ends in disaster, and that 'no system is perfect'. But this is equally true of our own morality: many people have done barbaric things motivated by morals, and no body is so perfect that they can be perfectly moral and never 'violate' anyone's 'just interests' even supposing that these were real concepts rather than abstract nonsense.

Or, as someone put it earlier in the thread, there's room for minorities which don't go along with what the majority want.

I don't see what here gives cause for sarcasm.

But it's so much fun.

I am myself an amateur student of the philosophy and history of science, and Karl Popper is by no means the authority on either. (Not that it matters, because as you said earlier in the same post, authority = bad.)

The democratic management of the means of production - collectivism, to use you term - is not separable from their 'sharing'. Sharing means using together, using together means everyone having a say, means democracy. What is shared? The physical, concrete means of production are not to be broken up into chunks and actually handed around to everyone - that would be preposterous. What is shared is control. Sharing control means democracy.

Only where 'sharing' means something other than 'sharing control'. I am at a loss as to what else it reasonably could mean.

It seems to me that when you say 'share the means of production' you in fact mean simply that private property as it exists now should be done away with in favor of anyone controlling the means of production whenever they feel like it - but, 'only when it is in their justified interests'. Once again, the problem of who justifies comes to the fore. But this aside, what you describe is not sharing. Sharing is when I give some of my lunch to my friend at work because he slept in this morning and forgot to pack his - we distribute it according to a mutual agreement. What you're advocating isn't sharing, it's just a free-for-all moderated by 'justified interests'.

Actually, he really isn't. He's a leading academic, and a renowned libertarian socialist. However, his ideas aren't that important within libertarian socialism itself. Most anarchists I know don't regard his political thought as all that important or unusual. He's certainly on the far moderate side of the anarchist spectrum.

And if you don't believe me then I doubt referring you to some Great Leader's book will make any difference, no matter how renowned they may be. If I can't persuade you, then I doubt that my bibliography can.

~J.

(Sorry, that was fucking long. I really need to edit more...)

Actually, I don't see what you could possibly be suggesting either - unfortunately, you have directly contradicted what AWF actually said he thought you were suggesting:

(emphasis mine)

The two concepts are not reconcilable: either something is inviolable, or it is open to revision. Which is it? If the latter, laws are subservient to the needs of the collective. If the former, they are not subservient to the needs of the many, but would therefore require an external enforcer. You can have a or you can have b, but not both. If what was said by AWF was what you meant, why did you not say that instead of saying something which directly contradicts it?

I really am going to be pissed off if it turns out that this whole tedious exchange was simply based on your inability to communicate...

But if it makes them unhappy, then it clearly does.

I see - until then the democratic decision-making process is held in check by Merlin and his magic stick: in this fairy tale, democracy exists only within the scope allowed by justified interests. If the majority are defending justified interests, all to the good. If not, democracy is promptly suspended. Somehow.

Self-fulfillment and pleasure being utterly different, of course - one is a "cheap excuse" for the exploitation of minorities, the other the highest principle of human social life. Thank you for making your position so much clearer.

That aside, there is the issue of freedom. Now, your freedom is not simply the freedom to do what you want, because any rules or prohibitions or rights would limit that. Yours is the freedom to do what you want so long as it does not violate the justified interests of others. But lo and behold, the justification or otherwise of these interests can only be determined with reference to rights in the first place! In actual fact, it is impossible for any 'right' to limit freedom (your definition of it) since they are built in to the definition of freedom, and any right is, de facto, not a limit to freedom.

Right, so your basic response to the single biggest gaping hole in your vision of a free society - the problem that it depends on people consistently not doing what it would give them pleasure to do - is that, err, people just won't do it is all. It'll just be 'inherent'. You then suggest that it could be formulated in a constitution. Formulated by who? For whom? Even supposing it could be done democratically, by everyone in the whole world, which would result in the 'rights' and 'justified interests' corresponding roughly to people's needs and pleasures at the specific point in time at which it is formulated, it would invariably become more and more outdated as time wore on and conditions changed. Perhaps it could be updated - but then it would not be inviolable, or more specifically it would be violable by whoever made the decision to change it. Presumably democratically, presumably by the majority. In which case you have the majority able to 'violate' the 'rights' of the minority, in which case you don't really disagree with me, you just like to say you do.

Now, I respect the fact that you're ridiculing the way 'bourgeois' is used as a smear word by certain people on the left who don't really know what it means, or who know what it means but find it convenient to have curse words to throw at people.

But there is a reason that bourgeois states often have a constitution: life in modern society is built on people acting against their own interests much of the time. Particularly the proletariat, but also the bourgeois themselves - who after all have to subordinate their own subjectivity to ensure their reproduction. 'Rights' exist partly to stop people from doing things that would result in pleasure for them, but which undermine the rules of the system of private property, on which the power of the state (which came up with the constitution) is founded.

Look buddy, if you can't stand the heat...

Not according to either of our definitions of collective control, I'm not: I already said that our abilities would be collectively controlled. Means democracy, means majority. Nice try, but you have to be thorough to be pedantic.

"Untamed" "absolute" democracy is bad, you mean. As opposed to a tame (tamed by who?) semi-democracy kow-towing before the holy 'individualist rights' which come from nothing and need no enforcing, and will be adopted voluntarily despite being different from human pleasure (what people want).

Rothbard's anarchism is founded on the inviolability of a person's individual rights. So is yours. The only difference is that the two of you disagree on what those rights are. Neither of you really know how those rights could be upheld, exhibiting only a vague optimism that they would be. In fact, the only real difference between you is that Rothbard includes homesteading private property rights in his scheme and you don't. You are both closer to one another than you are to my own libertarianism.

That said, I apologize for using the word 'anarchism' too freely. It would indeed have been more correct to say 'your libertarianism'.

