Liberty Cabbage

Southern Leftist ♥️ Libertarian Socialist ♥ Rage Factory

[libertycabbage-blog]

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it."

Upton Sinclair

[libertycabbage-blog]

"Let the capitalists do their own fighting and furnish their own corpses and there will never be another war on the face of the earth."

Eugene V Debs

[libertycabbage-blog]

Burke on Aristocracy

"The state of civil society, which necessarily generates this aristocracy, is a state of nature; and much more truly so than a savage and incoherent mode of life. For man is by nature reasonable; and he is never perfectly in his natural state, but when he is placed where reason may be best cultivated, and most predominates...We are as much, at least, in a state of nature in formed manhood, as in immature and helpless infancy." --  Edmund Burke, The Conservative Mind

Ah, now here is some true contradiction. Earlier in his writings, Burke attacked Rousseau's ideas of Liberty and Democracy. He believed that the state must always exist to save men from their own passions, as he believed the state to be necessary to protecting men from the brutality of other men. Yet, here we have Burke claiming that aristocracy is the "state of nature" of civil society.

In trying to interpret this and his other writings, it appears that Burke defends aristocracy like John Adams - as any system whereby one individual controls the voice of more than one person. Adams asserts that this type of aristocracy is inevitable in any society, and I don't think anyone could doubt him. That said, what I find detestable is the type of coercion used in an aristocracy, not the existence of the aristocracy itself. Burke defends the idea that those of esteemed property, birth, and education should control the nature of man - an idea I find hard to reconcile with the modern American views of conservatism and an idea that should be detested by anyone with a modicum of respect for any Libertarian (socialist, AnCap, etc.) principle. Burke overtly denies any beliefs in giving people full agency over their own well-being, and it appears that Traditional Conservatism is just a fancy word to defend an Oligarchy. I can't imagine that half of the people claiming to be "conservative" truly believe that those with the most money should be given free reign to corral, coerce, maintain, and dictate over the hungry masses, but then again, that still means that at least some of those people genuinely do maintain that belief. And that is indeed a scary fucking thought.

Further Reading:

The Conservative Mind by Russell Kirk

[libertycabbage-blog]

Conservative “Acceptance”

"Conservatism never is more admirable than when it accepts changes that it disapproves, with good grace, for the sake of a general conciliation; and the impetus of Burke, of all men, did most to establish that principle." --  Russell Kirk, The Conservative Mind

Okay, but no?

Maybe I'm just being semantic over the word "acceptance" here, but Burke spent his entire career railing against things he disapproved of. Sure, he wasn't lobbing bombs on Thomas Jefferson's house, but there's a world of difference between violent opposition to and genuine acceptance of things you find distasteful. Spending time, money, and political influence trying actively to change the law is not "acceptance," and if Burke is to be the man "to establish that principle" of acceptance for conservatism, then I'm afraid conservatives will never truly accept any view contrary to their own.

Further Reading:

The Conservative Mind by Russell Kirk

[libertycabbage-blog]

Conservatives and Prejudice

"A prejudice is by no means (though generally thought so) an error; on the contrary, it may be a most unquestioned truth, though it be still a prejudice in those who, without any examination, take it upon trust and entertain it by habit...The bulk of mankind have neither leisure nor knowledge sufficient to reason right;; why should they be taught to reason at all? Will not honest instinct prompt, and wholesome prejudices guide them, much better than half-reasoning?" Lord Chesterfield, The Conservative Mind

While I can understand this condemnation of "half-reasoning," it is simply preposterous to assume that prejudice - which is essentially a guess based on upbringing - acts as a "much better" system of processing new information. Reason tells us that equal work ought to receive equal pay. If two humans have done the same labor, they should be paid equally. However, centuries of prejudice has prevented such a simple concept from being adopted outright. Reason tells us that workers, who work daily within an organization, ought to have a democratic voice in the management of said organization. Yet prejudices, held by capitalists on the nature of private property, are holding back this idea for selfish interests and the old "we've always done it this way" mentality. Reason made it plainly obvious that the African-American living in the South ought to have the same opportunities provided to him as to his white neighbors; yet prejudice dictated that slavery, Jim Crow, and the institutionally racist prison system should hold out against this plain reason a while longer.

Prejudice is the antithesis to growth. If we are to grow into any semblance of a free, honest, or - hell- even Christian nation, we must not be afraid to cut out the toxic prejudices of our fathers. The conservative's refusal to address the problems inherent in prejudice is a sign of moral ineptitude that has no place in the modern era.

