Tradition is the conception of a solid society of recognised rules and customs with distributed classes of people. Generally seen as the lower and higher orders, society actually has much more complex relations of heredity and hierarchy, which take on different realms and situations. While tradition is certainly seen as the maintenance of certain orders, even in authoritarian circumstances, the reality is that forms of paternalism and natural order require acceptance by said lower orders, who are in fact important blocs of power that do not necessarily find themselves within authoritarian, top-down enforced relations but rather in localised variations of political dispute and argumentation, that can lead to forms of retribution (both violent and non-violent) to maintain mutualities. These mutualities are the real acceptance of such relations which form the backbone of actual tradition. Hierarchies are variable and can be open to acceptance, in the same way forms of property system are open to challenge instead of reliant on pure acceptance[1]. They require voluntary agreement in the realm of the social, otherwise such relations do take on an authoritarian character.

Family is the bedrock of a healthy society, with children doing significantly better in education if they have a stable family. Family is what recreates the orders and flows of a society, allowing it to maintain a formed culture and idea of nationhood. However, family is only one element of this traditional, culturally conservative society. The other important element is community. This is what the fake conservatives, the neoliberals and neoconservatives, ignore. Community is anathema to their ideology of unhinged neoliberalism which chooses to commodify social relations and destroy tradition. Rather than society being a collective contract to be governed by the little platoons as Burke described, neoliberals and neoconservatives see it as something to be moulded to the interests of capitalist elites. Rather than the altar and the market being two realms controlled by social hierarchies, cast by its constituent actors, with the mutual clericalism and mutual aid of the former, and the local character and decentralised control of the latter, the economy and community are centralised through the state, creating uniformity and destroying culture. Continue reading →

Recent accusations of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party show some of the stupidity of the left when it comes to legitimately criticising Israel and its policies. Rather than showing that Israel, which has widespread support from the United States and evangelical Christians, and has been condemned and criticised by ultra-Orthodox Jewish groups and those who live in Israel respectively, is a militaristic state that, more than simply supporting its own ethnocentrism, actively expands beyond established borders and has regularly flouted both international law in Gaza and offers of peace by Hamas and other Palestinian groups. Israeli governments have rejected the right to return of Palestinian refugees, refuse to recognise the realities of the Nakba, and continue to steal land from families who have lived in Palestine for decades and centuries. Continue reading →

Jonathan Meades’ documentary on brutalism was a fascinating insight into an often ignored period of architecture that had so much utopian promise and imagery behind it. Now the same institutions that commissioned these amazing projects have become the means to their destruction, acting as, Meades declares, sanctioned vandals. These vandals are part of the cadre of small is beautiful brigades which see any buildings representing industrialism and largesse as problematic to the surrounding environment and thus have a desire to see them destroyed and replaced by some eco-nonsense that makes little sense and is usually more of a blight on the environment than brutalist architecture. Continue reading →

I’ve heard it contended that when it comes to a multiplicitous anarchist social order, where anarcho-communists and anarcho-capitalists could live side by side in their own distinct communities, such an order would be practically impossible due to ancoms refusing to recognise the existence of property relations, as it is assumed ancoms deny the capacity for individual ownership of property as defined in the term “private property”. And because ancap economic theory is defined by a recognition of private property, the two communities could not exist together. Continue reading →

Local currencies in their praxis have many shortcomings when it comes to economic applications. Issues of supply chains and the adequacy of developed economies of scale are lacking in many local currency systems. However, such an economistic view ignores the actual political ramifications of local currencies. Certainly local currencies have issues when it comes their active efficacy, but this takes the view that economies, and currencies in particular, are defined by capitalist discourses and practices rather than different conceptions of what constitutes the economic realm. Such ideas constitute an idea of economy determined by capitalist definitions of efficiency and take a view of money as a neutral veil, part and parcel of a market economy. This “absolutization of the market”[1] ignores much of what an economy is actually constituted of. Thus in looking at local currencies, we see many political statements and social practices that while not economically practical do show a different type of money, one more embedded in social structures of local communities and actors. Continue reading →

To attribute to money a concept of bestowing freedom upon an individual owner may well exist as a theoretical possibility. Yet ownership is itself a contested concept. As is freedom. By bestowing freedom on the owner, it effectively prompts the dominance of certain types of power to come to the fore of monetary and economic relations. We can see this in Weber’s concept of a struggle for economic existence[1], whereby the formation of prices is a struggle for dominance, with money as the main weapon for such a struggle. Thus the use of money and with it the creation of prices for commodities is brought out of a struggle for who determines this, and who can win the best deal from such a battle. In this sense, capitalistic markets are the battleground for the domination of certain winners and losers, with the codification of power and dominance written into those who enter either of these two classifications. Continue reading →

Capitalism’s relation to spiritual attitudes and ideologies has been historically hostile. The use of magic and the holding of pagan beliefs in peasant communities in the transition from feudalism to capitalism was mercilessly crushed, as it was seen as a belief system that removed control from the mercantile elites and prevented the mechanistic control needed to create a class of wage labourers[1]. Along with the enclosure of the commons, and the warping of gender relations to fit new roles created for the purpose of capital accumulation, this is an attempt to engender new relations into the socio-economic sphere.

There seem to be two prevailing views on the particular outcomes of a truly free market mechanism. In the case of right-libertarians, such as Hoppe, we see a belief in a natural tendency toward inequality, where outcomes vary and there will be discrepancies in wealth and capital ownership[1]. With the left-libertarians, such as Carson, we see a belief in much more equal outcomes arising from market exchange, and that the reason this isn’t so is due to massive historical theft by the state and the continued subsidisation of most of the capitalist economy today[2].