Purpose and Strategy of the Libertarian Alliance

From: LA@capital.demon.co.uk (The Libertarian Alliance)
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 18:31:55 GMT
Organization: The Libertarian Alliance

PURPOSE AND STRATEGY OF THE LIBERTARIAN ALLIANCE

Tactical Notes No. 1

ISSN: 0268 2923
ISBN: 1 85637 210 3

An occasional publication of the Libertarian Alliance,
25 Chapter Chambers, Esterbrooke Street, London SW1P 4NN, England.

Email: LA@capital.demon.co.uk
http://www.digiweb.com/igeldard/LA/

This article, by the Executive Committee of the Libertarian
Alliance, originally appeared in "Free Life", the Journal of the
Libertarian Alliance, Volume Two, No.  2, in 1981.  In broad outline
it reflects the views of all the founding members of the Libertarian
Alliance concerning strategy and tactics.  Future issues of
"Tactical Notes" will include various personal responses to
criticisms of Tactical Notes No.  1.

LA Director: Chris R. Tame
Editorial Director: Brian Micklethwait
Netmaster: Ian Geldard

FOR LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY
____________________________________________________________________

IDEAS CHANGE SLOWLY

Although ideas sometimes change slightly as a direct result of the
political cut-and-thrust, fundamental ideas usually change slowly.
There are entrenched assumptions which cannot be challenged by
anyone who wishes to be politically influential.  Politicians of a
reflective disposition will often admit that a certain policy has
great merits, but will add that it is "politically impossible",
because it goes against ruling opinions inherited from the past.

BUT IDEAS CHANGE

Yet these fundamental ideas do change.  In the Wealth of Nations
Smith ridiculed the possibility that free trade could ever he
introduced in Britain.  A few decades later, it substantially had
been, and the Wealth of Nations was largely responsible.  Other
examples include the rapid spread of Marxism in Europe before the
First World War, and in recent years the sudden collapse of the
monolithic Keynesian consensus.  In both these cases, preparatory
developments in earlier decades, which might have seemed quite
inconsequential to many, were vital.

As a result of such changes, the parameters of politics shift.  What
was politically possible becomes politically impossible, and what
was politically impossible may even become impossible to resist.

HOW IDEAS CHANGE

It is a mistake to think that these changes occur by means of a
gradual diffusion of slight influences affecting the mass of people
uniformly.  Free trade, Marxism and monetarism did not gain
influence because millions of ordinary people found them day by day
that bit more appealing.  They spread because they were adopted by
small groups of people who turned out to be influential
propagandists.  These ideas were picked up by individuals atypical
of the mass, variously known as "intellectuals", "propagandists" or
purveyors of second-hand ideas".  After decades of these ideas being
discussed by little coteries in unprepossessing journals and grubby
meeting halls, barely noticed by the surrounding world and without
any great effect upon it, the ideas were disseminated more widely
and in due course played their part in the rise and fall of empires.

Within the community of intellectuals there is the same hierarchical
relationship as within society at large: the groundling
intellectuals tardily accept the ideas advanced earlier by
higher-order intellectuals.

Very roughly, the ideas which make the running in current social
policy are the ideas embraced by the lower-order intellectuals
twenty years earlier, and by the higher-order intellectuals fifty
years earlier.  There are many important exceptions and
qualifications to this picture, but it is much more accurate than
the theory that millions of people spontaneously change their ideas,
a bit at a time, in a direction which appeals to them.  Very few
people would accept that latter theory if stated in those words, but
they implicitly accept it when they come to the task of persuading
the world to implement whatever particular policies they hold dear.
They ask themselves how all those people out there in the street can
be directly worked upon in order to imbue them with the desired
outlook and assumptions.  But that is an ad-man's question, the
wrong question, and if it is asked, the correct answer (that there
is no way it can be done) will be unnecessarily dispiriting.

The use of the term "intellectuals" above should not be
misinterpreted.  The intellectuals or propagandists who matter are
not necessarily very intelligent or well-qualified.  A few may
happen to be academics, but most will not be.

