[Try to take some time out to follow the monster thread at Rad's on...well a lot of things. Here is my contribution regarding localist sentiment in ALL]

I’m glad this is being discussed, but unfortunately don’t have time for more than a few comments right now; hopefully they will be somewhat cohesive.

I think that localism, when advanced in a specifically individualist and anarchist context, can be useful strategically. As I wrote in the ALL intro pamphlet I made (http://nj.libertarianleft.org/downloads/allintrozine.pdf):

Liberty must be seized by the individual, then secured by cooperating individuals. To do so requires those serious about liberty to communicate, network, and build… We build – ALLies are working on counter-establishment projects that will empower individuals and communities to survive apart from, and eventually in opposition to, all attempted governance.

Such a project would imply local building in addition to long distance networks like we see on this blog. For example, it would be easier for an “attempted governor” to control an area with 90% of its food coming from one source 100 miles away, than it would be to control an area with 90% of its food coming from multiple sources within a twenty mile area. So when I speak positively of decentralization, I usually mean it as a breakup of monopoly and authority, not the creation of local monopoly and authority.

As Rad said: “we have no hope of influencing (halting) national politics unless we have first built up the connections and the networks to influence (halt) politics in our own hometowns.”

It is worth noting here that more local production does not require autarky or the increased risk of conflict – politicians value power above all goods, so armies can still cross borders when goods do, and paramilitaries can keep people from crossing borders that the goods they produce are sent over.

I also think that from a purely subjective view, interacting with more individuals and the rest of the environment on a local level is preferable to not doing so. One of the many things I love about the 21st century is the greater accessibility and miniaturization of technology. This should not be viewed as a desire for a more hippie version of Hoppe-esque feudalism, but I recognize the danger of it becoming so if the focus on individualism is lost.

The above being said, it is easy for me to see the danger of concepts getting muddled and ALL folks ending up mistakenly supporting some kind of authoritarian localism because it looks sort of like our vision of the freed market. Even if this isn’t a major threat, I’m glad this discussion is being raised to prevent it from becoming a major threat. I don’t think that we need to be right-on exact with our conclusions, but having good ideas will help guide the market to the best outcomes. With Soviet’s and William’s comments in mind, I’ll be careful that my writing doesn’t confuse the breakup of political power and the building of local economic power with the building of local authority.

[and below is another comment I made]

SO:

Freedom means options for individuals, not the “right” of some reified community to enact boundaries around them according to some arbitrary, two-dimensional geographic division (which is bullshit anyway, because we live on a sphere, people.)

Word.

SO also mentioned the Cultural Revolution at some point. I don’t feel like going back and finding the quote. What I would like to say is that in my (somewhat limited) reading of the events, Cultural Revolutionaries seemed to be trying to structure their actions to please Mao and the Maoist doctrine that had been drilled into them. Even if this is only partially true, it highlights the dangers of authority, authoritarian schooling and social authority, more than anything else.

This entry was posted on Monday, April 27th, 2009 at 2:46 pm and is filed under libertarian. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.