 |
The Dialectics of Liberty
This page is an ongoing development of the sources, principles, and applications of dialectical libertarianism, a point of view that was originally developed by Chris Matthew Sciabarra of New York University. It is based upon literature drawn from the interstice where dialectical analysis and libertarianism overlap. I have drawn many materials from Dr. Sciabarra and consider him to be an enormously important contemporary political theorist. However, I have added many other ideas and sources. Using the work of Dr. Sciabarra and other individualist and libertarian writers as a foundation, my goal is to help develop dialectical libertarian analyses of politics, culture, and individuality.
Defining Dialectical Libertarianism: The Basic Elements
It may sound odd to refer to a dialectical libertarianism since dialectics are usually associated with Marxism and libertarianism is usually associated with capitalism and free markets. But, this is probably an indication of how thoroughly infused our culture and discourse are with the socialist world view. In fact, dialectics is a much broader idea that includes, but is not limited to, the theories of Marx and other socialist thinkers.
It is important to remember that the dialectical analysis of knowledge and society can be traced back to the writings of both Plato and Aristotle. As we move more toward the modern era, certainly the philosopher Hegel is recognized as a master dialectician, even though he defended private property and articulated a view of alienation that is hardly socialist. So, dialectics and Marxism are different things altogether. There is considerable value in trying to understand the relationship between dialectics and libertarianism, especially how one can contribute to the other.
In my book After Multiculturalism, I outlined some of the basic elements or ideas of dialectical libertarianism. Again, I owe a lot to Prof. Sciabarra, but I have attempted to articulate my own understanding. In my view, there are five essential ideas in a dialectical understanding of knowledge and society:
1. Conflicts and Contradictions. A focus on the conflicts and antagonisms in theory and society, and a suspicion that prevailing political ideologies are replete with internal tensions and conflict with social practice. From a dialectical libertarian point of view, a fundamental conflict in theory and society is between the authority of the state and the freedom of the individual.
2. The Primacy of Political Conflict. A focus on the critique of force and fraud as central social processes, and a suspicion that social organization tends to be the outcome of coercion and manipulation rather than consensus, all of which tend to be rooted in the exercise of political power in society. Individuals and groups tend to resist constraints on their behavior. Force and fraud are important mechanisms for the imposition of state power.
3. The Nature of Society. A commitment to the description of social reality in historical or processual rather than static terms. Individualist and libertarian theorists tend to oppose reified conceptions of social institutions, particularly the state, which declare that the domination of individuals by the state is a permanent, necessary, invariant feature of human existence. Society and culture are not fixed; they are in flux, constantly challenged and potentially changing because, at bottom, they are created by human beings acting and interacting.
4. The Nature of Knowledge. A commitment to a philosophy of knowledge and society that disputes the idea that human sciences must be identical in their assumptions and procedures to the natural sciences. Dialectical libertarianism must allow for indeterminacy and freedom in human behavior. Thus, dialectical libertarianism offers a critique of all forms of determinism, or efforts to understand or explain human behavior in a way that undermines the ability of human beings to choose their feelings, values, goals, and actions.
5. The Goal of Science and Inquiry. A belief that the goal of human knowledge and inquiry is not the discovery of eternal laws and universal order in social life, but the search for the sources of individual freedom and a critique of the obstacles to individual freedom.
One of the important features of dialectical libertarian thought that Sciabarra articulated in Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical and Total Freedom: Toward a Dialectical Libertarianism, is the demarcation of distinct levels of social-individual reality. In Sciabarra's framework, the dialectical analysis of society must be concerned with the interaction between L1 (Level 1) the cognitive-ethical behaviors of individuals, L2 (Level 2) cultural-linguistic behaviors of individuals in a society, and L3 (Level 3) the macro-level structural dynamics of polity and economy. The sources of support for individual liberty and the obstacles to it must be understood in terms of these three levels.
Human freedom, individual liberty, especially from the constraints of the state and traditional social institutions, are the central concepts and the ultimate goals of a dialectical libertarianism. This emerging theoretical perspective offers a critique of, and an alternative to, theories and ideologies that subordinate liberty to other values in either thought or action.
The Philosophic Foundations of Dialectical Libertarianism
This section discusses some of the major philosophic influences upon the dialectics of liberty. It identifies what is living or particularly pertinent in the thought of major philosophers for dialectical libertarian thought. As indicated above, many philosophers have addressed issues relevant to either dialectics and liberty. The individuals discussed here are especially important, in my view. I indicate some of their major concepts and identify their writings that contribute to a dialectical libertarianism. In some cases, I discuss where my writings review or critique their work. There are many other theorists and writers who have contributed to this theoretical tradition, but these are some of the thinkers who have influenced me the most.