I can't be serious, and I obviously wasn't. I was (not very) subtly pointing out that equating the authority of state power to the authority of a democracy to make collective decisions is preposterous, by alluding to another use of the term authority which is obviously not equatable with either.

No, that's just a little humor. It wasn't very funny, but it brightened my day. Your deadpan response to it, however, is hilarious.

Resigned to another lengthy reply tomorrow,

~J.

Those are interesting questions, BigLittleJ, please don't let this post distract you in answering them. Nonetheless, I do feel inclined to respond to some of your allegations (not that I feel that it's leading anywhere).

It's a matter of perspective. Every form of social organization is convention and not set in stone. A majority can always use it's sheer numbers to alter or overthrow any system. In some systems the ruling elite would use force to try and prevent this, but apart from the fact that there is no ruling elite in a libertarian socialist society, the use of force would obviously contradict every aspect of the individualist principles I have been advocating! So, is a majority capable of overthrowing an individualist maxim? Yes. Is it legitimized to do so? In my eyes, no. As I've already stated, dropping such a maxim would not be to the advantage of a society (I am not willing to count an increase of personal interference as an increase of overall pleasure), it can only be to the disadvantage of it's minorities, and therefore to the disadvantage of all individuals, as the individual is the smallest minority. I personally think that society has a moral obligation to protect its minorities (from itself), but that, of course, is an individualist standpoint. I always saw anarchism as being inherently individualist, as it's goal is to maximize the individual's freedom, and a non-individualist approach would inevitably lead to tyranny of the majority. That given (an inherent "live and let live" maxim within anarchism, and I said that just before the line you quoted), then individualist rights that are deductible from that maxim ARE inviolable within a libertarian socialist society, because if the society decides to violate them, it is no longer libertarian, and anarchism has failed in my eyes.

So if A is Hindu and B and C are Christians, and it makes B and C unhappy that A will burn in hell for worshipping idols, how is this situation limiting their freedom or hindering their own self-fulfilment, and do you really think B and C are, as a majority, legitimized to prevent A from worshipping his gods?

Quit the polemics, if B or C can't plausibly exhibit how action X limits their freedom or hinders their self-fulfilment, the appropriate council would simply dismiss the case.

I didn't say pleasure is a cheap excuse for the exploitation of minorities, I said the concept of "securing the greatest pleasure for the greatest number" seems to me to be a cheap excuse for the exploitation of minorities. But if pleasure can be gained by prohibiting other people to do things that don't need to bother me, then yes, self-fulfillment and pleasure are utterly different.

What exactly are you criticising? I hadn't actually defined freedom at all, but granted, I said freedom and meant freedom to do what you want so long as it does not violate the justified interests of others. I would argue that that is the maximum amount of freedom that can be achieved in a society. Freedoms conflict. The pedophile's freedom do what he desires conflicts with children's freedom to be without fear of rape. A mob's freedom to lynch everyone they don't like conflicts with everyone's freedom to express unpopular opinions (and this is still true if the mob uses democratic decision-making processes).

I don't see what the fuss is about, what I am purposing is a lot more like what we know from the societies we live in right now than what you are. Swap representative democracy with direct democracy, alter property rights (on the basis that as they are, they allow capitalists to accumulate economic power via capital, which is in conflict with justified interests of those whom that power is exercised on), add access to means of production rights (on the basis that without them, the proletariat are hindered in their self-fulfilment), a few other adjustments to the constitution and decentralization of other state institutions, and hey presto, you have a individualist libertarian socialist society! We already know it will sustain itself, as it is most people wouldn't even change their current constitution even though they were never asked if they wanted it in the first place.

What about your system? What regulating mechanism will prevent your society from voting itself straight back to capitalism and class struggle, or worse? What's to stop majorities from excluding minorities from the decision-making process, thus creating a new elite?

As I've said, I hold the maxim that every individual should be free of interference in all actions that are not in conflict with justified interests of others to be inviolable, with it stands and falls any truly libertarian society. From that maxim can be derived basic principles, e.g. that everyone can choose their own religion or set of beliefs, that everyone can define their own sexuality, that everyone can participate in the democratic decision-making process, etc., as these are things that are not going to conflict with anyone's freedom or self-fulfilment. I don't see a future where such principles would be "outdated", although I can well imagine a future where populist demagogues claim that such principles are outdated in order to oppress or exploit minorities.

If these principles are to be established as rights, then yes, they would have to be legitimized and they would have to be adjustable (along the lines of the individualist maxm), and none other than the people of the society itself would have the authority to do so. Of course it's unrealistic to expect that all the people agree on these rights, but I strongly suggest that legitimizing and adjusting them should require more that a simple 50% majority.

I won't argue that constitutions haven't been misused to secure unjustified interests of capital holders (although I am rather inclined to believe that the limition of freedom and hinderence in self-fulfilment of people without capital that resulted from the property and trading rights was simply overlooked at first). But that doesn't mean a constitution can't be used as an instrument to stabilize an otherwise fluctuating democracy. Democracy itself has been misused in the past, that doesn't mean it's a worthless mechanism.

If something is being controlled collectively, then it is being controlled by a collective, but that collective certainly doesn't include those that were outvoted. Rather, if those that were outvoted are obligated to participate despite their reluctance, then they are being controlled and certainly not doing any controlling, themselves. And that human abilities are not neccessarily deployed for the good of all in this system is easily shown when the collective decides to direct its abilities against its own minorities. Thorough enough?

I admit, I don't really know much about Rothbard. If your description is accurate, I don't see what distinguishes his stance from classical liberalism. In any case, if he allows for people to accumulate economical power through capital, then he's not libertarian (whoever that power is exercised on is limited in their freedom and/or hindered in their self-fulfilment - I've said that before, but it can't be said enough).