Further Reading:

The Conservative Mind by Russell Kirk

[libertycabbage-blog]

The Dangers of Militant Social Darwinism

"This aspiration [pacifism] is directly antagonistic to the great universal laws which rule all life. War is a biological necessity of the first importance, a regulative element in the life of mankind which cannot be dispensed with, since without it an unhealthy development will follow which excludes every advancement of the race, and therefore all real civilization." --  General Friedrich von Bernhardi, 1911

Very few advocated for war in the same direct, brutish manner as General Bernhardi. He was a Franco-Prussian War veteran who simply couldn't get enough. He was vocally opposed to all form of peace treaty and, as a military historian and prolific writer, he spread his ideas throughout the German military. According to Bernhardi, war was the "right" of all peoples. Again, his incessant devotion to Social Darwinism lead him to believe that war was the only possible way to advance mankind. To a certain extent, its clear that this idea has never been fully eliminated. Even today, we see countries, such as the United States, taking it upon themselves to "advance" other countries via force(Yemen, Iran, Syria, Somalia) towards "democracy," "freedom," and, of course....a capitalistic economic model that relies on the United States for trade. What a bizarre coincidence.

Further Reading:

July 1914: Soldiers, Statesmen, and the Coming of the Great War by Van Wyk and Williamson

[libertycabbage-blog]

More 19th Century German Militarism

"The essential function of the State is the conduct of war...Without war, no state could be. All [the States] that  we know of arose through war, and the protection of their members by armed force remains their primary and essential task. War, therefore, will endure to the end of history, as long as there is a multiplicity of states. The laws of human thought and human nature forbid any alternative, neither is one to be wished for. The blind worshiper of eternal peace falls into the error of isolating the State, or dreams of one which is universal, which we have already seen to be at variance with reason." --  Heinrich von Treitschke, 1897

As promised, here is another German statesman writing on the necessity for war as a cornerstone of Germany's foreign policy in the late 19th century. Von Treitschke was a die-hard social Darwinist who supported every military endeavor as a chance to separate the weak from the strong. His callous, combative writings as a member of the Reichstag only serve to help demonstrate the growing wave of militant imperialism in Germany's geopolitical strategy - Weltpolitik.

I shouldn't have to go into why this is such a stupid and dangerous ideology. We have two World Wars to highlight the problems in believing that war is a tool to be used at will, rather than as a vicious beast that needs to be contained.

Further Reading:

July 1914: Soldiers, Statesmen, and the Coming of the Great War by Van Wyk and Williamson

[libertycabbage-blog]

Centralizing Power: What Could Go Wrong?

“The emperor will determine the strength, organization, and structure of the contingents in the imperial army, as well as the organization of the provincial armies, and he has the right to determine the garrisons within federal borders as well as to order the mobilization of any part of the imperial army.” —  Constitution of the German Reich, 1871-1919

In Van Wyk and Williamson’s July 1914, they make a pretty clear point that one of the chief catalysts to the Great War was the horrendous military/civil structure of some of the participating countries. In Germany, the centralization of military power or the overreach of that power into the civilian realm only served to aid in the disastrous grand strategy of Weltpolitik. When you have a stated expansionist goal, you almost need war to be successful. And to be fair, Russia had a similar situation in that the Tsar had the final say in all things dealing with foreign affairs or the military, but Kaiser Wilhelm was undeniably more war-hungry than his Russian counterpart. And that’s the problem with military centralization – it foolishly opens the pathway to unchecked domination. A centralized, militant state gets an almost myopic view of the world. It sees every event, every conflict, as a contest. Coupled with the short-sighted views of the “Social Darwinists,” a military so hierarchical is always one pugnacious general away from total war.

There will be a handful of other quotes in the next few days exemplifying German militarism and support for an forceful foreign policy, and while Germany was certainly an aggressive entity during the Great War, I can’t emphasize enough that Germany was not at all alone in combative foreign affairs. Austro-Hungarian Foreign Minister Leopold Berchtold loved the idea of militant diplomacy. Any analysis of French military writings clearly shows that much the French military had wanted war with Germany since the loss of Alsace-Lorraine.  Serbian leaders like Apis blatantly wanted a war to dissolve the Habsburg Empire. British Foreign Minister Edward Grey outright wanted to end German industrialism and refused to even speak with Berlin in the early days of the conflict. Basically, what I’m trying to say is that there were no “clean” hands during the first World War.