Aristotle 384-322 B. C.
Aristotle is important for the entirety of philosophy and social thought, but there is a kernel of libertarianism in his ethics and politics. He said, "(when) everyone has a distinct interest, men will not complain of one another, and they will make more progress, because every one will be attending to his own business." Thus, the state and society should not be based on envy or any other form of collective comparisons, but on the idea that individuals ought to be able to pursue their own purposes and live the life they are best suited for. So much for egalitarianism or any form of regimentation imposed by the state or powerful organizations in society.
Thomas Jefferson 1743-1826
It is a stretch to argue that Jefferson is a dialectical theorist, his view of knowledge and the nature of society are probably rooted in the tradition of John Locke, but I believe that Jefferson's credentials as a libertarian are unmatched. He is usually thought of as one of the founding fathers of the United States, the initial author of the Declaration of Independence, and the third President of the United States. He was also an enormously important libertarian political theorist who understood that what little legitimacy governments can have is ultimately rooted in the consent of the governed. He also understood that governments have a tendency to lose sight of the sources of their legitimacy and that they evolve into authoritarian organizations. Hence, social revolution becomes a legitimate and necessary act of a free people who seek to subordinate the state to their purposes and who seek to establish thresholds for the legitimate and limited role of the state in society and in the lives of persons. Imagine a situation in which society and individuality dominate the state, rather than the other way around. Whatever Jefferson's failings as a person, he is an enormously important political theorist for those of us who place a premium on individual liberty.
G. W. F. Hegel 1770-1831
Hegel is almost universally thought of as a conservative, statist precursor to Marx. I disagree somewhat and think that his writings deserve a new interpretation. In his early writings, he was very critical of the state and indicated that the state inevitably reduces persons to the status of cogs in a machine - his terms. Because the state is inevitably an obstacle to human freedom, Hegel argued that it must be eliminated. This was at about the same time that William Godwin, who is usually credited with being the first anarchist philosopher, wrote his work, Political Justice.
Hegel made human freedom a central concept in his philosophy throughout his life. He describes freedom as the goal and substance of both philosophy and human development. History is the movement of social forces directed toward the maximization of human freedom. Much of human history can be understood in terms of what he called, "The self-bringing forth of liberty." I interpret this to refer to social and individual actions that are self-consciously self-determing. For Hegel, freedom is self-conscious self-determination. Liberty has content both in the realms of human thought and action. History is the struggle for it. I believe that the misreading of Hegel that assumes his political philosophy is a justification of statism is because of Hegel's view of history, which is unfamiliar to a modern, American audience. I believe that Hegel was saying that the time is up for the state; it cannot continue in the same form. I do not believe that he said there were no alternatives to it. A good source for this point of view is Sholomo Avineri, Hegel's Theory of the Modern State.
I explore these ideas in my chapter "The unchained dialectic: Theory and research in an era of educational reform," in W. Ross & R. Gibson (Eds.), Neoliberalism and Educational Reform, and "Rethinking particularity: Individualist perspectives on race and multiculturalism in higher education," in W. Ross & V. Pang (Eds.), Race, Ethnicity and Education: Race and Racism in the Schools. I also discuss Hegel's ideas and relevance for libertarianism in Chapters One and Six of After Multiculturalism. You can get an overview of these by going to Books and Chapters on this web site.
Hegel is worth studying, especially The Phenomenology of Mind, The Science of Logic, The Philosophy of History, and The Philosophy of Right. But, try to read him without a Marxist lens. He may have a lot to offer to those of us who are concerned about the future of human freedom.
Max Stirner 1806-1856
Stirner's most important book is usually translated in English as The Ego and His Own. He was influence by Hegel, he adopted a dialectical methodology, and was a contemporary of Marx and Engels. In fact, Marx published one of Stirner's early essays. The drawing at the left, about the only rendition of Stirner available, is by Engels. However, philosophically, they were great enemies. Although Stirner never addressed Marx's work directly, he did critique the left Hegelian and rudimentary communist ideas that were emerging in Europe in the early 19th century. Of course, he dismissed them as coercive and statist. Marx and Engels spent about 60% of The German Ideology attacking Stirner because they clearly understood that Stirner's egoist thought was a potent challenge to communist and socialist ideology.
