LadyJacobin
15th May 2010, 04:59
Why would anyone call themselves a Jacobin? "What, that lunatic bunch of French extremists?" Or, if you are the more RevSoc type, "What, that bunch of middle-class revolutionaries who killed Babeuf?"
Well, both of these are true, and on both counts I plead guilty: I am a radical left extremist (a montagnard if you will) and a rabid anti-communist. Just why I hope to make, if not clear, at least less opaque.
I want to make clear from the outset that I regard communists, anarchists and even progressives to be 'leftist' and children of radicalism generally. But I consider them more or less mistaken, and regard especially the Progressives (Social Democrats) to be the most dangerous to the accomplishment of radical goals, and I think the communists and anarchists might agree with me here. Is it because they are not radical enough, perhaps?
Of any of the classical radicals, I would probably identify with individual anarchists and Levellers more than anything, but I think they both have fundamental flaws in their view of the world.
Why Radicalism?
Political radicalism is essentially something which aims at 'getting to the root' of an issue, dealing with causes rather than symptoms. It is visceral, dangerous and almost deductive form of political discourse. It shows its value precisely when present knowledge conveys supreme error with the current situation, as regards the mass of the human species. Unfortunately, radicalism can be misdirected, confused, mistaken - as it is a human enterprise. To state a simple example in logic, we may be convinced we have made a deduction when, in fact, we have not made such a deduction.
I view radicalism as having three main branches, inter-related and complementary when properly understood. I will outline them here, but by no means claim to have made a definitive statement. I will proceed, Heidegger like, with my intention: these are the branches of radicalism which concern me. These are Republicanism, Liberalism and Socialism.
Radical Republicanism derives largely from Civic Humanism, which developed its doctrines based on an idealized combination of Roman and Greek Republican/Democratic ideas with Renaissance humanistic doctrines of education, citizenship and political theology. Its ultimate products were the the Glorious Revolution, the American War of Secession and the French Revolution.
Montaigne was especially influential on 18th century republicanism, writers like Locke and Paine had more influence in the American colonies of Britain as they appealed more strongly to the developed notion of 'rights of Englishmen'. The Anglophone and Francophone economists had tremendous influence in some parties of the American and French revolutions.
It stakes itself on the idea of the res publica and the republic which emvodies it. It is the belief that citizens of virtue, organized under the laws of nature and reason, will be able to profit from one another's association and thereby become subject to duties as regards the community in general and the state which embodies its defense.
Radical Liberalism is the theory of individual responsibility and freedom to act. Liberalism generally states itself on the premise that individuals may do as they please, insofar as they do not infringe upon the equal freedom of others. There is, in other words, a certain sphere of action which is private and not subject to coercion. Liberalism generally views the legitimacy of the state to be with regards to its will and competence in respecting and protecting this freedom to act. It is strongly connected with the burgeoning science of economics, and its proofs of the advantage of free trade. States which infringe an individual unjustly may typically be subject to pleas, indemnification to victims and, if these fail, overthrow or abolition.
Radical Socialism is the belief that putting the economic and political life into the hands of the community would be both possible and desirable. It is the belief in the equal value of men, of the benefit of mutual association and of the responsibility of individuals toward members of the community regardless of their ability to recompense.
I consider myself a radical republicanism because I believe that a republic built upon the virtue of individual citizens, and social institutions constructed by reason with a mind to instilling virtue, are both possible and desirable. I believe individuals have a responsibility towards their community and the civilization that they make possible. Every citizen has a duty in general to every state which embodies the res publica. I support Republicanism as a form of state because I believe that a federal, explicitly Republican constitution built on true representative democracy is the only possible and desirable form of government, and all other states sink into base tyranny.
I consider myself a radical liberal because I believe in the equal freedom of all men, to do as they please and not to be bothered by others, so long as they can respect the freedom of others; without concern for popular opinion or prejudice and without concern of those who are jealous of their regard or material disposition - whether richer or poorer. I consider all arguments against freedom of trade and occupation to be despotic throwbacks to oriental systems of caste and mercantalist systems of monopoly. I believe that any government which consistently violates the natural rights of individuals is an evil one, and deserves nothing but the revolutionary noose.
