Seeing all this news about various well-connected right-wing activists and billionaires attempting to take apart the government, blow up the economy, and destroy our alliances . . . OK, at some level I get it. The recent election gave the Republicans a rare opportunity in which one faction of one party controls all three branches of government (legislative, executive, and judicial) so it makes sense to run with it. That’s the “Project 2025” thing: Given the partisan polarization of voters, there’s a logic to pressing all the buttons on the console, making as many policy changes as you can, and trying to lock them all in so that they stay after you lose power–or set up conditions that make it harder for you to lose. So, yeah, sure, full-out attack on any alternative sources of political power, including the civil service, foreign allies, teachers, students, etc.
The “blow up the economy” thing is less clear, but even for that there’s a logic in terms of weakening alternative power bases. When the economy is going strong, employees can do what they want, with the confidence that they can find a new job if they quit or are fired, and companies have flexibility in hiring and business decisions. But if the economy is tanking, employees will be scared of losing their jobs and companies will be more vulnerable to government actions. So, again, less independent power. If your company is in financial peril, you’ll be less inclined to take one more risk by opposing the government.
So, yeah, I see the logic. But . . . looking at this another way, it’s all absolutely nuts. Right-wing activists and billionaires already had so much, even under the Biden administration. They had low taxes, low business regulation, a system of international alliances with other capitalist countries and freedom of action all around the world. They had lots of nice things, a Tesla in every pot, etc. From this perspective, I’d think that a natural goal on their part would be to keep what they have. Sure, push in the direction of lower taxes and less business regulation, push on whatever social issues you want, make whatever small changes to weaken the political opposition, but don’t go crazy–you don’t want to lose everything you’ve got.
Let me be clear here. I’m not trying to make the familiar argument that right-wing governments should compromise because too much political and economic inequality will anger the masses: cut universal benefits and replace them with tax cuts for the rich, and the people will come at you with pitchforks. That’s a tricky argument to make, because right-wing policies have their own attractions to the voters, and ideologues can well believe, sometimes with reason, that with careful messaging and enough control over the news media, that they can retain the consent of the governed.
Rather, I’m making a simpler argument. Right-wing activists and billionaires already have it all. Why would they want to blow everything up. If you think of the economy and society of the United States as being held up by many pillars, what you’re seeing is the party in power deciding to remove these pillars one at a time. There’s a risk that it could all collapse! And, sure, rich and well-connected people are better situated than the average person to weather an economic collapse, but, still, it seems crazy to me. And their kids can get measles too. It would take a better decision analyst than me to weigh the risks of your kid dying against the warm feeling you get by being part of the anti-establishment team.
They had it all but they wanted more.
I see an analogy to left-wing radicals in the late 1960s. The left side of the Democratic party controlled all three branches of government, they had most of the policies they wanted . . . but that wasn’t enough. They wanted more. As with the far right today, there was a lot of talk about blowing it all up and starting anew. In retrospect, it seems crazy. They had it all but they wanted more.
Again, I understand a little bit of this. Even if you have it all, why not ask for more. And you never have it all; there will always be some struggles on the margin, and in a free society such as the United States there will always be powerful institutions not under your control. In the 1960s, the left had to content with the Catholic church, the army, and big business: these were three major institutions with a strong conservative bent. Not to mention the political establishment in the south. In 2025, the right has its own opponents, notably in the worlds of education, medicine, and organized labor. The part that puzzles me, in both cases, was that pushing where you can, negotiating from a position of strength, was not enough. The people on top of the world wanted to blow up the world that they were on top of.
I get that, from a political standpoint, things are more complicated. Neither “the left” in the 1960s and “the right” today are unitary actors. The part that still baffles me is that many of the leaders of these groups already do have most of what they could possibly want–not just personally (money, fame, adulation, power) but also in their political goals.
From a psychological perspective, maybe the story is that if you already have it all, you feel invulnerable–vindicated by all the past gambles you’ve taken that have paid off–and you’re willing to throw the dice once again.
Perhaps the next step in understanding this is to sit down and read the full texts of the Port Huron Statement, the Weatherman document, Project 2025, and the most recent thousand tweets of Elon Musk.
It’s the height of “both sides” discourse to compare a bunch of college students with literal billionaires and say “They both had it all.”
They were sending us off to die in Viet Nam, Andrew. The student council in my high school created a plaque with the names of two graduates who had died there. They had blank spaces available for the next cohort of boys coming home in a box. And I could pass as “white.” I don’t think black radicals in the ’60s had everything they wanted.
Audie:
Agreed. Lives were at stake, and it makes complete sense that activists were working to end the war. What puzzles me is the blow-it-all-up attitude that was expressed by some leaders of the movement, the attitude that it would be better to start over. Maybe part of this, on the left as well as the right, is the example of the American Revolution, where the colonists did indeed detonate much of the political and social system, and things mostly landed all right, at least for the social class of the leaders of the revolution.
I think there’s a material difference between where the leftist protest movement was in the 60s/70s and where the rightist reactionary movement is now. I don’t think the leftists ever captured all (any of the?) three branches of government to the degree where they could enact their will to the degree we’re seeing in the US at the moment. There was certainly “burn-it-all-down” rhetoric in the leftist movements of the mid-century, but in the end the movement as a whole pulled the centrists slightly left, but all in all found an accommodation with the mainstream in exchange for gradual improvements in the status quo. That’s not really analogous to what’s going on with the current situation, where we see a rapid swing towards the implementation of extreme policies that do not have broad support (see for instance: deportations of US citizens with no due process).
This is to say nothing of the moral calculus: even the most radical leftists at the time wanted to burn things down in order to build a more egalitarian society. The people burning things down at the moment are doing it so they can impose class-based theocratic rule. These aren’t the same thing at all, and equating them elides a great deal of the relevant context.
I can buy that trump has some long held economic theories (old fallacies?) that he hasn’t thought through that well. I might even, if I’m being generous, buy there are those in the administration who want a long term solution to the twin problems of budget and trade deficits.
But the idea that two former democrat billionaires ran on a populist republican ticket to destroy the economy so that somehow businesses dont challenge their power, wouldn’t even pass muster on The View or in the writerss room at Disney. I think you’ve been watching too much Austin Powers.
I think you need to learn to read. The point of the post is that these explanations are NOT satisfying to him.
Anon:
I’ve never watched The View, nor have I ever been in any writers room. I watched about 15 minutes of Austin Powers once.
Regarding your comment: I’m not really thinking about the actions of Trump: he’s been improvising for years, and, unlike some others in the political system, he has a lot to lose. He could go to prison! So I get why he’d be ok with blowing up the system. I’m thinking more of the people like the Project 2025 guys and various high-profile rich investors who seem pretty stoked about blowing it all up and starting anew.
My issue is not that they ran on a populist Republican ticket–you gotta go with where the votes are!–what surprises me more is how eager they are to destroy institutions and start over. Which, again, reminds me of radicals in the 1960s, who in their frustration didn’t seem to recognize that, politically, their side controlled so much: weakening the institutions of government and society was actually not in their political interest.