In After Multiculturalism, I argue that Stirner is one of the most controversial and enigmatic thinkers in the history of philosophy because of the uncompromising egoist position he adopts. In Chapter Six of that book, I discussed the implications of Stirner's thought for our understanding of race and multiculturalism today, namely that race is a fixed idea that serves to structure thought and behavior, frequently in destructive ways. But Stirner's work is important in many areas of social thought and it is vastly underappreciated. One of my current projects is an analysis of the impact of Stirner's thought from the end of the 19th century to today. He is worth reading, but be prepared for bold statements and a proclivity to pursue egoism wherever it leads. . I believe that my chapter in After Multiculturalism is a pretty good introduction to Stirner.
Mikhail Bakunin 1814-1876
Bakunin is best known as the able and fiery antagonist of Karl Marx in the founding of the First International. Bakunin and Marx hated each other, and for good reason. Bakunin virulently opposed Marx's vision of the creation of a socialist state. Bakunin was uncanny in his prediction that Marx's socialist theories would ultimately produce the sorry forms of communist dictatorships that unfortunately persist to this day. Bakunin was also very concerned that Marxism would reshape the nascent workers' movement from a democratic and libertarian form into a very centralized and authoritarian type of organization. He was right and Marx was wrong.
Bakunin was much more of an activist than a theorist, but his theorizing is still very under appreciated and should be brought to the fore. His work is enormously important for the development of a dialectical libertarianism. In several manuscripts, I demonstrate where Bakunin's thought could be helpful to social theory, particularly in the areas of political organization and the relationship of the individual to the state. My dissertation is devoted to Bakunin's critique of Marx and traces his conflict with Marx through the development of European socialism and communism. My essay on revolutionary subjectivity which appeared in Free Inquiry, article in the Mid-American Review of Sociology on political drama, and my chapter in Life as Theater were also based on a Bakuninist view of political organization and change.
Bakunin argued for a very decentralist form of social organization. It was voluntarist but also argued for collective ownership of land and major industries. I am opposed to the arguments he offered in favor of collectivization of property and believe that they were contradictory to his broader libertarian vision. Nevertheless, I believe this his writings should be studied and infused into libertarian thought. His critiques of Marxism, the state, and religion are particularly important.
Lysander Spooner 1808-1887
Spooner is another extremely important figure who has not gotten adequate attention in social theory. It is a shame, too, because he really has a lot to offer to our understanding of how political domination structures social conflict, and how conflict promotes social change. Spooner was an attorney, an Abolitionist, an entrepreneur, and revolutionary individualist anarchist. In the middle of the 19th century, Spooner created a letter mail service that competed with the U.S. Postal Service and directly challenged the postal monopoly of the U.S. government.
Spooner was also a prolific writer. He developed early arguments for the abolition of slavery based on the idea that slavery was unconstitutional. In addition, he wrote pamphlets encouraging a guerrilla war in the South against slave owners. In addition, he was a revolutionary anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist and argued against colonial domination, particularly that of Great Britain. Perhaps his most radical and best known work is a series of pamphlets entitled, No Treason. No Treason is perhaps one of the most subversive documents ever written because it argues, from a legal point of view, that the U.S. Constitution has no authority as a contract because no one living ever agreed to it voluntarily. Thus, the government of the United States is based on coercion, not consensus, in Spooner's formulation.
My book, After Multiculturalism, includes a chapter that discusses Spooner's individualist anarchism and his views on slavery, imperialism, and racism. He work represents a strand of thought that is not usually discussed today. It concerns how government fabricates conflicts that generate racism. The prevailing wisdom today is that government is needed to eliminate racism, a laughable point of view when viewed from Spooner's perspective. What is critical is that Spooner's thought provides a libertarian vision of society based on a dialectical analysis. Remarkably, he created vision a revolutionary, anti-capitalist, but free market, libertarian vision of society independent of any knowledge of the work of Bakunin or Marx. In some respects, Spooner continued the philosophic development of many ideas inherent in the American Revolutionary tradition. Perhaps it is not so remarkable after all!!