MASS PUBLICITY NOT THE AIM

What all this means in concrete terns is that a libertarian
propaganda group primarily aims to recruit a number (small by
necessity) of committed and knowledgeable adherents to libertarian
doctrine.  The group should not be much concerned with the direct
results of publicity-seeking efforts or of campaigning for
particular political measures.

All of the group's activities should be judged in the light of
long-term propaganda.  The group will seek some media attention and
will effortlessly receive more, and will agitate and campaign on
particular issues.  It will be a welcome bonus if any of these
efforts are intrinsically successful, but it will be no great
tragedy if they have no effect on legislation or on mass opinion.
Their main value is in recruiting the few potential libertarian
propagandists, and in helping to educate those already recruited.

The recruiting of one committed and knowledgeable libertarian
activist is of immensely more value than thousands of pages of
publicity in the national press or thousands of hours of TV
exposure.  Those pages and hours of media coverage might result in
the obtaining of several recruits.  But recruits to what?  If it be
recruits to an organisation for getting further pages and hours of
coverage, It Is futile, If not harmful.

Shallow free market sympathisers sometimes come to us and say' "Why
don't you do something?" The answer is that we are doing something,
invariably far more even in crude man-hours than the speaker, and he
is welcome to help us in what we are doing, provided he understands
and sympathises with it.  What he has in mind, however, is some
attention-getting campaign.  In other words he wants us to allocate
time and energy we now allocate to doing something important
higher-order, long-term propaganda) and allocate it to doing
something ephemeral and silly.

FIASCO IN THE US

The false ideas of which the above is a denial have made a mess of
the libertarian movement in the US.  Ridiculous over-optimism about
the rate at which ideas change, or can be made to change, underlies
most of what the US libertarian movement, in its many
manifestations, does.

It is an open question, on which the LA takes no position, whether
it is a good idea to form a libertarian political party.  But it is
a hopeless delusion to expect a principled libertarian party to be a
serious contender for power, or even to attract much public notice,
for decades to come.  The fact is that if the mass of people knew
fully what libertarianism meant, they would find major parts of it
unacceptable and positively offensive.  That situation is not going
to change within a generation, and anyone who thinks it could
announces himself as a fool, hopelessly out of touch with reality,
and not to be trusted to have anything to do with libertarian
propaganda.

FALSE PREMISES OF CLARKE'S CAMPAIGN

The political dishonesty of the Clark campaign has been condemned by
many libertarians who shared in the basic premises that made it
inescapable, embodied in the preposterous slogan "Towards a three
party system".  (Preposterous because the three party system was
expected to materialise within twenty or 50 years.) A principled
libertarian party would alienate most people.  An unprincipled party
would probably fail to compete effectively with the other
unprincipled parties, but if it did, would soon cease to be
libertarian.  (For all that it matters, there is actually a serious
case that a principled libertarian party would even get more votes
than an unprincipled one).

It is characteristic of the immaturity and superficiality over the
"moral" question of whether to take part in politics, and having
decided to do so, immediately assumed that the LP should try to ape
the major parties, and should measure its success by how many votes
it got.  All that matters is whether a political party would be
effective.  There are arguments either way about its possible
effectiveness - that is, about the propaganda effectiveness of an
organisation calling itself a "party", and allocating, say, three
per cent of its efforts to standing for elections.  There are no
serious arguments for a 'libertarian party which thinks it can get
people elected and walk to the centre of the political stage within
a few years, and which devotes more than eighty per cent of its
resources to elections.  That is just a fantasy, a complete waste of
time and money.

Some libertarians involved with the LP give as their reason the fact
that "ninety-five per cent of ordinary Americans can be induced to
take an interest in political matters only at election times".  The
mistake lies in being greatly concerned with ninety-five per cent of
ordinary Americans.  At this stage, the other five per cent matter
much more.  (It is not implied here that we pay no attention to
ninety-five per cent of the population: we cannot sensibly restrict
our efforts in that way, because it is not known who are the five
per cent, and there is no way to find out, except by trial and error
the process of propaganda itself.) Another argument is that
thousands have become active through the LP.  But what good are
these activists?  If they don't read books, and if they think of
promoting libertarianism as a gigantic advertising campaign, we
would be better off without them.