A popular saying amongst 60s types is “The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.” The contention is that the electoral system is designed to favor particular outcomes and is effectively incapable of fixing certain problems. A second issue is just that activist leaders probably weren’t convinced that the progressive party were actually on their side.
It’s not that surprising by the theory of patrimonialism, where the goal is actually to undermine state agency, with the goal of replacing it with a patronage system, where power is distributed through access loyalty to Trump.
It sounds like a conspiracy theory and it’s always questionable whether Trump has coherent goals or is just always winging it. But it could make sense, and it’s clear that there is no shortage of members of his administration who really want to dismantle the federal state to replace it with the unitary executive.
I mean Jesus – read this definition and tell me it doesn’t ring a bell…
Patrimonialism is a form of governance where rulers exercise power through personal loyalties and networks, often relying on patron-client relationships and personal allegiances. It contrasts with rational-legal bureaucracies, which are based on merit and efficiency. In patrimonial systems, rulers may use patronage (awarding favors and resources to maintain power) and may be associated with corruption and a weak state capacity.
Andrew, the late 1960’s was just a few years after the Civil Rights act, Women’s Liberation was just forming, being gay or lesbian was still literally criminal, on and on. Sure, things were going in a good direction. But it’s ludicrous to claim “They had it all …”, and make any sort of moral equivalence to the power of billionaires.
And the lack of moral equivalence is your answer – the billionaires have *almost* all, but not *all*. There’s government regulations which affect Musk, for example – safety standards, anti-discrimination laws, some relatively minor requirements to treat employees fairly (minor, but they exist), and more. The mentality of these people is not to give up 10% to preserve having 90%. They want 100.0%, and believe they are entitled to it as the only reasonable result. Peter Thiel, for example, is quite forthright on his political thinking, about believing democracy is not compatible with capitalism. Musk isn’t a writer, but he’s pretty explicit in his beliefs too. It’s just not hard. This is a cliche, but “when people tell you who they are, believe them”.
Seth:
1. I’m not implying moral equivalence. In my post, I’m trying to do the political-science thing and setting moral issues aside.
2. I agree that in both cases the radicals did not have “it all.” In the late 1960s, the far left still had reasons to be frustrated with government policy on the Vietnam war, along with entrenched conservative power in business, church, etc. And in the 2020s, the far right has to be concerned, not just about existing taxes and government regulation, but with the possibility that Biden and Harris could be replaced by Bernie Sanders etc. But that’s why I said I can understand why people at the extremes would still push, even if they already have most of what they want. As I noted in the above post, the right time to push for more is when you’re already in power and can get what you’re pushing for. The part that baffles me is not the pushing for more, it’s the enthusiasm for blowing it all up and starting over.
3. I agree with your point that, when people tell you who they are, believe them. I believe that some of these rich investors think it would be cool if the system were blown up. It just seems funny to me that Thiel, Musk, etc., have this attitude, given that they are already so much in control of the current system (and, even when Biden was president, Thiel/Musk/etc. where allied with much of Congress as well as the Supreme Court).
Missing a right parenthesis
(legislative, executive, and judicial, so
and the following needs an “n”
But if the economy is taking
————————————————-
Regarding some of the rest of the contentions which Andrew is puzzled by, it seems to me he fails to fully comprehend the mindset of the current Administration. Winning is not everything, it is the only thing.
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/03/13/winning/
He may feel that
“Right-wing activists and billionaires already had so much, even under the Biden administration.”
but they sure don’t see it that way.
Paul:
Typos fixed; thanks.
And, regarding your substantive comment: Sure, but that’s kind of the point, that they are doing so well that they can’t seem to imagine that anything–up to and including taking apart the government, blowing up the economy, and destroying our alliances–could seriously hurt them.
One more for you: the left had to ‘contend’ not ‘content’ with the Church.
One doesn’t need to go back to the 60s. A more recent one that comes to mind is the trans movement. They have achieved so much in so little time during the past decade. Some of the early successes I think most moderates and people on the left would agree with. But then they felt the need to push to the point where the advocates have become a liability to those they ostensibly serve.
Psychologically, I think we really under-appreciate the power of resentment and humiliation in motivating people, especially for people we sympathize with. In the same way that many of the Trumpian extremists are motivated by resentment, so are many groups on the left. We may disagree with the legitimacy of their feelings, but the raw fuel underneath is eerily similar.
Anon:
I don’t disagree with you, but I think you’re talking about the problem that activists go too far and set off a reaction on the other side, and I’m talking about something slightly different, which is that comfortable and powerful activists with a strong political position are willing–even eager–to try to destroy the entire system that undergirds their power.
My impression is that it’s heterogeneity and different beliefs. I’ve heard it said that Trump is giving each faction that voted for him the thing they want most… in the dumbest and most haphazard way possible.
DOGE for for the small government types, talk of dereg and tax reductions for the rich businessmen, worldwide tariffs for the unions, trade war with china for the china-hawks, mass deportations for the border security folks, tough on ukraine for the doves, tough on iran/hamas for the hawks, etc.
No individual wants all of these, but each can point to something they like (even if it’s an imperfect implementation). The impression I’ve gotten is that the rich billionaires mostly don’t like the tariffs, and are actively pushing for him to walk them back. Treasury secretary Scott Bessent was supposedly the one who convinced him to hit pause on the non-chinese tariffs, elon has been attacking them on twitter, etc.
Each faction wants their one part blown up, as they believe it will be a net benefit, and each hopes they can convince trump not to blow up the parts they like. We’ll see how it all pans out…
Kj:
Interesting point. Although it’s my impression that each of these players: Project 2025, Thiel/Musk, etc., each is happy with something like 90% of what’s going on, and each group is just complaining about the 10% they don’t like.
As a former conservative (I am an immigrant from the Soviet Union, so that was a default position), I think I understand their willingness to blow it up, not from the perspective of what they have now, which is indeed a lot, but what they could lose in the near future if they let the left rule for much longer. If you think your world is going to end soon, it doesn’t much matter what you have now, right? I’m not sure who taught them how to compute the expected value, given the evidence for this hypothesis, but I’ve heard it enough times to take their word for it.
Andrew-
Read this for a greater understanding of what is up with Trump’s regime.
https://www.resetdoc.org/story/curtis-yarvin-nick-land-black-utopia-of-new-radical-right/
Interesting take, though I’m not fully convinced by the comparison to left-wing students in the 1960s. One key point, in my view, is that the destruction we’re seeing isn’t entirely meant to be. Besides psychological factors, there are deeper collective dynamics at play, in particular internal politics. The leaders at the top of the MAGA movement are all-in and competing with each other for influence. They’re incentivized to outdo one another in displays of loyalty to the leader, ideological purity, and aggressive rhetoric. This will mechanically push towards more and more extreme policies and radicalization. And ultimately to purges, paranoia and self-implosion, and there you can find many historical examples on the left.