Benjamin Tucker 1854-1939
Benjamin Tucker is best known as the founder and editor of Liberty, which was an individualist anarchist periodical published around the turn of the century in Boston. Tucker articulated an individualist anarchist analysis of society and economy in the pages of Liberty. He also published the works of many other individualists and libertarian theorists of the day, including Stepeh Pearl Andrews, the early sociologist Victor Yarros and the economist John Beverly Robinson. He also provided original translations of Nietzsche and Stirner. Tucker believed that the primary outcome of the government was the generation of various forms of monopolies that functioned to create social classes and oppress marginalized groups. In Tucker's view, the exercise of political power and the redistributive functions of the state operate mainly to create and sustain class exploitation. Consequently, he argued in favor of a principle he called "equal liberty," or the idea that each person should enjoy the same freedoms and responsibilities in society. For Tucker, this meant no privileges or advantages of any type should be bestowed on any person or group. Hence, all institutionalized political power should be abolished.
Thus, Tucker dialectical critique argues for the revolutionary restructuring of society, but not in a Marxian fashion. Instead of seizing state power and using it to help the proletariat, as in Marxist theory, Tucker argued that the state should simply be abolished and persons be allowed to meet their own needs through exchange and voluntary association. He published a book entitled appropriately, Instead of a Book by a Man Too Busy to Write One, which was a collection of his editorials and articles from Liberty. Arguably, his most important work of theory was his essay, Anarchism and State Socialism: How Far They Agree and Wherein They Differ.
Dora Marsden 1882-1960
One of Tucker's contemporaries was Dora Marsden, a British feminist and egoist who edited three theoretical journals in succession, The Freewoman, The New Freewoman, and The Egoist from 1911 - 1919. Marsden is important in the history of dialectical libertarianism, in part, because she added a feminist and sexual dimension to the ideas that Spooner and Tucker developed. Just as the state is essential in the creation and sustainability of racism and class domination, it is also essential in the creation and sustainability of sexism for pretty much the same reasons. Marsden developed the notion that egoism, or the principle of individual resistance to the external mediation of behavior, is essential to the liberation of women in society, or outside of it. Reportedly, she admired Stirner's The Ego and its Own, even though she had disagreements with Stirner's total atheism. Eventually, she argued against Tucker's anarchism and concept of "equal liberty" on the ground that it might be to the individual's advantage to use the state or to seek power over others. Thus, she eventually adopted a position she called "archism," or an egoist rejection of anarchism and the idea of "equal liberty." From a feminist point of view, egoism frees woman to pursue her self-interest and appropriate her own life, irrespective of mythical notions, such as the "common good" or "equal liberty."
Albert J. Nock 1872-1945
Albert Jay Nock was an important figure in what was called the "old right," a tradition in American political thought that fused the ideals of the American founding with individualist and anti-statist concepts developed in the 19th century. In Nock's case, anarchism was added to the mix. Nock founded his brand of individualist philosophic anarchism on the theories of the 19th century sociologist Franz Oppenheimer. In his book, The State, Oppenheimer was among the first European sociologists to articulate a non-Marxian form of dialectical critique of the state and political power. Nock appropriated Oppenheimer's argument and applied it to the circumstances in the United States in the early 20th century in a book entitled, Our Enemy, the State.
Perhaps the most significant idea to emerge from Nock's encounted with Oppenheimer was the contradiction between the "economic" and "political" means of meeting human needs. Briefly, the "economic" means refers to exchange and voluntary agreement between people. The "political" means refers to coercion. Nock argued that American history was the ongoing departure of society from the ideals of the American founding, or the increased application of the political means in society. The state was becoming the dominant social institution, at the expense of the family, the church, the school, and the economy.
Nock is frequently accused of being an elitist or an aristocratic type of anarchist who assumes himself to be above the blood, sweat, and struggle of the real world. However, Nock was very critical of the class structure in society. He was also very critical of racism. He thought that the emergent form of monopoly capitalism in America would eventually collapse from the poverty and misery it generates. Nock anticipates themes in libertarian thought that would later appear in more systematically developed forms in the works of Murray Rothbard. From this vantage point, I explored Nock's critique of the state, racism, and the class system in Chapter Six of After Multiculturalism.
Ludwig von Mises 1871-1973
Ludwig von Mises is one of the titans of modern economics and certainly one of the leading theorists of the Austrian School of Economics. Mises made many contributions to social thought, not just in economics. His work in economics is truly groundbreaking because he developed an economic theory that is at once qualitative, sociological, and laissez-faire, which puts him and the Austrian School at odds with both the Keynesians and the Chicago School. The methodology of the Austrian School is founded on the notion that the goal of economic science is to discover basic principles of economic life and explore how they apply to varying behaviors and circumstances. It proceeds through the articulation of axiomatic concepts, or fundamental observations or statements that are irreducible or true by definition.