I consider myself a socialist because I believe in the right of the community to regulate the exceptions of individual activity, to compel him to pay heed to some minimal standards, and that it may expect him to contribute and attempt to find his way in the social life.
Why middle-class radicalism?
I am against Marxist class-warfare, Hitlerian race-warfare and Fascist nation-warfare. I believe in war for one thing, and one thing alone: a free government for free individuals. I am a 'middle-class' or 'burgher' radical because I advocate freedom of trade and freedom of property, of the right for individuals to practice their own life at their own hazard. I believe that without property there is no responsibility, and without responsibility there is no morality. I believe an essential element of justice is desert, and one thing the innocent are not deserving of is punishment. And even when people say, "He is just lucky" I say, "What of it? Is luck a crime? And who decides whom is lucky?"
I oppose all cartelism, banksterism, and other assorted perfidies of finance engendered by subsidy, regulation and tariff. All individuals, all citizens, are to be propertied citizens, and not subject to the whims of agencies for the enrichment of the vile and deceitful arms of the 'corporate' state.
Okay, but Why Jacobin?
Some might ask me at this point, why am I a Jacobin? Why do I not call myself a libertarian. Well, I am: I am a radical republican - a Jacobin, a radical liberal - a Libertarian. I would call myself a radical socialist, because of my devotion to both res publica and general welfare; but it seems that does not qualify anymore. In any case, I identify with Proudhon in this area.
I am not a 'libertarian' of the weak-kneed sort one sees going to 'party conventions'. I am a firm believer in the establishment of clubs which act as though they run the state, and are prepared to at any instant replace it. And I am an unabashed supporter of terrorism, when it is used against the forces of reaction, counter-revolution and crankism. All those who conspire to attack the republic or the liberty for which it stands are traitors or enemies, and in either case deserve no clemency. Justice shapes its implements as suits the situation, and once guilt is established it may be as quick and brutal as is deemed necessary by the citizenry.
I reject individual terrorism, mostly for the same reasons Trotsky did, I think it's a useless tactic.
Well, both of these are true, and on both counts I plead guilty: I am a radical left extremist (a montagnard if you will) and a rabid anti-communist. Just why I hope to make, if not clear, at least less opaque.
I want to make clear from the outset that I regard communists, anarchists and even progressives to be 'leftist' and children of radicalism generally. But I consider them more or less mistaken, and regard especially the Progressives (Social Democrats) to be the most dangerous to the accomplishment of radical goals, and I think the communists and anarchists might agree with me here. Is it because they are not radical enough, perhaps?
Of any of the classical radicals, I would probably identify with individual anarchists and Levellers more than anything, but I think they both have fundamental flaws in their view of the world.
Why Radicalism?
Political radicalism is essentially something which aims at 'getting to the root' of an issue, dealing with causes rather than symptoms. It is visceral, dangerous and almost deductive form of political discourse. It shows its value precisely when present knowledge conveys supreme error with the current situation, as regards the mass of the human species. Unfortunately, radicalism can be misdirected, confused, mistaken - as it is a human enterprise. To state a simple example in logic, we may be convinced we have made a deduction when, in fact, we have not made such a deduction.
I view radicalism as having three main branches, inter-related and complementary when properly understood. I will outline them here, but by no means claim to have made a definitive statement. I will proceed, Heidegger like, with my intention: these are the branches of radicalism which concern me. These are Republicanism, Liberalism and Socialism.
Radical Republicanism derives largely from Civic Humanism, which developed its doctrines based on an idealized combination of Roman and Greek Republican/Democratic ideas with Renaissance humanistic doctrines of education, citizenship and political theology. Its ultimate products were the the Glorious Revolution, the American War of Secession and the French Revolution.
Montaigne was especially influential on 18th century republicanism, writers like Locke and Paine had more influence in the American colonies of Britain as they appealed more strongly to the developed notion of 'rights of Englishmen'. The Anglophone and Francophone economists had tremendous influence in some parties of the American and French revolutions.