I think this analysis glosses over the possibility that people who lever themselves into these positions (power, wealth, influence) will ever be content with what they have. I find that highly unlikely – the tech billionaires in particular are bored with their money and power, and want to be entertained by the prospect of increasing that wealth and power exponentially, ad infinitum. I think most of them are just impatient for this utopia they have built in their heads where they’re exploring the solar system as immortal demigods with a harem. The ‘health’ obsession peddled by RFK Jr, Joe Rogan, Alex Jones, etc that many of them are into has direct parallels to eugenics, anti-aging research, and so on; it’s not much of a reach.
This is referring mostly to the power brokers rather than the delusional mid-30s guys working dead-end jobs who think that supporting these natalist, authoritarian policies will deliver them an attractive yet submissive wife and a 6 figure job at the gas station.
Another alternative: the rich and powerful may have most of what they want materially, but that isn’t the same thing as power over policy. Musk is not likely to be elected (at least not for a national office), but what fun to have the kind of influence he is having. He would never get this through other means. And the Project 2025 authors may be well off, but their desire to change policy may come from their beliefs rather than narrow material self-interest. They may actually believe in the changes they are making and know there is no way for them to make these changes through normal political institutions. They are willing to tear it all down even at some risk to their wealth (although they probably can rely on their wealth to protect them from the worst side effects of the new policies). I think it is the ultimate form of narcissism and hubris to relish the role of remaking society as you see fit. I had those kind of dreams when I was 10 years old.
Dale:
Sure, but they also have so much that they want politically. I’m not just saying that they’re rich and comfortable and they could enjoy their retirement. I’m saying that they have control (or, at the very least, a large influence on) all three branches of government, so that they can get more of what they want politically, as well as materially, by conventional processes. Actually, though, they seem to often be excited about blowing up the system, even though they have used this system to get to where they are and are now in the position to use the system to get more.
The project 2025 folks are not merely intersted in the position to pull the levers of power (or to protect their wealth). They want to completely restructure the system of governance. It’s not so much transactional, but ideological.
Andrew writes, “I see an analogy to left-wing radicals in the late 1960s. The left side of the Democratic party controlled all three branches of government, they had most of the policies they wanted . . . but that wasn’t enough. They wanted more. As with the far right today, there was a lot of talk about blowing it all up and starting anew. In retrospect, it seems crazy. They had it all but they wanted more.”
I came of age at this time as my first vote for President was in 1968. The statement is not correct. Congress was still pretty conservative and all the Southern Democratic Senators were holdovers from the segregation era. President Johnson was a master, in terms of getting the Civil Rights Act and some other critical legislation through. The real change in Congress took place in 1974 when all the “Watergate Babies” were elected. That was when Congress really shifted more to the left. Also worth noting, is that the EPA, OSHA and some other stuff was passed in Nixon’s first term.
There was, however, a lot of violence surrounding protests of the Vietnam War as well as against society in general. Lots of bombings using homemade explosives. At UC Santa Barbara, we were under martial law late in the Spring quarter of 1970 with a dusk to dawn curfew. National Guard troops called out by Governor Reagan were randomly firing tear gas cannisters around the student community of Isla Vista. I remember putting damp towels in the door jamb to prevent fumes from coming in. We also had a student killed when the local Bank of America branch was bombed. I’m not sure that any of this was very productive.
My perspective on all of this is that the point of having power is to wield power. I understand your argument that they could harm their ability to wield power, but they have the opportunity to use power now. What’s the point of getting into a position to do what you want and then not do what you want?
Alex:
Sure, as I said in my post it makes sense for them to use their power. What surprises me is their stated enthusiasm not just to use the system but to blow it up.
But that’s what they wanted the power for, isn’t it? Maybe not to blow up the economy, like you said, but in general they don’t want guardrails to stop them from exercising power however they like.
“one faction of one party controls all three branches of government (legislative, executive, and judicial)”
I guess this is orthogonal to your main point, but this is not a good description of the current political situation.
Executive, sure. But reporting seems to indicate that a lot of people in the admin really dislike Musk, so there are fissures there.
Legislative? sort-of, but the margin in the house in particular is very thin, and it’s not clear the maga-world can pass any and all legislation they like. In fact, given the filibuster, can they pass ANY non-budget legislation? Note that one of the things that has NOT happened is eliminating the filibuster, If they were serious about major changes you’d think that would be the first thing they’d do.
Judiciary – it is definitely not the case that the administration is winning all their court cases. So I don’t think there is “control” here either.
Weichi:
Agreed that it’s not complete control. But in the context of U.S. politics, that’s how we’d describe it. When Obama was first elected president, Democrats controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress but not the Supreme Court. When Trump was first elected president, Republicans controlled the presidency, both houses of Congress, and the Supreme Court. But there were some moderate Republicans with pivotal votes in congress and the court. In 2025, the pivotal votes are on the right. And, yes, the administration has pushed so hard that they’ve had some reactions from the courts–it’s not that the Trump administration has control of the courts. Rather, the Supreme Court is controlled by the right wing Republicans, but they have their limits too.
Again, I like the analogy to left wing Democrats in the 1960s. Yes, there were conservatives in Congress, especially from the south, who had influence and used it on some key issues, but overall the left wing of the Democratic party had about as much unimpeded control over government as would be possible in our system.
I prefer to call the current situation “complete” control – until proven otherwise. In theory, Congress can constrain the Executive Branch, but has failed to do so thus far. Many of us (me at least) lament the lack of Congressional interest in showing any resistance to the Administrative actions. As far as the judicial branch is concerned, most court actions have gone against the Administration – but in their view only the Supreme Court matters, and thus far there is no clear guidance from that Court. Even the one clear instruction to “facilitate” the return of that one deportee is somewhat ambiguous and thus far not being followed. So, many of us (me at least) are not prepared to say the Judicial Branch can apply meaningful checks on Administrative actions. At best, the constraints are tentative and subject to review.
Further, Trump has just said that “nothing will stop me” and I believe we can take his word for that – he intends to push that to the limit, daring any of the 3 branches to stop him. So, your claim that “this is not a good description of the current political situation” sounds more like wishful thinking than actual reality. I think things are far more serious than you are making them out to be. It is true that any number of actions could turn out to exhibit the checks and balances of the 3 branches – but that is not the current political situation, and I think it is dangerous to pretend that it is. That may turn out eventually to be true, but until that time I think it is unwise to pretend that their are functioning checks and balances.
How are people just noticing this for the first time? Congress has been continuously ceding power to the executive branch since FDR at least.
That’s why the government is constantly under dozens of “states of emergency”. Then there’s the whole other chain of command (continuity of government) that gets used to bypass congress and do stuff like Iran-Contra.
We can disagree about the extent to which the three branches have been undermined over the past decades. But I’d maintain there there was a semblance of checks and balances, and at times, real constraints placed by one branch on another (to cite Nixon’s impeachment as a notable case). What is happening today may be a continuation of past trends but I think represents a qualitative change from the past.