Mises and his students, including Murray Rothbard, used axiomatic concepts and statements to develop individualist, capitalist, and anti-statist arguments on a broad array of social, economic and political phenomena. In After Multiculturalism, I discuss Mises' economic theory and critique of political power. I also analyze his critique of racism. Basing his analysis on the rise of "omnipotent government" in an era of "total war," Mises makes the critical observation that racism is a creation of government and owes its continued existence to government. The antagonism between the "total state" and the continued existence of society is a theme that Mises helped develop. Among his significant contributions to the critique of statism is the notion that the rise of the total state signfies the increase of social disorganization and conflict within social groups.
Frank Chodorov 1887-1966
Frank Chodorov was an American journalist who consistently espoused an individualist and libertarian critique of American political life that was especially significant during the 1940s and 1950s. As an individualist, Chodorov was extremely critical of the New Deal statism of Franklin D. Roosevelt, but he was also very critical of the neo-conservative movement that arose in response to the transformation of liberal thought in the United States. Arguably, Chodorov's most important writings were his political essays that appeared in a journal he founded called "analysis," which later became known as Human Events. His most important essays were frequently organized into books, such as One is a Crowd: Reflections of an Individualist, The Income Tax: Root of all Evil, The Rise and Fall of Society, and Fugitive Essays.
Much of Chodorov's work is based on Nock's opposition of state and society, or the contradiction between the political and economic means of solving problems and meeting human needs. Nock and Chodorov were friends and, close to the time of Nock's death, had discussed some joint publishing ventures. Chodorov particularly believed that the expansion of state power in modern society adumbrated the fall or dissolution of society. In his view, it is a zero-sum game, the more political power grows, the more social power diminishes. As governments rise or expand their spheres of control, society falls. The key to social organization, prosperity and freedom is maximizing social power by minimizing the role of government. His work anticipates many themes developed by later libertarians and minarchists, such as Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, and Robert Nozick.
Ayn Rand 1905-1982
I chose to organize this gallery of theorists in the dialectical libetarian tradition in, more or less, a chronological order. If I presented the theorists in terms of their importance, Ayn Rand would likely be the first discussed. Why is Rand so important? Although her novels and other works of fiction are interesting and continue to thrill readers even a quarter of a century after her death, I believe that her primary importance lies in the way in which she combined several philosophic traditions to create an integrated philosophy that she called "Objectivism." Objectivism is a bit of a misnomer because Rand's perspective is authentically dialectical in that it clearly includes the interaction between the subjective and objective aspects of human reality. She once said that she would like to call her philosophy "existentialism" since it addresses how humans actually live their lives, but that moniker had been appropriated by another philosophic tendency that she disagreed with.
All of Rand's writings are provocative and informative. She manages to create a point of view that integrates pro-capitalist, anti-statist, and pro-free will ideas into a coherent whole. She did not originate most of the important ideas in her philosophy, but she combined them in a truly innovative fashion that sets her apart from other major thinkers. Personally, I think it is a tragedy that modern social science refuses to engage Rand's works in a dialogue. But this is probably a reflection of the domination of modern academia by a socialist worldview that Rand would dismiss as irrational, collectivist, and statist.
In Chapter Two of After Multiculturalism, I discuss Rand's entire philosophic approach and relate it specifically to her critique of racism. All of Rand's works are worth reading carefully, but I find her collection of essays The Virtue of Selfishness and the "This is John Galt" speech from Atlas Shrugged to be especially helpful in understanding her philosophy.
Murray N. Rothbard 1926-1995
Murray Rothbard was an academic economist, prolific writer, and political activist who worked tirelessly to expand and deepen our understandings of the contradictions between power and market, the state and society, and coercion and reason. His works on economics was initially built upon the massive edifice created by von Mises and the theorists in the tradition of the Austrian School of Economics. In many respects, however, Rothbard's work went far beyond that of the theorists of the Austrian School. For one thing, Rothbard's understanding of the nature of the market and the antagonism of state and society, led him to adopt a position he called anarcho-capitalism, which basically argues that the state is an unnecessary and anti-social institution because the market, or voluntary agreements and associations, can and should be allowed to provide for all human needs. Thus, unlike von Mises, Rothbard became an anarchist theorist who articulated a position different from Spooner and Tucker, as well as the limited government position of Ayn Rand.