Further Reading:

July 1914: Soldiers, Statesmen, and the Coming of the Great War by Van Wyk and Williamson

The Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman

[libertycabbage-blog]

Laborious Survival

"For the great majority of people, there is no life, merely laborious survival." --  David Thoreau Wieck, "Essentials of Anarchism"

And this finishes my work on Robert Hoffman's Anarchism. Under the oppression that is capital, industrial efficiency, bureaucratic overreach, imperialism, an unjust prison system, and a crumbling environment, the vast majority of us aren't living...we are just trying to stay afloat.

Here's to hoping I get some more inspirational reading done in the future. Now that I know how to identify more of the problems, let's work towards finding some solutions. After all, we outnumber them. :)

Further Reading:

Anarchism edited by Robert Hoffman

[libertycabbage-blog]

Nikola Pasic Saving Face

"Serbia wants friendly governments to know that Serbia desires 'friendly' relations with Austria-Hungary and has prevented attempts from our territory that would disturb the peace and security of the neighboring empire. The Serbian government would also accept any Austro-Hungarian request that demanded that the participants of the crime, if they could be found, be brought before an 'independent court.' But Serbia cannot accept demands which would not be acceptable to any government that presumes its own independence and dignity."

-- Serbian Prime Minister Nikola Pasic, July 18-19, 1914

[libertycabbage-blog]

Red Emma on the State

"The State is the altar of political freedom and, like the religious altar, it is maintained for the purpose of human sacrifice." --  Emma Goldman, "Anarchism: What It Really Stands For"

If the State's primary function is to protect its people from harm, does that not incentivize it to pursue conflict during times of peace? Mustn't there always be a "bad guy" for the state to justify itself? What purpose does the State serve during times of piece other than to obstruct creative work with layers of bureaucracy?

Not necessarily advocating the full abolition of the State, but these questions ought to be asked by anyone seeking to end imperialist wars or violence. In stirring up conflict and prodding other nations into war, the State can only serve to gain by justifying its own existence.

It sucks.

Further Reading:

Anarchism edited by Robert Hoffman

[libertycabbage-blog]

Socialism and Anarchism

"Socialism aims at a new society based on the common ownership of all, or a considerable portion of, the means of production and distribution, in order to create a state in which every individual will receive from society all that he needs for the development of his capacities, and in return will contribute, according to his powers to the benefit of other members of society. This is also the aim of anarchism, particularly the anarchist communism, which is now practically the only anarchist trend." --  Derry Novak, "The Place of Anarchism in the History of Political Thought"

Not much to say here. Just a beautifully written hot take from Derry Novak on why the core tenants of socialism are inseparable from the core tenants of anarchism.

Further Reading:

Anarchism edited by Robert Hoffman

The Conquest of Bread by Peter Kropotkin

[libertycabbage-blog]

On Popular Understandings of Anarchism

"Someone has said that it requires less mental effort to condemn than to think. The widespread mental indolence, so prevalent in society, proves this to be only too true. Rather than go to the bottom of any given idea, to examine its origin and meaning, most people will either condemn it altogether, or rely on some superficial or prejudicial definition of non-essentials." --  Emma Goldman, "Anarchism: What It Really Stands For"

While Red Emma is talking here about the popular consensus on anarchism, you could really take this truism to any idea. In the popular consciousness, MOST people couldn't even define the origins or nuances of ideas that are generally accepted. Ask a Christian about theology. Ask an entrepreneur about capitalism. Ask any rando off the street, and while I am sure he could say something like "torture is bad," I very much doubt you would find any learned insight into the history of why he holds this thought. In general, I think we would all benefit if we did a little more rigorous investigation into our principles and beliefs.

That said, the amount of times people have mentioned "molotov cocktails" when I say that I am reading about anarchist theory is getting ridiculous. Come the fuck on, y'all.

Further Reading:

Anarchism edited by Robert Hoffman

Anarcho-Syndicalism by Rudolf Rocker

The Conquest of Bread by Peter Kropotkin

Anarchism: From Theory to Practice by Daniel Guerin

[libertycabbage-blog]

Leo Tolstoy On Patriotism

"I have already several times expressed the thought that in our day the feeling of patriotism is an unnatural, irrational, and harmful feeling, the cause of a great part of the ills from which mankind is suffering, and that consequently this feeling should not be cultivated, as it is now, but should on the contrary be suppressed and eradicated by all rational means." --  Leo Tolstoy, "Patriotism and Government"

How fitting that I found a great quote from a self-described "Christian-Anarchist" on Easter...