This is from 1938:
https://archive.org/details/garet-garrett-the-revolution-was
The power grab already happened long ago.
Anoneuoid
Thanks for the reference – which I was not aware of. I was aware of the conservative reaction to the New Deal and some view that as effectively the end of the checks and balances of the 3 branches. It is worthwhile to draw lines connecting that to today and I appreciate you highlighting that. What is happening now feels distinctly different to me – for the 75 years I have been alive. Perhaps I’ve just been naive and not realized that the revolution had already occurred before I was born. More likely, some people were worried about that long before I was borne. I think it is hard to claim that the Executive Branch has exercised unchallenged power since the New Deal, though it may have always tried to do so. Congress and the Courts have constrained Executive branch actions during my lifetime, though not consistently. I have thought of them as a potential backstop – until now.
I’d guess its just your source of news is finally telling you to think about it, while before they ignored it, or even framed it as a good thing.
Another thing is I heard a lady say “Trump 2028”, which is more disturbing shades of FDR. Here was FDRs campaign platform:
Sounds like DOGE. I expect Trump will be expanding the government to startling size by the end of his term.
That quote from the Democratic platform of 1932 is fascinating. Even more fascinating is to read the whole thing (https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/1932-democratic-party-platform). It is a very strange platform. Yes, it eerily calls for the massive decrease in government spending (and a balanced budget) while also calling for very active government involvement in economic affairs through regulation as well as spending on social programs (VA, unemployment, etc.). It calls for undoing economic isolation and establishment of reciprocal tariffs. I find much of it seemingly inconsistent – but likely needs to be viewed in the context of what happened between WWI and the midst of the Great Depression.
I’m glad you posted that quote. It makes me aware of my ignorance of history – I’m not sure what those public school history courses I took (and got good grades in) really contained. But I also think that historical documents such as party platforms need to be viewed in the full context of what led up to them and conditions at the time. Given that FDR’s time is generally viewed as implementing government deficits as the way out of economic depression, the platform’s call for a balanced budget seems ironic. Cherry-picking components of the platform seems unwise.
“Again, I like the analogy to left wing Democrats in the 1960s. Yes, there were conservatives in Congress, especially from the south, who had influence and used it on some key issues, but overall the left wing of the Democratic party had about as much unimpeded control over government as would be possible in our system.”
Sorry to harp on this again and maybe my post above was unclear. You have to look at the 1966 Congressional election to support your contention. This was in the middle of the 2nd LBJ term and the Democrats lost 47 House seats and 3 Senate seats. If you look at the maps, they are still much in favor of Southern power. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_United_States_Senate_elections
When you go down the list of Congressmen from ‘now’ liberal states (CA, NY, IL, etc), you don’t see very many ‘left wing’ members. In looking at CA (my home state at the time), the only one who stands out is George Miller. Waxman and others did not come into office until the 1974 election.
Andrew –
I think you’ve overstated the case re: the power of left wing radicals on the late 60s.
Humphrey was the presidential nominee. Polls showed that a minority of Dems strongly supported the anti-war movement. There were many forms of institutional pushback against lefties.
There’s a longstanding debate among historians and social scientists about whether revolutions are primarily a response to crisis or the culmination of an upward trend. Of course, it can be both.
Speaking for myself, my radicalism in the 70s was of the second sort: I was heartened by what I thought was the trajectory of recent history and expecting an even better future, like a plane gathering speed on the runway before taking off. Boy did I have that wrong.
Peter –
What’s the metrics of the trajectory you’re thinking about?
I think there have been many people who have enjoyed a better future when starting with the 1960s as a baseline. More broadly I think there are better societal outcomes (say the clean air act). Even more broadly, I think that’s even more true on a global scale – changes which can’t reasonably be disaggregate from the trajectory of the US as the world’s most influential country.
I think you’d agree it’s unrealistic to expect a monotinic change over time, or to expect no entrenchment. The fact that we’re currently under assault doesn’t alter history (at least directly, even if it might put into question the power of the changes that took place).
So with my caveats in mind, why are you so convinced you had it so wrong?
My perceptions at the time weren’t about material living standards but what I experienced as a progressive “opening” of society — less repressiveness, more egalitarianism, greater willingness to question and experiment.
On the purely economic front, I think there was a false sense of having left our parents’ money worries behind. (A famous late 60s pamphlet was called “Post-Scarcity Anarchism”.) The recession of the early 70s put a damper on that, and then we had the deeper recession of the mid 70s. I think my political views were a lagging indicator.
We’ve made a lot of progress opening up society for women and non-heterosexuals. Maybe more that I would have thought possible. For minorities also, along some dimensions there’s been huge opening up. I remember my mind having been blown when Obama was elected, even if he was a bit too “new Democrat” for my taste. It seems less monumental now in retrospect, but maybe that’s because once you have progress you naturally take that progress for granted?
@Andrew: Condorcet was, by all accounts, a thoroughly nice guy, of impeccable intellectual and, moreover, moral integrity. As a consequence, he got his head chopped off.
Different days?
PS “Dear Zealots” by Amos Oz is a pretty good read.
Condorcet died in prison, probably by suicide, although the net result is indeed similar to beheading.
Thanx – I wasn’t aware of that, I’d simply assumed that, seeing as he snuffed it during La Terreur (as did other great minds) a similar fate had befallen him.
Seems like you could work the death of David Horowitz in here somewhere.
Setting aside historical specificities and the question of whether the radical left of the 1960s achieved all their goals, I want to address the deeper issue behind this:
Why would radical leftists in power continue to push for more and more?
The answer is straightforward: because of their ideology. Radical leftists believe that capitalism must be abolished. For them, there can never be peace with capitalism; it is, by definition, an evil system. In their view, capitalism enables capitalists to extract surplus value from workers, thereby exploiting them. It prioritizes profit over people, and nothing good can ever truly come from it. If living conditions improve, it’s despite capitalism—because the masses fought for those gains. If conditions deteriorate, it’s because of capitalism—since profit ultimately overrides human needs, environmental concerns, and social justice.
In the 1960s, many on the radical left even believed that capitalism was the source of all major forms of oppression. They thought that once capitalism was abolished, patriarchy, racism, antisemitism, and other injustices would disappear as well.
Therefore, even if radical leftists attain power and implement progressive reforms—such as protecting minorities or enforcing stricter regulations—they still see capitalism as the root cause of ongoing injustice and inequality. As long as capitalism remains, they believe, true justice cannot be achieved.
So what about the Trump administration? Why do they also keep pushing for more and more? I think it’s also driven by ideology, though I’m not entirely sure which one. Radical leftists genuinely believe that a classless society would be a better system—not just for themselves, but for everyone who isn’t a capitalist today. With the Trump administration, however, it’s unclear whether they truly believe they are making America great again for everyone, or if they are simply making it great for themselves.