Rothbard is also important because he developed an ethical theory and a critique of scientism in the social sciences that are grounded in the axiomatic concepts of Austrian School economic theory. The entire corpus of Rothbard's work is interesting, enlightening and engaging. I strongly recommend Power and Market, For a New Liberty, Individualism and the Social Sciences, and Man, Economy and State for those who are encountering Rothbard for the first time.
Chapter Three of After Multiculturalism deals with Rothbard's writings on race and ethnicity. While I do not especially care for Rothbard's support of black nationalism in the 1960s, I certainly have a lot of respect for the totality of his work and his critique of racism and the state, in particular.
Chris Matthew Sciabarra 1960 -
I have made many references to the work of Professor Sciabarra on this web site. As I continue to develop the website and refine my own ideas, I will undoubtedly include many more references to his outstanding scholarship. I first encountered Sciabarra's scholarship several years ago as I was attempting to work with both libertarian ideas and the notion that persons live and act within a social environment that is not always friendly and supportive. While I believe that the entire corpus of libertarian theory is very helpful in understanding political, economic and cultural phenomena, I also thought that it was somewhat weak or contradictory in relating the socio-cultural context to both macro-level political and economic.
Sciabarra's work was an enormous help to me in relating the dialectics of social life to libertarian theory. His writings clearly extricate the notion of dialectics from the grasp of Marxism, which, unfortunately, dominates contemporary social thought, and expands it to allow for the inclusion of concepts like individual liberty, private property, and a market economy. As such, I believe that it is in the dialectical libertarian tradition of thinkers such as Bakunin, Stirner, and Spooner. However, it is also clear that Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard are enormously important in Sciabarra's work. I found Sciabarra's books on Rand and Rothbard exceptional intellectual histories that articulate some of the basic elements of dialectical libertarian thought. My book, After Multiculturalism, owes much to his work. It has been thrilling and reinvigorating to encounter Sciabarra's work at this stage of life.
The two books of Sciabarra's that I strongly recommend are Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical and Total Freedom: Toward a Dialectical Libertarianism. Sciabarra is a young scholar. It is clear that he will have a great academic career and an enormous influence on social and political theory.
***
The Applications of Dialectical Libertarianism
What, if anything, unites this very diverse group of thinkers? What applications does the concept of dialectical libertarianism have in theory and society?
In After Multiculturalism and in many of the articles I have written about social theory, I argue that the main application of dialectical libertarianism is that it provides a framework to develop a critique of both social thought and social practice. It is apparent that there are common themes in the writings of the theorists who provide the philosophic foundations for a dialectical libertarianism, such as the conflict between the individual and the state, voluntary agreement and coercion, and the economic means and the political means for solving problems and meeting needs. There is also some commonality in the methods these varied writers use to approach the subject matter that interests them.
There are two forms of critique that emerge in the works of the theorists who have contributed to the development of a dialectical libertarianism. These two forms of critique help us understand the applications of dialectical libertarianism.
The first form is called "immanent critique," which proceeds initially through the identification of the values, principles, or standards that either a theorist or a social formation uses to establish its legitimacy. Immanent critique then contrasts these values, principles, or standards with the external or intersubjective realities of the theory or the social formation. For example, an imminent critique of American society might include a contrast of traditional American values of individual liberty with the expanding coercive power of the government, or the contradiction between the claim of equal opportunity with the continued reality of racism and discrimination. Hegel, Stirner, Bakunin, and Chodorov used imminent critique, perhaps without that moniker, frequently in their writings about the state and political authority. I demonstrate in After Multiculturalism that Rand used this approach in her critique of racism.
Dialectical libertarianism employs an immanent critique through the identification of philosophic or societal values, goals, principles, or standards that pertain to individual liberty, and, through some form of disciplined observation, assess how these fit with the realities of the theory or the social formation. Is there a match or a mismatch? The political goal, of course, is to try to achieve a closer approximation of social and political realities with the standards that promote or support individual liberties.
The second form of critique is called "transcendental critique." This approach proceeds by the theorist first articulating values, principles, or standards that guide the analysis, and then contrasting these with the practice of the social formation. In this case, the standards are those articulated by the theorists, not the social formation. Rand and Rothbard used transcendental critique extensively through the elaboration of axiomatic concepts and axiomatic statements which they used to critique collectivism and statism. Once again, the political use of transcedental critique is to promote a closer match between libertarian thought and existing social practice.
