As I explained in my opening essay to this series, this presentation is, by far, the one dearest to my heart. It challenged me profoundly and motivated me to continue my studies at NYU on the graduate and doctoral levels, with the great Marxist theorist Bertell Ollman as my mentor and doctoral dissertation advisor.
Wherever one stands on the issues discussed herein, it is worth noting that each of these thinkers understood the other’s perspective thoroughly. As I have pointed out in previous posts, Bertell not only knew of libertarianism, but had worked closely with libertarians such as Murray Rothbard and Leonard Liggio in the Peace and Freedom Party, and he was a Volker Fellow under F. A. Hayek at the University of Chicago. Don studied Marxism; he read and grappled with the entirety of Marx’s work, and Engels’s work, and of the broader Marxist literature. This is not a man who would have had the audacity to get on a stage to attack Marx and “Marxism”, while simultaneously admitting that the only work by Marx he had ever read was “The Communist Manifesto” as an undergraduate in college.
Despite their opposing interpretive perspectives, Don and Bertell had a depth of comprehension for the intellectual traditions they engaged. Each makes significant points of methodological, substantive, and historical importance in an atmosphere of mutual admiration and respect. Their dialogue exemplifies a humane exchange of ideas, something that has become an anomaly in today’s toxic ideological environment.
I urge folks to listen carefully to this finale of the Don Lavoie Lectures, 1980-1981; it’s a lesson not only in content but in the art of civility.
On Facebook, in various discussions, I had this to say:
Don’s thinking evolved considerably over time. Many in the Austrian school deeply appreciated his enormous contribution to the calculation debate (his dissertation on “Rivalry and Central Planning”), given his emphasis on such epistemic issues as the role of tacit knowledge in interpersonal transactions and the price system. In later years, they were less enamored of his turn toward hermeneutics and a kind of Hayekian anarchism.
But even in his ancap days, he always championed progressive values, and as I have said on many occassions, he would have been aghast at the right-libertarian reactionary shift. He was among the most humane thinkers and people I’ve ever known.
It should be noted too that at this time, he hadn’t yet completed his doctorate and was even referring to Bertell as “Professor Ollman”, in deference to his position in the academy. And Bertell, given his command and presence, could often dominate a conversation. (As an aside, that wasn’t as much of a problem in later years with me because … well… I have a Brooklyn motor mouth and sometimes he couldn’t get a word in edgewise.)
In any event, I’m really happy that I preserved these materials for posterity. And it was nice hearing 21-year old Chris with the same Brooklyn accent of 63-year old Chris (minus the four-letter words).
One other thing I wish to re-emphasize about this discussion between Don and Bertell. Something a bit more personal.
Bertell knew me as an undergraduate in the NYU Department of Politics, and in my work in the history honors program with the Marxist historian Dan Walkowitz, from whom he heard “wonderful” things about me. He also greatly admired all the campus activism I was involved with in the antiwar, anti-imperialist, and antidraft protesting I was doing with Students for a Libertarian Society. By the time this presentation occurred in April 1981, I had had so many conversations with him but had never taken a single undergraduate course with him. He kept driving home the point that it was less important where I pursued my doctorate and far more important to pursue it with a mentor I could not only work with, but learn from. A mentor who could challenge me. And he wanted to be that mentor.
Having already been accepted to the master’s program at NYU in the Department of Politics, this discussion between Don and Bertell, more than any other, convinced me that Bertell was the mentor I was looking for. When he made that comment that libertarians were “a little bit like people who go into a Chinese restaurant and order pizza,” it rocked me to my core. As he used to say, there may be lots to choose from, wildly different meals that one can order in a Chinese restaurant, “but pizza isn’t one of them”. He emphasized over and over again: What’s on the menu for social change?—given the real conditions on the ground, the objective conditions and constraints with which we all live.
I chose Bertell as my mentor because I wanted to be challenged; I wanted to think more critically about my own social and political values. I could not embark on a career of writing unless I began with that kind of rigorous critical self-reflection.
And so I took formal courses with Bertell on Marxism, fascism, and, of course, dialectical methodology; I took independent studies with him; he was my doctoral dissertation advisor and followed me thru to the completion of my PhD. He even went on to loudly and publicly endorse all three books in my Dialectics and Liberty Trilogy.
And through it all, having adopted the “dialectical libertarian” mantle, I believe that Ollman’s question continues to resonate and is as relevant today as it was in 1981 when he asked it. I continue to ask libertarians of all stripes: What’s on the menu for social change, what kinds of social changes can we advocate and pursue, given the conditions that exist?
Sadly, so many of the responses I continue to get remain much too ideologically rigid, undialectical, and ahistorical for my tastes. We are all guided by basic values and frameworks, but if one’s values and one’s framework cannot accommodate the complex realities and structural rigidities of our particular time and place, then at the very least, a shift in our perspective on things is requisite to our acting in—and upon—the world we seek to change.
Throughout my life, I have learned from so many brilliant teachers and colleagues. Some of them became among my most beloved friends. Among these was Don Lavoie.
Having been introduced to libertarian thought in my senior year of high school, I chose to go to New York University partially because of its well-known program in the Austrian school of economics. I had started out as a double major in politics and history (with honors). Don—whom I met early in my undergraduate years—would later encourage me to expand into a triple major, adding economics to my already full academic plate. If anything, this expansion only enabled me to study more extensively with Austrian-school theorists, including Israel Kirzner, Mario Rizzo, Gerald O’Driscoll, and Roger Garrison. Through various colloquia and seminars, I came to know so many others, including Murray Rothbard and Pete Boettke and a whole generation of up-and-coming students of the tradition.
You might say that we were part of a mutual admiration society. Over and above all this, Don and I became close friends. He was one of the kindest, most gentle, loving, and supportive friends that I ever had. His death at the age of 50 in November 2001 was a devastating loss to me—and so many others whose lives he touched.
