caveat

Every class society includes dissent. Late liberal capitalism is the only such society arrogant and stupid enough to congratulate itself for so doing….

When anyone within such liberal capitalism critiques or simply criticises that liberal capitalism, or even just steps too far outside of work, compulsive family and commerce, they are thought to, against their intention, really be offering support for that form of capitalism.

The anti rebel argument is that in a liberal capitalist society the rebellious critique, criticism or way of life is tolerated where in another form of society it would met with untrammeled police means. Our would-be rebel is highlighting this fact. And adding to the supposedly wonderful diversity of liberal capitalism while they are at it.

Vis a vis military interventions by liberal capitalism, the anti rebel argument has a striking form. Here the argument runs that peace protesters only have the ability to protest without police interference because the armed services put their lives on the line to defend liberal capitalist society. Any protests against militarism are then shown to be misguided by their very existence.

Caveat to alls my writing, which is indeed aimed at liberal capitalism, work, compulsive family and commerce: No one must be tempted by the anti rebel argument in either civilian or military form.

The counter argument is as follows. If it is the case that critiques of liberal capital truly suggest that a society superior to that of liberal capitalism is actually readily available, then we should chose that alternative to liberal capitalism. Any rebellion, criticism etc should therefore be heeded, not dismissed, and in order to work towards the abolition of liberal capitalism and its replacement with the readily available superior alternative.

Anarcho-communism is indeed a readily available superior alternative to liberal capitalism. The alternative is superior because it does away with the wars, environmental and human exploitation and the lack of creative control that cannot be eliminated from liberal capitalism. Any tolerance, any restraint in police means on behalf of liberal capitalism, is besides the point since the tolerance etc does not change the fact that anarcho-communism presents the superior alternative. Rebellion against liberal capitalist society should not then be dismissed on the basis of any such tolerance.

Similarly, it is not relevant whether or not the military defend the criticisms of peace protesters from societies of police intolerance. If demilitarisation is indeed a component of a superior and readily available form of social organisation different to that of liberal capitalism, then the peace protester’s criticism of liberal capitalist warmongering stands. In this case the military are simply defending the proposition that they should not exist, i.e. that without them a transnational disarmament race is possible.

It is important, incidentally, not to overestimate how free liberal capitalist society really is from police means. Nor to overestimate just how effective these means are elsewhere. But that is another issue. The liberal capitalist argument against rebellion does not go through even if we agree, in my view falsely, that police means are largely absent in liberal capitalist society but highly effective elsewhere. And or, again in my view falsely, agree that sufficient liberal capitalist redress is available in the case of misuse of these means.

Another version of the anti rebel argument is that if I utter the statement “I am not free,” or similar, then I am practically contradicting myself by the fact that I have uttered the statement without reprisal or fear thereof. Of course reprisals, whether these be social, economic or violent, official or otherwise, could come later, i.e. after this version of the anti rebel argument has been made. This would still render the major premise of this version of the anti rebel argument false in that there are in fact reprisals. Another point here is the context in which “I am not free” can be uttered without immediate reprisals severely restricted. It would risk immediate reprisals of some kind in most family, work and even many leisure spaces. Most such utterances would take place in private, that is with some kind of secrecy. Even the most repressive societies have dissent in secret.

Further caveats

The expressions covered by this caveat were produced on ground forcibly removed from a more rational because more sustainable society. This expression is possible despite, not because of, that theft. The reason this claim is true is that anarcho-communism redresses the theft, enabling not just a return to traditional society as desired, but also localised ingenious sustainability. Caveat: This expression is written against the theft and in favour of anarcho-communism.

Any expression covered by this caveat is not intended to advertise a narcissistic abusive personality, though the writer has struggled to not be such a personality.

But also, Caveat: I am not your fucking freak! Go invent your own relief from the utter boredom and horror of your fucked existence.

***

Words: Gerald Keaney. Graphic credit: Roger “Syd” Barret, Red Green Abstract (1971, oil on canvas). One way to read Barret is not just as an acid casualty, but also as someone who hated how the music industry and its surrounding scenes used his music.