Sorry, I meant to answer a different question: Why do radical leftists in power want to blow everything up?—rather than just Why would they continue to push for more and more? The same goes for the Trump administration.
A few quick additional thoughts: The Economist recently published a “By Invitation” piece by Paul Dans, one of the architects of Project 2025. In it, Dans argues that the existing system must be smashed in order to build something new and save both America and American democracy. He writes: “A builder, Mr Trump knows that the initial phase of any renovation is demolition.”
So yes, in my view, both cases reflect a desire to “blow everything up” because the actors involved are deeply driven by ideology.
I heard someone quote the aphorism “Anarchy is order, government is civil war” and it struck a chord for me.
The purpose of power is to wield it. If your ideas were popular and extremely widely believed, you wouldn’t need to threaten people to get them implemented. But you don’t need to actually carry out the threats, it just has to be credible they will be carried out and enough people will avoid fighting. The absence of shooting in the streets is not evidence that you aren’t at war, its just evidence that the powerful group has succeeded at the moment.
So in the US, white racists have been at war with blacks and anti racists. Big business has been at war with laborers. Finance has been at war with borrowers. Insurance companies are at war with healthcare consumers. Universities are at war with students. Clausewitz said that (hot) war was just the continuation of the political process, but you can look at it the other way, government is just war that succeeded in suppressing the enemy. After every war there’s a period of government in which the goals of the war are carried out while the losers will to fight is sapped.
If the system is built to oppress you, then it makes sense that you would want to tear that system down. And what is a system that threatens you with loss of livelihood, incarceration or death if not an oppressor?
In the US, with its history of chattel slavery, Indian wars and genocide, great depression, conscription for WWI,WWII, Korea, vietnam, ramping of war on drugs, widespread incarceration, a long series of financial panics caused by numerous forms of manipulation, shooting of students for protesting in the 60s, power driven income inequality, government manipulated student loans immune from bankruptcy, healthcare access tied to your employment, healthcare insurers denying coverage without consequence, etc the amazing thing is that it hasn’t been a continuous hot war in the streets.
Its not just ideology, its lived experience. Europeans may not understand this, but the US had the highest incarceration rate in the WORLD in 2018 (according to Wikipedia article on us incarceration rare). Higher than Russia, higher than Myanmar, higher than China… And in state by state comparisons the South was almost 4x the Yankee States.
I was just looking at the UCDavis catalog the other day and if you take too many classes you’ll be kicked out… You can’t access education beyond the level the state allows. Think about that for a moment to understand how thoroughly power controls everything.
Anyway, capitalism yes, but its just one form of the root cause which is the exertion of threats of violence. Its the one most salient in the minds of those who read Marx, but if you’re a black man incarcerated for possession of a certain plant native to the Himalayas while white kids in possession roam free, you may have a different most salient form.
One way to keep the war colder is to try to appease the losers. Throw them a bone here and there. Do some bailouts, do some welfare programs… But always exerting enough control to make it clear that if you want more shit will go down. The “brilliant” thing about Trump was that he activated enough of the losers in the US war to support the oppressors. Trump issued an executive order yesterday to essentially plan for the best way to implement martial law in the US. Clearly he plans to make the war hotter.
https://newrepublic.com/post/194538/donald-trump-executive-order-military-police-force
Daniel
I agree with just about everything that seems to bother (a severe understatement, but I’m not sure what the right term is) you. And, Trump’s vision for government certainly embodies using power to oppress. But I have a hard time equating this with what seems like your view that all government is about oppression. Certainly government action = power, given the ability to prosecute and punish. But abandoning government for anarchy just puts the power to punish in the hands of the most powerful (either individually or in groups). I don’t see that as an improvement. Nor do I see all government action as “oppression,” a loaded term. Much (if not all) government action limits individual actions because those actions are in conflict – in conflict with rights. And what constitutes rights is determined through a process. That process is fraught with problems, and at times becomes mean, evil, and dysfunctional. But at other times, it works as it should – not all individual actions can be allowed without the resulting anarchy substituting individual power for the power of the state. Regardless of how dangerous the latter is, the former strikes me as worse. How exactly do you see anarchy as an improvement?
The aphorism “Anarchy is order, government is civil war” seeks to frame government as the root of systemic oppression, implying that dismantling it would lead to better outcomes. I disagree, primarily because this view rests on an untested counterfactual: that anarchy would produce less harm than structured governance. Historical and practical evidence suggests otherwise—without some form of governance, power vacuums often lead to chaos, exploitation, or new hierarchies, not equitable order.
The examples of systemic issues in the U.S.—racial injustice, economic inequality, incarceration disparities, and restrictive policies—highlight real failures. But these stem from specific policies, institutions, and historical choices, not the concept of government itself. The focus should be on reforming the qualities of governance—transparency, accountability, and equity—rather than assuming its absence would resolve these issues. For instance, targeted reforms like decriminalizing certain substances, addressing sentencing disparities, or decoupling healthcare from employment have measurable impacts, unlike the theoretical promise of anarchy.
In fact, Trump’s actions illustrate the dangers of undermining governance without a viable alternative. His executive order signals a move toward martial law, but more fits more broadly into his focus on dismantling state capacity—replacing institutional frameworks with personal loyalty and patrimonialism— something akin to institutionalized anarchy. These are a power grab that erodes accountability and entrenches favoritism, leaving the vulnerable even more exposed.
Advocating for anarchy, even as a thought experiment, risks diverting energy from practical solutions. Political engagement, while incremental, directly improves lives—think voting rights expansions or labor protections. These may seem like proverbial drops in the bucket, but they accumulate, unlike the speculative leap to a stateless society – which just isn’t going to happen. Trump’s trajectory underscores the need for vigilant, active participation in shaping better government, not abandoning it.
Anarchism means “voluntary democratic associations,” not “chaos.” Like “luddism,” the meaning of anarchy has been distorted by those in power. (The Luddites were anti-worker-disempowering-technology, not anti-technology. If mechanical looms had improved the position of the textile workers instead of automating them away, they would not have destroyed them.)
Anarchism has worked in Catalonia in the 1930s, in Rojava in the present day, in many Native American societies until the late 1800s, and arguably for the entire prehistory of humanity until around 4000 BC, when Sumerians invented imperialism and the state.
The real problem with anarchism is that it keeps being violently crushed by fascists. Hopefully Rojava, with their many weapons, can survive this fate.
We should move toward anarchism, or if you like, we should make all of our institutions democratic and transparent. One instance of this is that all companies should be owned by their own workers (the board and the shareholders should consist entirely of employees, and they should be elected by a vote of all the employees and nobody else). Some companies are already like this or almost so, e.g. the grocery chain Publix and the King Arthur Flour company. United Airlines was forced to include one employee on its board by its union in the 90s.
Anonymous –
Anarchism has worked… arguably for the entire prehistory of humanity until around 4000 BC,…
What does “work” mean here? What were the more beneficial outcomes from anarchism prior to around 4,000 BC relative to, say, the US today (let alone Western Europe or Scandinavia)?