So, there is a certain poignancy to my presentation of the “Don Lavoie Lectures, 1980–1981”. I am so happy to have retained three of his talks presented at New York University during my undergraduate years. These talks were taped on a small cassette recorder and trying to preserve them digitally—only recently—proved somewhat daunting. They are of varying lengths and sound quality. I’ve done everything I can to preserve their integrity in digital transfers. It should be noted, however, that because cassette tapes need to be flipped over, there are a few dropouts in the continuity of the featured discussions. And because older cassette tapes tend to lose their inner lubricant, the content will sometimes sound as if it is moving in slow motion. None of this discouraged me from moving ahead with this long-overdue project.
First, a little background on their history.
One of the perks of my attendance at NYU was that, as cofounder of the NYU Chapter of Students for a Libertarian Society, I had developed relationships with a broad social network of intellectuals, many of whom I invited to speak at various events sponsored by our campus club. My involvement with NYU-SLS began in 1979, as the national organization joined with other antidraft groups to mobilize against Jimmy Carter’s reinstatement of selective service registration. On April 19, 1979, I was part of a boisterous protest in Washington Square Park, in which David Dellinger, one of the Chicago Seven, fired up the crowd of around 350 people. As chairperson of the NYU chapter, I was among those chanting in unison, “Fuck the Draft”, as I handed out antidraft pamphlets to well-dressed men wearing sunglasses standing on the sidelines. Could the FBI have made it any more obvious that they were observing the “New Resistance” take shape?
The antidraft rallies were only the beginning. NYU-SLS began to sponsor many events over the years, inviting a diversity of speakers who provided radical libertarian perspectives on everything from abortion and the drug war to the history of government interventionism at home and abroad.
On three occasions, Don Lavoie was among our featured speakers.
Each of these presentations shows a different side of Don, who had not yet completed his doctorate. No matter how much his perspective evolved over the years, Don was, in some respects, one of the earliest left-libertarians, if by that we mean somebody who was always invested in the progressive goals of the left, even if he was critical of the means by which certain segments of the left attempted to achieve those goals. He deeply appreciated the tradition of radical social thinking and was committed to reinvigorating radicalism in ways that were neither traditional nor conventional.
I will be rolling out these presentations on a weekly basis over the next three weeks.
The first talk that premieres today, February 13, 2023, is a brief one (it runs a little over 20 minutes). It was part of a panel discussion at a Human Rights Forum held on March 11, 1981, sponsored by NYU-SLS. In it, Don presents a hardcore libertarian perspective on immigration and open borders. In the current political environment, where so many remain suspicious of the ‘illegals’ among us, Don’s words continue to challenge us to think outside the box.
In the following two weeks, I will feature two lengthier presentations on my YouTube channel.
On February 20, 2023, I will present a talk (with Q&A) that Don gave on September 23, 1980, as part of a series of lectures that NYU-SLS dubbed “Libertython”. “Planned Chaos: The Failure of Socialism” is over 90 minutes in length and echoes many of the themes that Don reiterated in his 1985 book, National Economic Planning: What is Left?
On February 27, 2023, I will present the final installment: “Freedom: Libertarian versus Marxist Perspectives: A Discussion with Don Lavoie and Bertell Ollman”, which was recorded at New York University on April 22, 1981. This nearly two-hour dialogue was sponsored jointly by the Center for Marxist Studies and NYU-SLS.
That finale is, by far, the one dearest to my heart. Listening to it today, I find myself deeply drawn to many of the important methodological and substantive points made by Bertell and many of the historically rich issues raised by Don. And yet, it was from this wonderfully humane exchange of ideas that there emerged a classic line by Bertell that I cited in Total Freedom—and it would have a huge impact on my approach to libertarian social theory. As I wrote:
Ollman was fond of saying that libertarians, progressive though some of their ideas might be, were anachronistic—or, worse, irrelevant—in their prescriptions for social change. In a 1981 debate with libertarian theorist Don Lavoie, he opined: “Libertarians are a little bit like people who go into a Chinese restaurant and order pizza.” The issue here is: What’s on the menu, given objective conditions and constraints? There may be lots to choose from, wildly different meals that one can order in a Chinese restaurant, “but pizza isn’t one of them”. For Ollman, libertarians advocate a quasi-anarchistic system that is simply not within the realm of existing possibilities, for it abstracts from history and from current material and class conditions. “Society provides the necessary conditions for intentional human activity,” [Roy] Bhaskar argues similarly, and this “essentially Aristotelian” model stipulates that people can only fashion “a product out of the material and with the tools available to [them].”
For me, it was as if Ollman had thrown down the gauntlet in his “Chinese restaurant” analogy. He challenged my framework in a profound way. Over time, in studying with him, I re-oriented my thinking to be less concerned about utopian “unknown ideals”. After all, it was Thomas More who coined the word “utopia”, from the ancient Greeks, deriving it from ou-topos, meaning ‘no place’ or ‘nowhere’. A genuine radicalism must begin from somewhere. It must be focused more dialectically on the wider context of the real conditions that exist upon which any ideal of any kind might be built. As I argued in Total Freedom, my own perspective recognized this challenge as “a double-edged sword,” with “a need to cut both ways in our attempts to bleed the socialist Left and the libertarian Right of their utopian elements—’the end of history’ or the ‘state of nature,’ respectively. A politics for the ‘end of time’ and a politics for the ‘beginning of time’ are equally utopian.”
***
One final observation. Each of these talks has a certain historical specificity—this was the early 1980s, after all, the time of Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, with period-references that might be lost on some of today’s younger listeners. It should also be pointed out that Don’s own views evolved over time and his later perspective on the world is not fully reflected here. Indeed, even my own introductory comments in the second installment, “Planned Chaos: The Failure of Socialism”, provide little clue as to what eventuated in terms of my current approach to political and social theory. Still, there are universal themes at work here that speak to any era.
Ultimately, I am honored to have brought this series of presentations to a larger audience; these recordings have not been heard in over forty years. Listening to them today, I realize how much I learned from them. It is my hope that a new generation of listeners will learn as much.