Rand, Mises, and Rothbard based their transcendental critiques of collectivism, statism, and managed economies on axiomatic concepts and statements about humanity and society. Axiomatic statements are irreducible observations about the nature of things. From the axiomatic statement, each developed their theoretical perspectives on economy, the state, ideology, ethics, and many other important topics. As the facts of a particular socio-historical formation departed from the axiomatic statements, these thinkers believed they had a basis for a societal critique.
In After Multiculturalism, I outline the basic elements of the transcendental critiques of Rand, Mises, and Rothbard and apply them to their analyses of racism. Early in the book, I also identify five concepts that can be used to develop an individualist or libertarian transcendental critique of society. I will restate these concepts in the form of questions that can be posed about any type of theory, social formation, culture, or cognitive/ethical system:
1. To what extent does the theory or social formation treat human beings as autonomous individuals, or as members of social collectivities? Are people conceived primarily as totalities in themselves, or only as parts of a greater or more important whole?
2. To what extent does the theory or social formation elevate the state as the vehicle or social institution responsible for meeting needs or solving human problems? Is the state's role either limited or unlimited in its role in society and in the lives of individuals? Is the state viewed critically or is it viewed as having unlimited potential to overcome alienation and other human problems?
3. To what extent does the theory or social formation promote in-group and out-group boundaries and identities? To what extent does the theory or social formation demarcate similarities and differences among people? To what extent does the theory or social formation exclude different individuals and promote group homogeneity? Does the theory or social formation promote tribalism?
4. To what extent does the theory or social formation promote epistemological, moral, and/or cultural relativism? To what extent does the theory or social formation promote the idea that justice and liberty have transcendental meanings that do not vary by time and place? To what extent does the theory or social formation promote the idea that ethical behavior varies by context? To what extent does the theory or social formation promote the idea that different social, cultural, and political groups see the world in fundamentally different ways, and have fundamentally different values?
5. To what extent does the theory or social formation promote the idea that the behavior of human beings is determined or significantly structured by either society, culture, or biology? Does the theory or social formation allow for some indeterminacy in the behavior of people, or does it view persons as the victims of forces they cannot surmount? Does it view people as having the ability to reason and choose their own behavior, or is individual behavior more or less equivalent to the behavior of natural phenomena? Do persons have freedom of the will, or not?
In After Multiculturalism, of course, I argued that part of what it means to be human in a behavioral sense includes the conception (a) that individuals are totalities and must be viewed autonomously, (b) that the state should have only a limited role, if any, in society and in the lives of individuals, (c) that there are some human universals that surmount tribal boundaries and identities, (d) that not all ideas, societies, cultures, or values are equal, some are better or more important than others, and (e) human beings have the ability to reason and to choose their behavior. My purpose in After Multiculturalism was to critique the multiculturalist conception of race and ethnicity in order to pave the way for a consideration of individualist and libertarian perspectives. My purpose here is to demonstrate that ideas like these can be used as a foundation for a transcendental critique of theory and society, based on an articulated conception of what it means to be human, at least in a behavioral sense.
In both immanent and transcendental critique, the identification of conflicts and contradictions between thought and reality is a method of subverting authoritarian and collectivist formations, as well as the legitimations that help prop them up. The estrangement of thought from reality is a ubiquitous interest in dialectical analysis. In libertarian analysis, the interest in alienation is focused on the negation of individual liberty in either social thought or social practice. Dialectical libertarian thought can proceed from either an imminent or transcendental methods. What is critical is the identification of the estrangement of libertarian values or goals from the realities of social practice.
As a consequence, dialectical libertarianism can be employed to analyze a wide range of social, cultural, and psychological phenomena. Dialectical libertarian studies of politics, economics, theory, race, gender, and sexuality have already contributed to the knowledge base in these fields.
***
Differentiating Dialectical Libertarianism from Other Theoretical Perspectives
My conception of dialectical libertarianism is somewhat general and is based on ideas derived from several diverse philosophic tendencies. I conceive it to be a type of philosophic tradition bound together by the five core ideas discussed above, as well as by libertarian-oriented forms of imminent and transcendental critique. Thus, it can be differentiated from other philosophic points of view.
Against Critical Theory and Marxism
A significant area of overlap between dialectical libertarianism and critical theory and Marxism is the importance placed on the dialectic. However, there are significant differences between dialectical libertarianism and the dialectic of critical theory and Marxism.