Many of those disillusioned by the Clark campaign have turned to
other nostrums: the counter-economy, Immersion in various campaigns
run by socialists or appeals to "oppressed minorities" like blacks
and gays.  The underlying misconception remains unchanged: that
there is some trick which will enable big results to be obtained
soon.

In other quarters there is some concern with "cadre-building", and
this is wholly to be welcomed, though it often goes along with an
imitation of the comical prose of the Marxist sects, and with a
dogmatic insistence on points of doctrine which at this stage ought
to be left open for internal discussion.  Furthermore, it is not
clear that the "cadre builders" have fully absorbed the long-range
attitude of serious analysis and recruitment.  It is better, for
example, to have a magazine that circulates to a few hundred people
(provided they are the right few hundred!) and keeps going for fifty
years, than to have a magazine which sells 100,000 copies a month,
has glossy colour pictures, and folds up after a few years.  To a
future historian of the movement it will be obvious that Libertarian
Forum is of enormously more importance the Libertarian Review, but
how many see that today, or saw it a couple of years back?  Even the
cadre builders tend to see themselves in the position of Lenin in
1903, whereas they ought to see themselves in the position of Marx
in the 1860s.

SUPERFICIAL OPTIMISM CAUSES DESPAIR

One of the penalties of the short-range perspective is that it leads
to unnecessary disappointment and discouragement.  Minor political
developments are greeted as heralds of a new dawn, and when the
black night of statism later shows no sign of abating, or when
equally minor political developments (say, the election of a Benn
government) seem to indicate a reversal, the libertarian feels that
nothing can be done in present circumstances, or more crassly, that
"nothing will ever change".

Some libertarians say that the performance of a Thatcher or a
Reagan, administering the corporate state and chattering about the
free market, will discredit the free market.  In 1921 the
'experiment" of communist central planning was a complete and
humiliating failure, and was abandoned by the Russian government.
Did that lead to the 'discrediting' of Marxism and communism?  There
was far too much ideological steam behind Marxism for any "failure'
to have much effect.  There is today far too much ideological steam
behind monetarism, anti-socialism and greater reliance on the market
for six dozen Thatchers and Reagans to do much damage.  Marxism was
eventually comprehensively discredited by books and pamphlets.  This
was an autonomous development which would have been substantially
the same if the performance of Marxist-Leninist regimes had been ten
times better or (if that were conceivable) ten times worse.

Events like the 'discrediting" of ideas because of the results of
particular policies, the impressions made on journalists or on the
results of public opinion polis, do not have much effect upon the
long-term evolution of opinion, and are themselves volatile and
easily reversed.  To the politician who wants to see certain
specific measures enacted within a year or two, these swirling
eddies are all-important.  But the propagandist, though observing
and commenting upon them, must not let them determine his assessment
of his own task.  He certainly must not feel elated if they seem to
be going his way, only then to be cast into despair if they seem to
be going against him.

WE CAN SUCCEED

One hundred years ago socialism was in the ascendancy.  It was an
ideological juggernaut which no editorialising in newspapers or
speech-making in Hyde Park could do anything to stop.  Today, one is
tempted to say that anti-socialism is a similar juggernaut, except
that anti-socialism is a purely negative reaction.  The movement of
ideas now is less clearly defined - though perhaps it always becomes
defined only in retrospect.  There is no single coherent body of
doctrine which is ready to sweep the world in the way that socialism
did.  It is possible that libertarianism could be turned into such a
doctrine, or it is possible that some new madness connected with
religion, or race or nationality might suddenly catch fire, or it is
possible that a pragmatic, liberal 'greater reliance on market
forces" might be incorporated into a supple form of statist
oppression.  The realisation of the first of these possibilities is
not guaranteed, but neither is it an unrealistic project.

A LONG RANGE APPROACH

The short-range perspective leads propagandists to try to sell
libertarian ideas to the public.  The long-range perspective leads
propagandists to pursue small-scale but quality recruitment.  The
short-range perspective leads propagandists to under-play certain
essential aspects of libertarian doctrine, in the fond hope that
people can be seduced into a libertarian outlook by gentle nudges.
The long-range propagandist actually relishes stating these aspects
of libertarianism which will upset most of the general public,
knowing that they will appeal to a certain type of intellectual with
a bold and systematic turn of mind.