Postscript (14 February 2023): In a Facebook discussion of this article, I expanded on the point that it is important to start from somewhere, from where you are, in any discussion of social change:
I would say that starting where you are is true of all GOOD thinking. Observing the facts on the ground and logically assessing the possibilities, while keeping context and looking at things from as many vantage points and levels of generality as possible (being ‘dialectical’) so as to understand any social problem and its place in a larger system of interconnected social problems, all of which have an interrelated past, present, and many possible futures (that’s a mouthful!)… is crucially important to the whole radical project of social change.
What is NOT helpful is acting as if one can wipe the slate clean and start from scratch (the kind of “canvas-cleaning” that all too many ‘revolutionaries’ have attempted to do, with brutal consequences, both intended and unintended) or acting as if one can deduce an entirely new and just society from “state of nature” principles that can’t possibly be traced back with any degree of historical, judicial, or ethical accuracy. Hence, my comment above that a “politics for the ‘end of time’ and a politics for the ‘beginning of time’ are equally utopian” — though I’d go further. The results would be horrifically dystopian in their consequences.
There is everything right about trying to get a grasp on the nature of things; it’s part of the philosophical enterprise. There is also everything right about trying to understand the nature of things in terms of how that nature is embedded in contexts of historical and systemic specificity. That is where I think Ollman’s ‘gauntlet’ made a big impact on my thinking about the world.
Today, the Center for a Stateless Society publishes an article by my very dear friend, Ryan Neugebauer: “Market, State, and Anarchy: A Dialectical Left-Libertarian Perspective.” Though this is not strictly a part of the series I’ve dubbed “DWR” (“Dialogues with Ryan”), the article certainly evolved over a period of time during which Ryan and I have had many lengthy discussions about so many of the issues addressed in this new piece.
The article offers a wide-ranging critique of the status quo of “Liberal Corporate Capitalism”, before launching into a detailed critique of proposed “alternatives to the status quo”, including “Free-Market Propertarianism”, “State Socialism”, and “Anarchism.” Since Ryan considers himself at minimum a philosophical anarchist (as do I), much of what he has to say entails a perceptive engagement with some points of view that he himself has held over the years. Indeed, what makes the article worthwhile is that it is a dialectical combination of both critique and self-critique.
The article includes many wonderful citations, including some to my own work on the usefulness of a dialectical methodology for a critical libertarian socio-political project. Ryan grapples with the need of radicals to function on the basis of the real conditions that exist. His left-libertarian framework—a framework with which I, myself, have been associated—is one that “seeks to make the best of what we have where we are presently at and always push to do better. It will not however paralyze itself with rigid dogmas and face destruction.” He writes:
Ultimately, I fall on the Left-Libertarian side of things. I especially like its emphasis on a sustainable, non-bloated autonomism—that is, the building of spaces of autonomy in the now and outside the current system. Such autonomism requires the freedom to create without asking for permission in a system that provides signals for judging individual needs and relative scarcity. This will most likely entail a complex mix of commons, markets, and cooperatives. It will also require a movement away from a system that treats land like a typical commodity, a system that encourages dependence on capitalists through subsidies, intellectual property rights laws, crony trade deals, and regulations that restrict competition. Politically, more people need “skin in the game” on a decentralized, local level
Given its wide-ranging scope and its accessible, succinct delivery, I strongly recommend Ryan’s article to your attention! Check it out here.
This is the thirty-seventh and
final installment to my Coronavirus series, which began two years ago on this
date. This installment serves as an index to the entire series.
I use the word “indexical” not
only to suggest the index herein, but as a reflection of the word’s actual meaning: a linguistic
expression whose reference can shift from context to context. That is what this
series has done over time; as the context has continued to evolve, not a single
installment has ever been written in stone, and all of them should be subject
to evaluation based on the contexts in which they were first composed.
What could be more dialectical than that?
As a kind of personal
“journal,” this series has been as much a therapeutic exercise in dealing with an
unfathomable number of deaths in my beloved city of New York as it was an
attempt to come to grips with the many issues raised by COVID-19 and the
policies adopted in response to it. Ultimately, it asked more questions than it
answered.
As dates go, this one has an additional degree of irony. Fifty years ago today, “The Godfather” premiered at the Loew’s State Theatre in New York City to much fanfare. The film, and its later re-edited incarnation (with its twosequels) as a chronological epic, remains one of my all-time favorites. Not for its famous tropes or its classic quotes, but for its illustration, in painstaking detail, of how the inversion of values destroys the human soul. The characters therein ostensibly try to preserve that which they value through nefarious means that lead to the loss of those values—and of life itself.
While that 1972 film drives home this point in the context of warfare among mob ‘families’, their legions of hitmen pale in comparison to the warfare perpetuated by states across the world, which have perfected the art of mass murder in a way that would make even the most ruthless of Mafia Dons blush.
In war, even in those wars fought against horrific
forces of oppression, there are always consequences, both intended and
unintended, that forever become a part of the political landscape. For example,
the defeat of the Axis powers in World War II left in its wake the
consolidation of a U.S. military-industrial
complex and a national
security state and ongoing policies of “perpetual war for
perpetual peace”—whether it was called the Cold War,
the War
on Terror, or the War on Drugs.
But states and their ruling classes, ever responsible for wars, have also
exploited disasters—natural or man-made—to expand their powers, suppress civil
liberties, and destroy the fabric of social and economic life.
That is why
libertarians have been gallant opponents of state expansion, knowing full well
that state actors rarely act in good faith and that governmental overreach especially
during emergencies is not easily rolled back. Such emergencies have been exploited
throughout history in ways that tap into people’s anxieties and fears while
augmenting their obedience to a class of politically connected “experts.”
I am a libertarian—a dialectical one at that. Which means that while I retain my libertarian distrust of political and economic elites, I fully understand that we live under a certain set of institutional constraints and that the real conditions that exist give human beings highly limited and imperfect tools to deal with emergencies as they arise.