It would help to have some sense of your counterfactual assumptions. If you want to say that government produces worse outcomes (as opposed to just bad outcomes, which presumably might come along with good outcomes), you have to outline what was better. Living standards, security, social equity?
Joshua, I can flip that and ask what are the more beneficial outcomes of non-anarchist societies today? Hunter gatherer people (anarchist) were physically healthier than those in sedentary agricultural societies until the 1800s (as well as having more leisure time), and they still are taller and have better teeth than most people, e.g. their wisdom teeth don’t need to be extracted (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-we-have-so-many-problems-with-our-teeth/). Agricultural societies have far more class division than hunter gatherers do, as well.
Science and art have also always been anarchist. People do creative things for fun, and they critique others’ creations for fun, and it was only recently that they started being paid to do them. The bow and arrow were invented by an African Bushman (hunter-gatherer) 40,000 years ago and slowly spread throughout the world through trade routes, nobody invented it independently even after the transition to agriculture.
Non-anarchism made the elites better off at the expense of everyone else.
For more arguments, see Jared Diamond’s essay on how the agricultural revolution was the worst mistake in the history of the human race.
https://ditext.com/diamond/mistake.html
Dale, the point of Anarchy is that power is flat, not that it doesn’t exist. Of course, when someone comes to harm you or your community you organize to defend yourselves. Very very few Anarchists are against community defense. In fact, they are generally vastly more in favor of it than the american liberal “Only the police should have guns” groups. But they make a clear distinction between defense from harm, and aggression to cause harm and force others to act in certain ways.
Any “sudden” overthrow of existing power systems would of course leave a power vacuum where communities have no organized defense (indeed are usually *strongly prevented* from having such defense ability by the state). So yeah, it’d be a disaster. Which is why basically all the Anarchists I’ve been reading the last year or two don’t advocate for these violent sudden revolutions, they advocate for step by step reducing the power of govt and increasing the organization of society along voluntary lines.
Government today consists of two kinds of things, mixed together. One is a relatively innocuous though far from ideal bureaucratic version of mutual aid. Things that you’d think few would object to, like fixing bridges, or painting crosswalks or keeping the library functioning or doing the weather predictions. Of course these are the things DOGE etc are dismantling. They’re also the things that an Anarchist society would do because people want them done, they’d just be done differently perhaps. Not only by the “authorities” who have the “control” over the library or university, but by more disparate groups with more varied ideas about how they should be done. For example the librarians and the patrons discussing upcoming plans, or the teachers at the universities designing their own curricula and soforth. In my community a guy organized a group to build a 1920’s style art-deco theater on his home property and he brings people in to show old movies to preserve the history of entertainment. That’s ultimately anarchistic. Setting up neighborhood childcare groups, or home-schooling groups, with parents taking kids on field trips and soforth is common (I know a woman doing this in Seattle).
The other portion of government is exercise of threat of violence to en-FORCE behavior. Everything from kicking you out of UC Davis for daring to take too many credits, to locking you in a cage for possession of the wrong plant, to dragging you off to Vietnam to fight a war or be put in a cage if you refuse, to locking striking laborers up for “trespassing” on property the company owns and therefore the CEO who is 1000 miles away has pure control over, to the FBI raiding your home because you dared to share music online back in the late 90’s with Napster.
I guess there’s a 3rd component. There’s prosecution for interpersonal harm, like assault, battery, murder, etc. This is kind of the cover by which the power in part 2 gets its claim to legitimacy. Because people mostly don’t want to fight other people, by pretending to be for the purpose of preventing interpersonal violence, the police gain the support of the sort of middle class and upper middle class. If you’ve ever had to call the police about violence you’ll know that its basically a joke for most people. Literally thousands of women a year die when their estranged ex kills them while violating restraining orders that the police don’t really enforce for example. People call the police about break-ins to their homes and the police show up 12 hours or 3 days later. When someone broke into my car, I reported it and they said I’d have to stand next to my car for up to 6 hours to get someone to come out when they had the time and take an in person report. When I refused they took an over the phone report and then because their buraucracy had no address for the location it happened they deleted the report because it supposedly happened outside their jurisdiction (it was in their jurisdiction, in a parking lot, but the nearest address wasn’t).
On the day that the CEO got shot in NYC, there were like 3 or 4 other people also murdered. But one of those led to a nationwide manhunt and 10,000 cops combing every resource to find him. the other 3-4 got maybe 5 minutes of paperwork. In the US the police close about 50% of murders. In essentially *every* closed case, it’s because the community solved the case ahead of time… they talk to the cops saying “Yeah, we saw Joe stab Larry” and then sure enough the evidence shows that indeed Joe did stab Larry. So the police as a protection from interpersonal harm is largely propaganda unless you’re very wealthy.
On the other hand, the thing the police do well is protect the property of the rich, and enforce the rules that privilege the rich. You can look up the lines of police outside Tesla facilities a few weeks ago. 30 cops in riot gear to protect that location, while hundreds of people were assaulted or had their cars broken into elsewhere in town.
In 1921, white Oklahomans some of whom were deputized or acting under official government authority committed the Tulsa massacre, killing 36 people, imprisoning 6000, hospitalizing 800 and burning 35 square blocks of property. They destroyed the lives, wealth, and community of an entire prosperous town of largely black people, essentially for the “crime” of being black and not ultra-poor.
In 1985 Philadelphia police bombed a black neighborhood destroyed 60 odd homes, killed 6 adults and 5 children, and left 250 people homeless after fires.
In the 90’s the police attacked the Branch Davidians in a no-knock warrant that was totally unnecessary and ultimately burned a bunch of women and children to death.
etc etc etc. we won’t even get into 100 years of Jim Crow in the south or the drug wars of the 1980’s and 90’s. We won’t get too far into the fact that my friend in the 80’s had a 6th grade child pull a revolver out of his backpack and shoot out the windows of a teacher’s car, and then threaten my friend… and nothing happened.
So, what part do I object to? It’s the “monopoly on violence” part. If you argue that we need all those libraries, weather predictions, educational resources, and soforth, I don’t disagree with you at all, I just think they should be organized around rules set by those who actually use the resources and provide them.
But right now let’s talk about what DOGE really did and what the power of the state to unleash violence really means. what it did was it breached any and all information security barriers that the govt may have had, and it extracted and likely sent to Russia and tech bros like Thiel and his Palantir operation, detailed information about every person in the united states. Where they live, where they’ve worked, what dollar amounts they receive from the government, history of where they’ve lived in the past, who their relatives are, what education they have what kinds of medical procedures they’ve had, photographs of their face, whether they’ve reported things to OSHA or NLRB, anything they may have done in the military, their tax history, businesses they operated, investments they’ve made, mortgages they’ve had, universities they’ve attended, medical procedures provided by the VA…. Literally everything about every person in the united states that they cared about, we can assume has been exfiltrated from any government firewalls and given to bad actors of some sort, en mass. You can read about the whistleblower reports from NLRB, but everything I’ve read and everything any of the infosec people I’ve seen online say, agrees with the assumptions I’m making above.