It stakes itself on the idea of the res publica and the republic which emvodies it. It is the belief that citizens of virtue, organized under the laws of nature and reason, will be able to profit from one another's association and thereby become subject to duties as regards the community in general and the state which embodies its defense.
Radical Liberalism is the theory of individual responsibility and freedom to act. Liberalism generally states itself on the premise that individuals may do as they please, insofar as they do not infringe upon the equal freedom of others. There is, in other words, a certain sphere of action which is private and not subject to coercion. Liberalism generally views the legitimacy of the state to be with regards to its will and competence in respecting and protecting this freedom to act. It is strongly connected with the burgeoning science of economics, and its proofs of the advantage of free trade. States which infringe an individual unjustly may typically be subject to pleas, indemnification to victims and, if these fail, overthrow or abolition.
Radical Socialism is the belief that putting the economic and political life into the hands of the community would be both possible and desirable. It is the belief in the equal value of men, of the benefit of mutual association and of the responsibility of individuals toward members of the community regardless of their ability to recompense.
I consider myself a radical republicanism because I believe that a republic built upon the virtue of individual citizens, and social institutions constructed by reason with a mind to instilling virtue, are both possible and desirable. I believe individuals have a responsibility towards their community and the civilization that they make possible. Every citizen has a duty in general to every state which embodies the res publica. I support Republicanism as a form of state because I believe that a federal, explicitly Republican constitution built on true representative democracy is the only possible and desirable form of government, and all other states sink into base tyranny.
I consider myself a radical liberal because I believe in the equal freedom of all men, to do as they please and not to be bothered by others, so long as they can respect the freedom of others; without concern for popular opinion or prejudice and without concern of those who are jealous of their regard or material disposition - whether richer or poorer. I consider all arguments against freedom of trade and occupation to be despotic throwbacks to oriental systems of caste and mercantalist systems of monopoly. I believe that any government which consistently violates the natural rights of individuals is an evil one, and deserves nothing but the revolutionary noose.
I consider myself a socialist because I believe in the right of the community to regulate the exceptions of individual activity, to compel him to pay heed to some minimal standards, and that it may expect him to contribute and attempt to find his way in the social life.
Why middle-class radicalism?
I am against Marxist class-warfare, Hitlerian race-warfare and Fascist nation-warfare. I believe in war for one thing, and one thing alone: a free government for free individuals. I am a 'middle-class' or 'burgher' radical because I advocate freedom of trade and freedom of property, of the right for individuals to practice their own life at their own hazard. I believe that without property there is no responsibility, and without responsibility there is no morality. I believe an essential element of justice is desert, and one thing the innocent are not deserving of is punishment. And even when people say, "He is just lucky" I say, "What of it? Is luck a crime? And who decides whom is lucky?"
I oppose all cartelism, banksterism, and other assorted perfidies of finance engendered by subsidy, regulation and tariff. All individuals, all citizens, are to be propertied citizens, and not subject to the whims of agencies for the enrichment of the vile and deceitful arms of the 'corporate' state.
Okay, but Why Jacobin?
Some might ask me at this point, why am I a Jacobin? Why do I not call myself a libertarian. Well, I am: I am a radical republican - a Jacobin, a radical liberal - a Libertarian. I would call myself a radical socialist, because of my devotion to both res publica and general welfare; but it seems that does not qualify anymore. In any case, I identify with Proudhon in this area.
I am not a 'libertarian' of the weak-kneed sort one sees going to 'party conventions'. I am a firm believer in the establishment of clubs which act as though they run the state, and are prepared to at any instant replace it. And I am an unabashed supporter of terrorism, when it is used against the forces of reaction, counter-revolution and crankism. All those who conspire to attack the republic or the liberty for which it stands are traitors or enemies, and in either case deserve no clemency. Justice shapes its implements as suits the situation, and once guilt is established it may be as quick and brutal as is deemed necessary by the citizenry.
I reject individual terrorism, mostly for the same reasons Trotsky did, I think it's a useless tactic.