I am also a native New Yorker. I have experienced much
heartache in this city, from 9/11
to Superstorm
Sandy. And I have witnessed, with my own eyes, the deaths
of countless fellow New Yorkers at the height of the COVID pandemic. I was
utterly aghast when many of my libertarian friends were branding the pandemic an
“exaggeration” or worse, a “hoax”. There
has always been room to debate the effectiveness of this or that policy in
response to COVID. But the epidemic of denialism that swept
across libertarian circles—while neighbors to the right of me and neighbors to
the left of me were literally dropping dead—only compounded my sadness. Denialism
is not a strategy. It is an admission of defeat—that one has no
proposals to deal with an externality, whatever its scope or fatality rate.
***
I was recently asked a very
interesting and relevant question by my friend, Alexander Wade
Craig: “What context have
we lost in the changes COVID brought to our social lives that you think we are
1) better off for having lost, and 2) worse off for having lost?”
I
acknowledged that this was a very difficult question to answer. Even though
I’ve written 36 previous installments covering the pandemic and its
implications, it is going to take many years to truly understand COVID-19 and the
response to it—and the costs that each brought to both life and liberty. Still,
this event helped to illuminate notions that we are better off for having lost,
as well as notions that we are worse off for having lost—and these notions are
essentially two sides of the same coin:
1)
The spread of COVID-19 made it clearer than ever that the world is a global
community, interconnected in ways that cannot be altered by artificially
created borders. Given the ebb and flow of peoples across artificial boundaries
imposed by nation-states, we learned swiftly that a virus, like the people it
infects, knows no borders. What first shows up in Wuhan City, Hubei Province,
in China, spreads to the Korean peninsula, Australia, Canada, France, Italy,
the United States, Russia, Africa, and throughout the world. This is not a call
to close borders; it is simply an acknowledgment of the unavoidable interconnections
between peoples across the Earth. So, we’re better off for having lost the idea
that somehow people can be isolated from one another—a rather sobering lesson,
considering that the response to an infectious disease has typically been
lockdowns, quarantines, and other policies of separation.
2)
So, the other side of that coin introduces us to a whole litany of ‘separateness’:
distancing, mask-wearing, quarantining, and so forth. Hence, just as a global
pandemic illustrates that people cannot be hermetically sealed from one another
(a good thing), it simultaneously leads to efforts to do precisely that:
hermetically seal ourselves off from others. The effect of isolation (whether
it was chosen or coercively imposed) has been increased social alienation, a
rise in mental health problems, substance abuse, and overdose deaths. People of
all ages, from the very young to the very old, were deleteriously affected by
this isolation. I suspect that these effects will lessen over time, as the
COVID ‘crisis phase’ dissipates, but we are still worse off for having lost
that social connectedness for such a long period of time, no matter how
necessary it may have been for various people in various contexts.
Nathaniel
Branden once wrote: “We stand within an endless network of
relationships. Separation and connectedness are polarities, with each entailing
the other.” It’s very sad that so many people have learned the truth of this
principle in such a tragic way.
Here is a chronological index to all the installments in my Coronavirus series; unless there is some huge issue that needs to be addressed in some dramatically different way, I suspect that this installment, like the last one I wrote on 9/11 (for the twentieth anniversary of that day), will be the final installment in this series. And it’s fully in keeping with my friend Tom Knapp‘s “Prime Number Obsession”—that “all sets should consist of a prime number of items.” 37 is a Prime Number! (Tom also reminds me that it’s Pi Day too!)
I will end this series with one final dose of gallows
humor, something that has marked many of the installments I posted over the
past two years. And let’s face it, we have needed some laughter to get us
through [YouTube link].
In one of my favorite comic strips, “Pearls Before Swine” by Stephan Pastis, “The Game of COVID Life” reminds us of how crazy our lives have been upended since the beginnings of this pandemic. Here’s hoping that the Finish Line is not one of closeted isolation, but a new commitment to social life, human freedom, and personal flourishing.
“The Judgment Age”… or maybe, the “Snap-Judgment
Age”… either way, Pastis is just touching upon a very touchy subject.
In my ongoing Facebook engagement with my very dear friend Ryan Neugebauer, the discussion turned to these touchy subjects—to issues of social justice, cancel culture, the limits of comedy, and the effects of the 2020 riots in the wake of the murder of George Floyd.
As Notablog readers know, I’ve addressed many of these issues before in my own Notablog posts. See, for example, my discussion of the Floyd murder—and it’s aftermath (“America: On Wounded Knee”), my examination of the attack on statues and monuments (“On Statues, Sledgehammers, and Scalpels”), and my exploration of the commonality between Rand’s view of racism and Critical Race Theory (“Ravitch, Rand, and CRT: The Ominous Parallels?”).
A professional psychotherapist, Ryan comes from a dialectical left-libertarian perspective. In a very personal, wide-ranging Facebook post, Ryan grappled with many of the issues mentioned above. That post is not public, but is worthy of a larger audience, in my view, for the thoughtful compassion it exhibits and advocates. Here’s what Ryan had to say:
***
This should be prefaced by the fact that
all of my positions are constantly evolving, so what I am going to write is not
the final word on anything (nor should it be). I welcome all helpful, critical
feedback.
Where to start? It’s difficult because
there’s so much in all of this and so many people feel very strongly
about where they stand on these issues. So, I think it might be helpful to
start elementary by discussing a foundation for handling any issue, social
justice or not.
My foundation is a “Dialectical
Left-Libertarian” one. The dialectical part is based in Chris Matthew Sciabarra‘s “dialectical
libertarianism”, where he conceptualizes dialectics as “the art of
context keeping”. In a 2005 article of his for the
Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), he states: “If one’s aim is to
resolve a specific social problem, one must look to the larger context within
which that problem is manifested, and without which it would not exist.” Kevin Carson, in further describing Sciabarra’s
approach, states that: “Individual parts receive their character from the
whole of which they are a part, and from their function within that whole.”
Despite my differences with him—I’m not as much of a free-market propertarian and not big on the “nonaggression” principle—I love Gary Chartier‘s description of the “Left-Libertarian” here. Wikipedia describes it as “a political philosophy and type of libertarianism that stresses both individual freedom and social equality.” That Wikipedia article mentions Anthony Gregory and says that: “Gregory describes left-libertarianism as maintaining interest in personal freedom, having sympathy for egalitarianism and opposing social hierarchy, preferring a liberal lifestyle, opposing big business and having a New Left opposition to imperialism and war.” Ultimately, the Left-Libertarian framework has a concern with social authoritarianism, whether from government or culture or both, and a concern with economic injustice and dependence on wage labor relations. The core concern is with individual freedom & flourishing.