This is the 2020’s version of making a registry of every jew and homosexual and black person and whoever else the Nazis registered so they could oppress them. It’s just so much more efficient and fast thanks to modern infosystems. If you think that oppression isn’t coming, I don’t know what to tell you, except I think you’re incredibly naive. Soon, the “right” people will get their healthcare approved, and the “wrong” people will get transactions denied. Funds will be frozen to benefit the “right” people and the “criminals” will be shut down. Like the “criminals” sent to El Salvador, zero of whom were ever convicted of anything.
The architecture of part 2 of government power, namely the “monopoly of violence” is inevitably the architecture of these fascist events. Last time, in WWII some tens of millions of people died. I hope that doesn’t happen now. But if it does, it will happen because of acquiescing to the supposed “need” for a group that has those fascist powers. Namely, the state, that group with the hierarchical monopoly on violence.
Daniel
I don’t know what to make out of your statements. On one hand, I deplore the many things you have listed – not mildly, but they sicken me. But I have a hard time seeing these as due to the government “monopoly on violence.” If we removed that monopoly, I think we would have multiple gangs competing with violence – hardly an improvement. At the same time, I don’t believe that a government with a monopoly on violence must act in the horrible ways you list. I think a number of governments around the world do better than that, although I’ll grant you that there are far too few good examples.
For me, despite all the faults of government deeds, I see such institutions as humans best hope for doing better. Environmental issues will not get solved by your conception of anarchy. And on more local levels, I can see many voluntary organizations that would create great harms to the groups they don’t serve. I foresee physical echo chambers not just virtual ones.
Though I see government as an institution that offers humans the best hope for learning to live with each other, that does not mean I am optimistic. I’m willing to go along with numerous small scale examples where something like the anarchy you describe works well (e.g., some indigenous societies), but I don’t see these scaling to any degree. On the scale of human activity today, I just can’t imagine it working. I’m all for expanding freedom from bureaucratic rules and tearing down the government protection racket for the rich and powerful. But I don’t see anarchy as the answer and I don’t think government “has” to be that way.
I’m reminded of this article from The Center for a Stateless Society that was written in 2020.
https://c4ss.org/content/53289
it is extremely insightful and has a lot to say about why the right wing radicals want to “blow it all up”. I think the analysis comes sufficiently outside the box that it hits the mark while inside the box thinking (ie. Dems vs GOP) fail.
Anonymous –
I don’t really have a strong opinion per se, except to the extent that I have a problem with arguments that seem binary (e.g., because there are always problems associated with government we’re better off without it). I run across a lot of such arguments, that seemed to me to be based largely on unarticulated counterfactual assumptions that should be interrogated.
To evaluate this, we need to interrogate the unarticulated counterfactual: what specific, measurable outcomes make hunter-gatherer societies superior to modern governed systems, like those in the U.S., Western Europe, or Scandinavia?
For example, the Scientific American article links dental issues to modern diets, not governance itself, and while hunter-gatherers may have had some health advantages, they faced high infant mortality and environmental risks, unlike governed societies with public health systems and infrastructure. Jared Diamond’s essay argues the agricultural revolution brought trade-offs like disease and inequality, but it doesn’t advocate for anarchism—modern governance has mitigated many of those issues through sanitation, medicine, and labor protections. Claiming non-anarchism only benefits elites overlooks examples like worker-owned companies or Scandinavian redistributive systems, which show governance can serve broader interests.
Comparing pre-1800s hunter-gatherer societies to today’s complex, interconnected world feels like an apples-to-oranges issue. They operated in low-population, pre-industrial contexts, lacking the technology or scale to meet modern needs. A more relevant comparison is modern societies with robust governance versus those with weaker structures. For instance, failed states like Somalia in the 1990s had a 25% child mortality rate, compared to under 5% in stable, governed nations, suggesting effective governance delivers tangible benefits.
I certainly think that if we compare less robust governments today to those counties with more robust governments, those with less mostly come up short.
Daniel
I tried reading the column you linked to – but, really? All this talk about “bad people.” Now, if we admit that all of us have some bad – and good – in us, then it might make some sense. But this constant reference to “bad people” oversimplifies the world in counterproductive ways. I will admit that I see Trump and many of his administration as “bad people.” It is hard to seem them otherwise, but I know that is a dangerous oversimplification. It is true that power attracts our worst qualities and job descriptions that rely on power will attract people willing to cater to their worst tendencies. That is a good reason to reduce power as much as possible – and the government monopoly on force as you call it, moves away from reducing power. But there are ways to have roles – like police, teachers, politicians – that limit power rather than entrench and feeding it. That is what I want to see.
Joshua. I don’t personally argue from hunter gatherers or etc. But I also don’t let modern governance take credit for our high standard of living. Our standard of living is what it is because of one simple thing… energy. The ability to have machines do for us what humans had to do in the past and in vast quantities, enabled us to focus time on science, inventing, art, medicine etc.
You’re right you’d have to interrogate the counterfactual. I don’t think there’s enough words on this blog for doing that. It is highly path dependent between where we are now, and how we get to something we could call Anarchy. All the failed states are not examples of anarchy, they’re examples of failed states. and anyway Andrew probably doesn’t want us doing that interrogation here. My goal was to address the question of why the right wants to blow it all up, and what the actual goals of DOGE is, and why those goals are precisely what you’d expect from creating an institution whose specific special distinguishing quality is that it contains a structure dedicated to enforcing behavior through violence. (that’s what makes the govt different from the YMCA or the Red Cross, that it has police and jails and military, it is the unique quality of govt)
I think I’ve said enough about it, I just didn’t want to leave the question of hunter gatherers etc unmentioned. They provide some interesting data, but are far far from determinative. To the extent that you point to things where govts do better, it’s to the extent that they rely less on police and more on consent, you’re just pointing the same direction I am, and saying don’t walk as far.
“Our standard of living is what it is because of one simple thing… energy.”
Exactly. That’s why Iran and Venezuela have a higher standard of living than Japan.
“Claiming non-anarchism only benefits elites overlooks examples like worker-owned companies or Scandinavian redistributive systems, which show governance can serve broader interests.”
I mentioned worker-owned companies in my first comment, perhaps you should read it again. To the extent you like worker-owned companies, you *are* an anarchist, because again, anarchy essentially means “everything is democratic”. I only use hunter gatherer societies as an example of the potential of these approaches. Those societies were generally radically egalitarian and democratic, but nobody says they cannot be improved on. Non-anarchism was a step backwards.
I agree that counterfactuals are important, but this applies just as much to your position as to mine.
“I certainly think that if we compare less robust governments today to those counties with more robust governments, those with less mostly come up short.”
Modern Russia has a very robust government! How are their health outcomes?