Tolstoy goes on to explain that patriotism is the guise given to an arms war. It is the idea used to justify unjust wars, the stockpiling of weapons, the detention of immigrant children, the torturing of "terrorists." The idea is that somehow "our" people are better than "their people." Patriotism is a cancerous, tribal idea that serves no better than to spread partisan politics onto an international scale. It creates artificial barriers in our species where one ought not exist. Just look at the body count. How many wars were started or propagated in the name of "patriotism" - to defend our people? WWI, WWII, most of what occurred during the Cold Wars -- just look at the official reports from any president or leader during times of war and you're sure to see them center their propaganda around "defending our country."

In reality, patriotism is just a buzzword to convince young men to go out there and get themselves killed in a rich man's war. If a child is indoctrinated enough, he should think nothing of happily signing up to go to war as soon as possible. In fact, Tolstoy makes a point to remind us that our military, hell, our society rewards "patriotic" wars. Young men are not only pushed by their elders to serve in the military, they are actively encouraged to incite violence and combat for the fame, riches, or political power granted to soldiers who successfully pull it off. Generals, if they have an interest in politics, are encouraged to be war-mongering to the extent that they might one day be elected on the basis that they "defended our country."

I don't often use a secondary quote on these, but this bit by Eugene Debs is too fitting to pass up:

"The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles. The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing to gain and all to lose—especially their lives." --  Eugene Debs

Further Reading:

The Bending Cross by Ray Ginger

Anarchism edited by Robert Hoffman

[libertycabbage-blog]

Rebellion Against Unjust Systems

"In most respects, the anarchists have been ordinary men, not devils. If anything has distinguished them from others it has not been 'evil' character, but an extraordinary passion for what they regard as justice. They have, however, without exception been rebels. A spirit of rebellion against the established order of society is the single most distinctive quality of anarchist convictions, and one of the few that all share."   --  Robert Hoffman, Anarchism

The whole lot of us Leftists agree on one thing: the current system is broken and unsustainable. Let's tear it down.

Further Reading:

Anarchism edited by Robert Hoffman

Anarchism: From Theory to Practice by Daniel Guerin

[libertycabbage-blog]

What is Alienation?

"Alienation occurs when workers are unable to control their immediate work processes, to develop a sense of purpose and function which connects their jobs to the overall organization of production, to belong to integrated industrial communities, and when they fail to become involved in the activity of work as a model of personal self-expression." --  US Dept of Health, Education, and Welfare (1972)

Honestly, in my experience, the only places worth working at are the ones that are good at managing alienation. Companies that dictatorially hand down orders and directives are worthless in that they remove the humanity from work. They treat workers as a tool to the organization, rather than as a vital piece of the puzzle. Any company that refuses to acknowledge worker feedback or input on a process is not one that deserves to last very long. Despite decades of research and study indicating that workers are more productive and more beneficial when given autonomy, there still exist plenty of organizations that operate as tiny little tyrannies with no room for worker input.

In my lifetime, I'm going to make sure that these companies are eaten alive. Bet.

Further Reading:

Work In America by US Dept of Health, Education, and Welfare (1972)

[libertycabbage-blog]

Income and Morality Are Not Related

"Certainly, it takes little reflection to conclude that, except in crude economic terms, no one is worth nothing, nor is anyone worth a hundred times more than another merely because he is paid a hundred times as much." --  US Dept of Health, Education, and Welfare (1972)

The opposite of this function is the reason we seem to think that the rich and the powerful are somehow, to quote James Madison, a "more capable set of men." As Chomsky reminds me again and again, Madison and Hamilton believed that the country should be run by the propertied classes. Embedded in the fabric of our "democracy" is this inaccurate belief that owning more stuff somehow makes you a more qualified human being. This awful distinction between the elite and the working classes is one that needs to be further explored, addressed, and brought into the public conscious. Look at any case of corporate corruption or greed in the last decade. Why should anyone believe that the likes of Paul Manafort, Harvey Weinstein, or Alan Greenspan, in all their blunders, are really any better than your average retail employee? Let's cut this toxic mentality out of our lives for good.

YOU CANNOT BASE SOMEONE'S MORAL CHARACTER SOLELY ON THEIR INCOME LEVEL.

Further Reading:

Work In America by US Dept of Health, Education, and Welfare (1972)