Now that I have sketched out that
foundation, I would like to talk about an important communication concern.
Whenever you are discussing issues with someone who disagrees or who holds a
very different framework than you do, you have to “know your
audience”. You have to get in touch with their concerns and learn how to
frame your responses in a way that speaks to those concerns. You don’t want to
be dismissive and you don’t want to get them wrong. Otherwise, you will
probably do a lot of talking past each other or find yourself in tense and
hostile space. Therefore, if you are a Leftist talking to a typical American
Conservative, you have to address their concerns with societal stability,
government overreach, and family values. If you are a Conservative talking with
a typical present-day Leftist, you have to address their concerns with social
equality, economic justice, and environmental protection. If you are instead
interested in beating these people over the head with how right you are and how
trivial their concerns are, you will have ended any hope for reaching them.
“Social justice is a communal effort dedicated to creating and sustaining a fair and equal society in which each person and all groups are valued and affirmed. It encompasses efforts to end systemic violence and racism and all systems that devalue the dignity and humanity of any person. It recognizes that the legacy of past injustices remains all around us, so therefore promotes efforts to empower individual and communal action in support of restorative justice and the full implementation of human and civil rights”.
I feel like that’s a difficult thing to oppose for most people. You may see differences on the specifics, but at least the spirit of it is hard to oppose for most. Personally, I am absolutely committed to this conception of social justice.
In contrast, there are people called
“social justice warriors” (SJWs) or “woke” individuals,
more often used in a pejorative sense these days (though some own one or both
of these terms in a positive sense). A Wikipedia entry on the
matter describes social justice warrior as “a pejorative term and internet
meme used for an individual who promotes socially progressive, left-wing and
liberal views, including feminism, civil rights, gay and transgender rights,
identity politics, political correctness and multiculturalism”. That’s a
mouthful and not very helpful. On that description alone, I would count for a
significant chunk of it (I take issue with the varying ways “identity
politics” and “political correctness” get used though). In regard
to “woke”, one article states:
“The dictionary defines it as ‘originally: well-informed, up-to-date. Now
chiefly: alert to racial or social discrimination and injustice’.” That article
goes on to say: “It has become a common term of derision among some who
oppose the movements it is associated with, or believe the issues are
exaggerated. It is sometimes used to mock or infantilise supporters of those
movements”. This gets at the key point of all of this: application.
Two people could both advocate strongly
for social justice but take very different approaches to it. When people
are derided as “SJWs” or “woke”, it is sometimes
used to indicate the degree of aggressiveness or rigidity surrounding their
advocacy for social justice. And to be fair, there is no shortage of examples
of people who advocate for social justice in the lousiest of ways. You have
people (taken from my own personal interactions) who say ridiculous things like
“science is white male supremacy” or “the only legitimate
pronouns are they/them” or “all Trump supporters are fascists”,
etc. They often make very extreme or harsh claims that don’t stand up to the
slightest of scrutiny. When they get pushback, they often get even more aggressive
and dogmatic. Much like very dogmatic religious individuals. I will say without
hesitation that I don’t defend these approaches and find them counterproductive
to social justice efforts. Putting aside their inaccuracies or foolishness,
they push people away from seriously important causes. Therefore, a Dialectical
Left-Libertarian approach would want to find ways to communicate effectively
with others and ensure that any actions are not harming the push towards
greater freedom and flourishing for all.
And here we get to “cancel
culture”. First, we must point out that “cancel culture” to the
degree that it exists, happens on both the right-wing and left-wing.
McCarthyism was institutional cancel culture from the Right in a very extreme
way that present-day cancel culture accusations can’t put a candle to,
especially with the “wild west” of the World Wide Web at our
fingertips. Just watch the movie “Trumbo” (2015) to see how bad
it got in one area: cinema. That said, it is more often discussed in
association with the Progressive Left these days, so we will focus on its
widespread association today. Dictionary.com
describes it as “the popular practice of withdrawing support for (canceling)
public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered
objectionable or offensive. Cancel culture is generally discussed as being
performed on social media in the form of group shaming”. It has more
broadly been associated with shouting down speakers, physically shutting down
events, getting speakers cancelled from universities, and preventing certain
media or materials from being consumed. This topic overlaps with the topic of
“comedy” mentioned above.
From a Dialectical Left-Libertarian
perspective, one should be concerned with how the things associated with
“cancel culture” aid or curtail the project of increasing freedom
& flourishing for all. Some actions are perfectly legitimate, such as
boycotting when harmful actions are done. That signals that we want the
boycotted to do better and potentially to do restitution before we are to
support them in any sense again (if at all). However, shutting down speakers
and banning books I am much less comfortable with. This more often than not
leads to negative pushback and people seeking out or defending the shutdown or
banned entities more. In my opinion, this happened with the awful Milo Yiannopoulos. The aggressive
demonstrations against him drew more attention than his talks could on their
own. It was the highlighting of his comments on adult sexual relationships with
13-year-olds that led to everyone distancing from him and him losing his
limelight. You rarely hear from him today (please let’s keep it that way!).
Nonetheless, most people I have spoken with across the political spectrum have
been uncomfortable with a lot of these previously mentioned “cancel culture”
tactics. They may support the underlying causes and some specific
implementations of the various tactics, but they don’t like the normalization
of the tactics against everything perceived as wrong or offensive. Maybe there
are times when stopping someone’s speech is necessary, especially without
question when it treads into dangerous territory of inciting violence. However,
it’s hardly clear that it should be something we are comfortable with
normalizing.