I mentioned 1930s Catalonia and modern Rojava in my previous comment as well. If you want modern anarchism, those are the comparisons you should make, not to failed states. The fact that hunter-gatherer societies were the most successful in human history (in Diamond’s words) should be telling, however. See also Daniel’s most recent comment.
Dale, that article is written targeted at a kind of typical leftist who sees bad actions as purely the product of environmental conditions, and who maybe has a dogmatic belief that if you just eliminated the bad environment that everyone would be good to each other.
Unfortunately psychopathy is a real thing, some several percent of humans are basically physically incapable of empathy, and naturally manipulate others. Some of this is genetic, some is controlled by early childhood experience.
https://www.apa.org/monitor/2022/03/ce-corner-psychopathy
Systems enabling control of others are enriched for these people. They are maybe like 10% ish of lawyers professors and CEOs maybe even higher percentages of cops, special forces operatives, and quite high percentages of incarcerated murderers etc (15-20% maybe?).
Anyway that’s the people referred to in the article. They’re not like you or me, who are normally basically ok but might have a bad day or be tempted to steal something or get drunk or angry and beat someone up. Its more like they go through life harming others for fun and self profit with no more concern than you would have of swatting a fly buzzing in your kitchen. The article argues that in addition to not creating systemic oppressive organizations acting like an amplifier for them, that we also need distributed defense against such people.
Anonymous. What I meant was if you traveled back in time 1000 years and waved a wand and fixed the energy consumption per capita rate globally then traveled forward in time you’d find we were essentially all still serfs toiling in the fields just to make sufficient food, and population would likely be 1/10 what it is now or less. But I think you knew that and were just tweaking me.
Anyway, clarifications in place i’ll bow out.
Andrew –
I hope one more comment won’t trigger the garbage time admonition.
Anonymous –
Of course we could both look for examples that push back against a generalization either way. There’s no shortage of oppressive governments. But I think (I’m not sure) that mostly, there’s a stronger signal associating more robust government with more desirable outcomes, over time, overall.
My perspective on this issue is colored by running into a lot of anti-statist idealists who I think bring binary thinking to this issue, where if something government-related is sub-optimal it therefore justifies the view that we’re better off without government. I consider it to be a Shangri-La worldview, based on a mistaken premise that “optimal” ever exists. But I also share many libertarian concerns about the downsides of government. So let me ask you if/how you distinguish your views from a radical libertarian or an anarcho-capitalist?
Daniel –
I agree there’s a link between energy extraction and better standards of living. But I’m not sure how well that works for your side of this discussion as state capacity, it seems to me, positively correlates with energy extraction (highway infrastructure, advances made through government-funded research like DARPA, etc.). But it also correlates with the negative externalities that come with energy extraction, which are not equitably distributed (nor are the positive externalities). That interplay is a rather big part of the reason that I lean more towards improving government over a stateless society.
I’m not sure that your distinction between anarchy and failed states addresses my focus on the counterfactuals.
Yes, there’s a distinction, but how do you wind up with one versus the other if you eliminate government? What mechanisms in anarchy prevent a Somalia-like collapse?
As for government monopoly on violence, point taken, but how do you ensure a less arbitrary exercise of power in an anarchist society?
(Reposting in the right thread)
Joshua, I’m a leftist anarchist, not an anarcho-capitalist. Anarcho-capitalism is a reversion to feudalism. I agree that there are many idealists and utopians and I am not one of them. (I used to be a liberal.) I am heavily influenced by Chomsky’s pragmatism on these issues. We always need to start with the existing situation and organize enough people so that we can start to make a change. We should move in the direction of more democracy in all our institutions, meaning more unions, more worker ownership, and more real democratic control over our government (and the goal should be to eventually abolish all authoritarian institutions). I have no illusions that this will be easy or simple, we are fighting against entrenched and powerful interests (both the state and the corporations). Remember how hard it was to even win unions in the 1930s US. But it is something that must happen for a more just and free society.
Someone upstream said:
“I also share many libertarian concerns about the downsides of government. ”
Sharing _anything_ with libertarians is a bad idea. It’s a naive pseudo-philosophy whose purposes are to let the rich feel less bad about themselves and justify their slinging their wealth around to the deteriment of others.
(Interestingly, libertarianism was too crazy even for Ayn Rand. (Yes, I’ve read much of her work and heard her speak (she did the college lecture circuit back in the day, which in Boston were broadcast on the radio).). She figured out that governments were actually necessary. Hilariously, the libertarians claim her as their god. Go figure.)
(Also interestingly, Ayn Rand’s crazed insanity confirmed me even further as a 60s/70s lefty. Thus it’s sort of funny that current righties think that reading Ayn Rand will make people more righty. Go figure.)
Example 1: Any time you hear someone saying “Government regulation is bad”, you can be pretty sure they’re talking about regulations that protect workers, protect the environment, or protect customers from abusive bank practices. Getting the fine print right is hard, but prior to Drumpf, we were doing pretty well.
Example 2: Project 2024 has this really great idea for health insurace. Everyone should be allowed to purchase exactly the health insurance they think they need with no government interference. Note that “government interference” here is a dog whistle for subsidies. If you can’t afford market-rate health insurance, you should go without.
These are not nice people, even though “libertarian” has a nice sound to it.
Lol. When one of those incarcerated gets let loose and shoots your dog, or burns your house down, or steals your car, or whatever, I can’t wait to hear how your anarchist friends self organized to *not* oppress them.
Daniel –
I’m not sure how relevant it is to talk about what “right-wing radicals” want to do.
We have pretty clear insight into the ideology of the 2020 crowd. Then there’s the tech bro crowd and their Praxis-related goals. Broadly speaking, some want to blow government up and some want to replace who’s running the government.
And then there’s Trump, whose goals, imo, are ego and narcissism based. Linking them all together under one hammer doesn’t seem particularly instructive, imo.
Joshua, I’m a leftist anarchist, not an anarcho-capitalist. Anarcho-capitalism is a reversion to feudalism. I agree that there are many idealists and utopians and I am not one of them. (I used to be a liberal.) I am heavily influenced by Chomsky’s pragmatism on these issues. We always need to start with the existing situation and organize enough people so that we can start to make a change. We should move in the direction of more democracy in all our institutions, meaning more unions, more worker ownership, and more real democratic control over our government (and the goal should be to eventually abolish all authoritarian institutions). I have no illusions that this will be easy or simple, we are fighting against entrenched and powerful interests (both the state and the corporations). Remember how hard it was to even win unions in the 1930s US. But it is something that must happen for a more just and free society.
The left of the 1960s and early 1970s formed a critical mass, but had very limited power within government. Most also didn’t have lots of disposable cash. Many on the New Left wanted a better and more equitable world with less war. Those values are antithetical to today’s political right. They want to tank the entire system, and the rest of the world with it, and maintain their power and meanness toward others.
Exactly!
Although this crowd doesn’t seem too shaby, and the photographer was shooting a ‘blad.
(Two photographs from 1970)
https://pbase.com/davidjl/image/119895297
https://pbase.com/davidjl/image/174368483