The most important of these pertain differences in their views of the state and capitalism. Generally, critical theorists are antagonistic to capitalism and supportive of the Marxist political project of seizing state power and using it to advance the interests of the supposed victims of the capitalist social system, the working class and racial and ethnic minorities. This pretty much consistently means nationalizing industry and collectivizing social problems and individual wealth.
Dialectical libertarianism is interested in dismantling state capitalism, but promoting free markets and/or laissez-faire capitalism. It is also suspicious of the state and political activity that is oriented toward seizing state power.
Against Postmodern Thought
Postmodernism is an important contemporary philosophic movement primarily because of the number of its adherents in the social and behavioral sciences, and not because of the strength of its ideas. Postmodernism is critical of all philosophic tendencies that maintain that there is an objective reality that can be known in clear and undistorted terms. It is really a critique of scientific knowledge or the possibility of objective knowledge.
Postmodernism is pretty vague about its political goals, but its adherents tend to be leftist, appreciating their work as the deconstruction of traditional values and capitalist ideals of individualism and capital accumulation. While again, there is some overlap, it differs from dialectical libertarianism because the theorists in the individualist tradition seek a vantage point to critique the totality of history from a libertarian point of view. The relativism of postmodernism is anathema to dialectical libertarians.
Hegel said the dialectic is the only absolute and identified it as Absolute Method. Rand said that reason is humanity's only absolute and built her philosophic system on the premise that reason is what defines human beings in a behavioral sense. Mises and Rothbard, like Rand, based their philosophic system on a set of absolutes derived from axiomatic concepts rooted in natural law and natural right. Spooner and Tucker did something similar. Stirner's dialectical egoism identified the Unique One as the only absolute and used it as a basis to critique all social and cultural systems. Despite their many differences, the theorists discussed above reject the basic idea of postmodernism that there is no basis to establish objective knowledge about society and history.
Against Conservatism
Conservative thought generally seeks to preserve traditional social and cultural values against the modernizing forces of capitalism and the state. While conservatives in the United States are critical, at times, of governmental intervention into the economy, the fact is that conservatives assign the state a very important role in society: the preservation of traditional relationships and values. Thus, they are usually eager to use the power of the state to prohibit or impede alternative life-styles, abortion rights, and drug use.
Conservatives are also generally supportive of the role of religion in society. Typically, they believe that the rights and roles of persons are derived from their Creator, not nature nor social contract. Thus, faith and mysticism have an important social control function in society in conservative social thought. The libertarians in the dialectical tradition, however, tend to argue against conservative images of the role of the state and religion in society.
Dialectical libertarians see the state as a generally regressive social institution since it insists on subordinating individuals to the dictates of external authority. They see religion as an institution that externalizes the reality of human being; that is, it situates the meaning of what it means to be human outside of individual persons, usually in the form of God or some sort of transcendental entity. As such, it places a premium on faith and negates the essential quality of what it means to be human - the capacity to reason and to choose one's own behavior.
Against Classical Liberalism and Neoliberalism
Contemporary Libertarianism has many points of convergence with classical liberalism. There are marked similarities in the two perspectives with regard to the relationship of the individual to the state and the importance of civil liberties. Both also share a deep commitment to the role of civil society in meeting the needs of persons. However, there are some differences between dialectical libertarianism and both classical liberalism and much of contemporary libertarianism. Most significantly, classical liberalism and large segments of contemporary libertarian thought are based on an empiricist view of knowledge and an atomist view of individuals in a social context. Dialectical libertarianism differs on both the nature of knowledge and of society, prefering a much more qualitative and interactive epistemology and view of society that focuses on the interaction between the individual and social institutions. In many respects, dialectical libertarianism is much more critical of the state as a social institution than either classical liberalism or contemporary libertarianism.
Neoliberal thought refers to a movement in theory and social policy that is concerned with the need and consequences to privatize what were once public services or entities. Neoliberalism is certainly concerned with the role of the state in society and in th e lives of individuals. Generally, libertarians applaud the privatization of social and individual strategies for meeting human needs. The problem with neoliberalism from a dialectical libertarian point of view is that it assumes, or carries with it the assumption, that the state alone has the legitimate prerogative to determine what can be privatized and what must remain state property. From a dialectical libertarian point of view, individuals and groups external to the state should also have some voice in determining what is and what is not the appropriate role of the state in society and in the lives of individuals. Neoliberalism functions to streamline what the state does, but it retains the notion that the state legitimately dominates social and individual life.
***