When it comes to comedy, I can’t help but
think about this George Carlin interview
[YouTube link]. He talks about the importance of comedy targeting people in
power and those that abuse others. He appears to have a concern with those who
target the marginalized in society, even if he wouldn’t want to ban any comic’s
ability to make such jokes. However, there is an ethical question regarding
when comedy can “go too far”. On this question, I mentioned in a
recent Facebook livestream that I laughed very hard at Lisa Lampanelli’s comedy routines [YouTube
link]. They were very offensive without question. And her packed, very
diverse audiences were always laughing very hard.
However, in the chat section of the livestream, I responded to a dear friend by saying: “On the one hand, few of us can deny that we find her comedy hilarious. People of all backgrounds in her very diverse audiences were on the floor. On the other hand, there does seem to be a limit of ‘going too far’, but that’s going to vary with each person and their values. So, what’s the way forward? A messy, difficult one that probably has no absolute standards.”
So, in short, I don’t know what the reasonable limits of comedy are. I imagine the answer isn’t “everything is permitted” or “nothing offensive can be permitted”. If that’s the case, and we can’t fall back on simple standards of condoning everything or condemning anything offensive, then we have to make the tough calls, risk being inconsistent or wrong, or, in dialectical fashion, look at the context and see that something may not be right under one context rather than another. But I won’t claim to know where to come down on everything. I just know that I reject the rigid extremes here. Check out one approach to this subject by George Carlin [YouTube link; especially 9:42 to 11:50). I have issues with it, but I still like hearing his perspective as a comedian who was sensitive to these issues. Just like me, he doesn’t get the final word.
You might ask: What should we do about
all of this? Well, that’s easier said than done. And I am not going to claim to
have all the answers here. However, I think we have an obligation to stand up
for those who are oppressed and should not remain silent just because it is
easier or more comfortable. I think we should organize and seek to increase
inclusivity and justice in our culture and governance institutions. We should
have more than deconstruction and disruption. We need a positive way forward.
We need an opening of society. No such opening will come without significant changes
to our society, including, importantly, to the economy. Supporting gay marriage
and transgender inclusivity in schools isn’t going to help the homeless gay or
transgender individual. Those things matter but they are not the only things
that matter. At the end of the day, unless we start having more open and honest
conversations about these matters, rather than avoiding discussing them (common
with the right-wing) or shutting down anyone who doesn’t measure up to peak SJW
performance (common with the Progressive Left), we will not make the progress
we want on these various important issues.
What about the 2020 demonstrations and riots following the killing of George Floyd by police? First, let us point out that the killing of George Floyd took place in May, just two months after the COVID pandemic took off in the United States. So much of society shut down, many had died or were dying with COVID, people were out-of-work with little to do, finances were rough, tensions were high, we were in a heavily divided election year, and had a president who played on the discord for his own gain. Whew! That’s a lot! This was far from the first wrongful killing of an African American man by US police. But it was the first one that gained major attention post-pandemic. Once it happened, the long history of anger and frustration surrounding this ongoing problem with police erupted into mass protests and riots across the country. My knee-jerk reaction was to come out in full support of anything fighting against this despicable institution. However, I dialogued with a lot of people who disagreed, including African Americans themselves. Several pointed out the harm it caused to so many minority neighborhoods. It’s one thing to protest, demonstrate, and disrupt powerful institutions (like Wall Street and the police). It’s another to burn down and destroy small businesses, the local pharmacy, and homes.
Some may say this is the price of activism and standing up for what is right. I’m not so sure that’s the case. I wouldn’t disagree that it is the price of a very immoral and bankrupt system. But it’s true that once people take to the streets en masse, you often get people who take advantage of the disruption to cause reckless damage with little concern for the lives and well-being of others. Most protesters and most people were not in support of such destruction. An important point is that we should be more angry with the cause of the discord than the discord itself. In contrast, the reactionary who is fine with things being as they are gets more upset with the discord. The reactionary would just love for everyone to go home or protest in ineffective ways that don’t stress the system and incentivize it to change for the better. I certainly don’t want to come across as defending that. However, I think we need to do better than raising our fists and getting excited over watching the local pharmacy burning to the ground. I reject the idea that we must defend every action that happened during the summer of 2020. I also reject the idea that that was the most effective way to address these matters. Regardless, I also know that such social upheavel is difficult to manage or plan ahead for, so we should put more of our resources and thinking towards making our society better so that we don’t warrant such upheaval in the first place. My Dialectical Left-Libertarian approach applied to the 2020 George Floyd protests/riots would want to ensure that any actions were in line with increasing freedom & flourishing for all, especially those most marginalized. If a given tactic or action leads to the destruction of the very lives and neighborhoods that we seek to strengthen and empower, then something is very wrong.
My last point applies to all these topics. There is a real problem with forgiveness, compassion, and flexible thinking in many social justice circles. Though I have hit on the dogmatism and rigidity already before, it is necessary to bring it up again because it is linked with an increased difficulty with forgiveness and compassion. Many people in these circles become so charged, rigid, and intense, that they start to treat others who fall short of their views with callousness, indifference, and aggression. You could be largely in line with them on most things—but fall short anywhere (how dare you, imperfect human!) and get prepared to be cancelled, attacked, smeared, and thrown away without a moment’s thought! We need to distance ourselves from some people or get them out of our lives—especially when they are actively hostile and don’t care. It’s not our responsibility to engage and try to “reform” everyone. But people like the ones being addressed here go to such extremes. They tend to lack compassion for others and look for things to condemn them for with no forgiveness on the horizon. That’s a toxic phenomenon that has no potential for building a just world. If we can’t forgive and show compassion, we fall into permanent war with nearly everyone. Permanent war is not preferable or sustainable, and it doesn’t have seeds for building a free and flourishing society for all. So, if we are to advocate for social justice, we are going to need to get in touch with compassion and forgiveness. If we don’t, we won’t get social justice. Instead, we will get social isolation and decline.
Like I have said many times at this
point, this is not my final word or the final word on any of
these matters. However, I wanted to cover these various contentious issues and
find a way to apply my Dialectical Left-Libertarian approach to them. Let’s
continue the project of “context-keeping” for freedom &
flourishing together by continuing to dialogue and finding out better ways to
approach very difficult issues and topics.
And don’t forget! You (which includes me) most likely didn’t always hold the views you do now. You most likely didn’t always advocate for social justice for all. You most likely suffered (and maybe continue to suffer) from serious ideological blindspots. Before you beat people down with the social justice stick, think instead about the compassion and support you would have liked to have had during a previous stage of your life. Then attempt to give that to the person in need. If they reject it and get hostile, move along. At least you tried rather than writing them off. And who knows, maybe a social justice seed was still planted and will sprout down the road.
***
In the Facebook thread that followed, I stated:
I
am so very impressed with the careful way in which you laid out your case, and
even more impressed with the ways in which you have applied the whole notion of
context-keeping, so essential to dialectical thinking, to the process of
exposition. If people cannot articulate their views in ways that even attempt
to “reach across the divide”, they will forever be speaking in an
echo chamber. And if they surround themselves with nobody but people who think
likewise, they will find themselves caught up in the righteousness of their
ideas without any concern for how those ideas are to be implemented in a
pluralistic society. In other words, people need to exhibit the very charitable
and compassionate ideals they claim to extol in the communicative process. If
folks can’t even do that, then they are likely never to achieve those
charitable, compassionate, or just ideals. To “know your audience”,
as you put it, is essential, therefore, not only to the ability to communicate,
but also essential to effectively making your point.
I also think that it is important to
note, as you do so clearly, how we all need to have active minds that are open
to our own self-acknowledgement of an evolution in our thinking—intellectually,
psychologically, and emotionally.
I cannot take issue with anything you’ve said above. A job so very well done. It does not solve every problem—nor is it intended to—and if it leads to “pushback”, so be it. And if that “pushback” only goes to prove the points you have made (something that I’ve seen in threads on my own Timeline), so be it. It is just refreshing to see honesty, self-awareness, and compassion shedding light on topics that too often generate heat. …
Since this is a very touchy subject, there are many people who are literally afraid to discuss this issue; hence, they engage in the self-censorship of silence. And that, perhaps, is the greatest casualty of the phenomena that you so bravely address.
Since I’ve devoted so much space to
Ryan’s post, I’ll let him have the last word here:
That’s
a very fair point. To speak positively about social justice in most right-wing
spaces gets you hit with nasty comments, accusations, and demands that you
answer for every extreme taken by someone in the name of social justice. To
speak critically about social justice in most left-wing spaces gets you
cancelled, accused of being a fascist or racist, told you are simply speaking
from a place of privilege, or some other dismissive or harsh response. Very
unfortunate. Maybe we can work towards undoing that with more of these type
discussions. ❤
This year marks the twentieth anniversary of the tragic events of September 11, 2001. Since 2001, I have been writing annual installments to a series that came to be known as “Remembering the World Trade Center.”
My 2021 installment encapsulates all of the previous entries in the series, revisiting my own personal reflections, pictorials, and interviews of people who were deeply affected by the events of that day. Folks can read the newest essay here:
I have always touted the importance of a dialectical method of understanding the world—a method that requires us to look at each issue, social problem, or event by situating it in the larger context of which it is a part.
In this series, however, I made a conscious decision not to focus on the “big picture” in which the events of 9/11 took place or their historical background. I have not examined the wider political, social, and cultural context that made 9/11—and its aftermath—possible. I have done that elsewhere. I was less interested in those larger questions and more interested in understanding the personal tragedies of that day, because all too often, it is the personal that gets lost when one looks at the sheer scope of the catastrophe that was 9/11, with its monstrous loss of human life. Over these last two decades, I was persuaded that something unique was to be gained by piecing together a tapestry of tragedy—and of hope—not only through my own reflections and pictorials, but through the voices of individual human beings, each of whom had their own contexts, their own lives, their own futures altered so fundamentally by the events that unfolded on that late summer morning.
I have long believed that a future of more humane possibilities can only emerge when one does not disown memories, no matter how painful, sad, or tragic these might be. In the context of September 11, 2001, remembrance and rebirth entail one another. Remembrance has its therapeutic value, but it is also cathartic insofar as it makes possible our own ability to rise above the tragedy. Rebirth is itself an act of catharsis, of cleansing, almost by definition. It is my hope that this series of twenty-one installments has contributed to that project of remembrance and rebirth. It has been a tribute to those we have lost, and a paean—a song of praise, indeed—to those who survived, who demonstrated the life-affirming power of a community of individuals coming together to aid one another in the face of unimaginable horror. It is the power of life over death. It is the power of love over hate.
Though each of the previous installments is noted in the current piece, I provide below a convenient index to the entire series:
You attended the John Dewey high school in Brooklyn, and I was wondering if there were differences in that school compared to other high schools that were advertised and how did its specialness stack up in your experience of it. Your 1977 yearbook is online, though not with very clear images. It indicates you were awarded a Regents scholarship. Does that mean a scholarship to go to college? The high school was free, right? Do you have a clear senior picture you could show us? Perhaps you have already written about some of this and could direct me to that spot.
As background, folks can indeed check out the John Dewey High School Archives here. Available on that site are my 1977 senior yearbook (my own yearbook is somewhere in my apartment, but my high school photo [ugh!] can be found on page 88), Graduation Program, and Senior Recogntion Night Program. I was indeed the recipient of a small Regents scholarship, though, more importantly, I received a Regents-endorsed diploma, because I successfully completed the necessary Regents exams to qualify (in Biology, English, Geometry, Social Studies, and so forth).
John Dewey was an extraordinary “free” public high school. I don’t know how my experiences in high school compare to those of others in standard high school curricula throughout the New York city public school system. But I can say that my high school years were among the most remarkable educational experiences of my life. The school stressed individual responsibility within a nourishing social environment, with gifted teachers who cared, and who offered challenging courses and extracurricular activities on a sprawling college-like campus. Check out “The John Dewey High School Adventure” (October 1971, volume 53, no. 2, Phi Delta Kappan International) by Sol Levine, who was the principal of the school when I was in attendance. A 1977 New York Timesarticle also highlighted the school’s unique character.
In 1974, I entered the school as a sophomore (a tenth-grader), having graduated from a 2-year SP (“special progress“) program at David A. Boody Junior High School, which consolidated the 7th, 8th, and 9th grades into a two-year timeframe. Instead of the traditional fall and spring semesters, John Dewey High School provided students with five 6-week cycles throughout the academic year. Courses were graded on a pass-fail system, which placed less stress on grade-consciousness and more on augmented learning—though teachers could give students an “ME” (Mastery with Excellence) certificate. The school day was longer (8 am to 4 pm) than the standard NYC high school, which allowed for “free periods” in which we were expected to meet in study groups, clubs (both traditional and nontraditional), and on-campus activities. The school didn’t participate in interscholastic sports team competitions, but encouraged intramural play on its wonderful athletic field.
Sophomore Year
In my sophomore year, in addition to full-year studies of French, Advanced Geometry, Biology, and Business Education (Typewriting), I took courses in the following areas:
English
Introduction to Dramatic Literature
Introduction to Creative Writing (with Brian McCarthy, who also stoked my interest in science fiction, with the Science Fiction Club and the Palingenesis publication it spawned)
Introduction to Journalism
Introduction to the Short Story
Social Studies:
War and Peace (Twentieth Century)
Struggle for Democracy (Up to the French Revolution)
American Foreign Policy
Consumer Economics
Urban Economics
I was medically excused from gym, but took associated courses in “Human Sexuality” and “Psychology of Human Relations”.
Junior Year
I engaged in full-year studies (all five cycles) in French, Chemistry, Trigonometry, and Music (The History of Jazz, 3 cycles of which were attended in my junior year, 2 cycles of which were completed in my senior year—during which I actually taught several weeks on the history of jazz guitar and the history of jazz violin). I also took these courses in the following disciplines:
English
Psychological Approach to Literature (2 cycles)
Shakespeare (2 cycles)
Social Studies
The Kennedy Years & After
American People
The Holocaust (the first such course ever offered on a high-school level, taught by Ira Zornberg, under whom I came to edit the social studies periodical, Gadfly)
Futuristics
I began my studies with the Law Institute, led by two wonderful teachers, Mr. Nelson and Mr. Wolfson:
Justice, Judges, and Jury
Supreme Court & Civil Liberties
Crime and Punishment
Business Law
I also took one elective course in “Photography”—where I learned to take and develop photographs, as well as various “DISKS” (“Dewey Independent Study Kits”) in such areas as Medieval History and the Renaissance.
Senior Year
In my final year at John Dewey High School, I undertook full-year studies of Advanced French, Anthropology, three cycles of Calculus, and Advanced Placement American History (taught by Larry Pero, Chair of the History Department, for which I earned college credit with St. John’s University). I also studied the following courses in English:
Man, Nature, and Survival
Individualism in American Literature
Introduction to Film
Public Speaking
And I completed my studies in the Law Institute with the following courses:
Law in an Urban Society
Fieldwork and Legal Research
Never giving a second thought to the issue of “Grade-Point Average,” I fully embraced the enriched atmosphere of learning that John Dewey High School provided for its students. I graduated with honors for growth, personal achievement, and personal contributions in English, French, Music, and Social Studies, and received recognition for my extra-curricular activities.
I also received the English Achievement Award for Excellence in the Communication Arts, the James K. Hackett Medal for Demonstrated Proficiency in Oratory, the Publications Award for Demonstrated Excellence in the Field of Journalism, the John Dewey Science Fiction Club Award, the Chemistry Teachers Club of New York Award for scholarship in chemistry, a certificate of merit from the Association of Teachers of Social Studies of NYC, and the Honorable Samuel A. Welcome Award for Excellence in Legal Studies.
Most importantly, the teachers at John Dewey High School, unafraid to show their own political predilections, encouraged me to develop my own political and intellectual interests, whether or not they agreed with the directions I was taking. Indeed, once I had discovered Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand, while enrolled in my Advanced Placement American History course, the libertarian trajectory of my politics was seeded, nourished, and challenged by my teachers. A greater gift from American educators I could never have received.
From what I understand, the school is more traditional today than it was in its inception, but I’ve retained friends among my former peers and faculty and will always have a depth of love for the high school that more than prepared me for a rigorous and rewarding undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral education at New York University.
In the news: The Senate Armed Services Committee has approved, 23-2, the National Defense Authorization Act “that would, if enacted, require young women to register for Selective Service alongside men, and in the rare event of a war or other national emergency, be drafted for the first time in the nation’s history.”
Not everyone is on board with this. While most Republicans voted with Democrats to authorize this change to Selective Service, two Conservative Republicans voted against it: Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri. They didn’t object to Selective Service registration or the draft for men. Oh no. They just want to protect “America’s daughters”. As Cotton put it: “Our military has welcomed women for decades and are stronger for it. But America’s daughters shouldn’t be drafted against their will. I opposed this amendment in committee, and I’ll work to remove it before the defense bill passes.”
But it’s still okay for America’s “sons” to be drafted against their will. To force any human being into military conscription “against their will” is involuntary servitude. So I have a really good idea: How about we end Selective Service registration and any thoughts of drafting any human beings whatsoever to fight and die on battlefields created by the power elites to further their own interests?
I can’t believe that I’ve come full circle with this. Back on April 19, 1979, when I was nineteen years old, I was one of the cofounders of the New York University chapter of Students for a Libertarian Society, and on May 1st, we joined with a coalition of antidraft and antiwar activists to protest in Washington Square Park the Carter administration’s reimposition of Selective Service registration for men, between the ages of 18 and 26.
David Dellinger, one of the Chicago Seven, fired up the crowd of around 350 people. As chairperson of the NYU chapter, I was among those chanting in unison, “Fuck the Draft”. It was a lot of fun handing out antidraft pamphlets to well-dressed men wearing sunglasses standing on the sidelines—could the FBI make it any more obvious that they were observing us? We considered ourselves part of the “New Resistance.”
An Antidraft Button from My College Days (1979)
It’s time for a Brand New Resistance to close down the entire Selective Service System, to ending even the threat of the draft against any person! Equal rights against involuntary servitude of any kind!