From  a short-range standpoint, the present schisms and bitter
controversies within the US movement are disastrous.  From the
long-range viewpoint they are very promising.  The intellectual
propagandist loves disputation and doctrinal turbulence just as
surely as "the great mass of ordinary people" are indifferent to
such matters.

The short-range perspective suffers from an uneasy confrontation
between over-optimistic expectations and adaptation to the
apparently pessimistic message of daily reality.  Its adherents
always consciously or unconsciously strive to present libertarianism
as something it is not, because they are vaguely aware that what it
is would not be liked, and they crave to be liked.  According to..
their taste, they therefore want to present libertarianism as
low-tax welfare-statatism, a progressive revolutionary force, a
revitalised Conservatism, a transformational lifestyle, the way
young people are thinking nowadays, a sensible way of making a few
efficient adjustments in the economy ...  One of the unintended
consequences of the short-range search for ideological disguises is
that the short-range propagandist never actually gets any practice
in arguing for the tricky or sensitive areas of the libertarian case
and, compelled to do so, has recourse to exasperated moralising.

THE WORK OF THE LA

The long-range propagandist can face the reality that he is one of a
small group of people endeavouring to spread, and also refine, a
system of distinctive and not very popular ideas about society and
politics.  The propagandist is not discouraged at lack of visible
progress in the arenas of politics or mass opinion.  He is gratified
by the visible progress in building up the small but increasingly
effective propaganda group.

The group publishes a range of leaflets.  These state the basic
libertarian position on many issues, including those which are not
very palatable to the public.  (The leaflets will include ones on
child labour laws, denationalisation of the streets, immigration
control, prostitution and gun control.) It publishes pamphlets, some
of which develop the libertarian analysis in greater detail, others
arguing positions controversial within the libertarian movement.  It
publishes a regular journal which does not simply put the
libertarian case, but rather takes that for granted as a background
to debates and comments.  The group debates with all and sundry.  It
holds regular lectures and discussion meetings.  It studies other
propaganda groups from the points of view - both of their ideas and
their techniques of advancing those ideas, Its members turn up at
other group's meetings to ask questions.

NO NEED FOR A LINE

Among matters controversial within the libertarian movement, on
which the group does not at this stage need to have a settled "line"
are: the comparative merits of various economic methodologies (e.g.
Austrian or Chicago), the ethical bases of libertarianism (e.g.
natural rights or utilitarianism), foreign policy in the current
world situation (e.g.  unilateral disarmament or support for NATO),
the political organisation of a libertarian society (anarchism or
minimal-statism), the merit of particular productive techniques
(e.g.  nuclear generation of electricity), abortion and the rights
of children.  These are debated vigorously within the group, and it
may be that in years to come some of the issues will be so clarified
that a definite line is indicated.  Or it may be that when the group
is much bigger there will be room for more independent groups taking
a definite stand on such questions, in addition to continuing the LA
as the broad 'alliance'.

There is also a wide area of propaganda strategy on which no uniform
line is necessary.  For example, most members of the Libertarian
Alliance are not members or supporters of any political party.
There are a few LA members in each of several political parties.  So
far as we can judge, most are opposed to forming a libertarian
political party, but a few would favour that.  There is continuing
debate about the merits of these strategies, and it would be quite
inappropriate for the LA as an organisation to rule which was the
best.  There are similar differences on the wisdom of working within
various pressure groups, such as Amnesty International or the
National Council for Civil Liberties.

OUR SHORT-TERM GOAL

A reasonable goal for the LA over the next five to ten years is to
build up a membership of one or two thousand dedicated, informed and
well-organised libertarian propagandists.  If we achieve that, we
will already be making some appreciable impact upon society, and the
situation may then have changed so that some of the above becomes
inapplicable.


--
Ian Geldard
The Libertarian Alliance
25 Chapter Chambers, Esterbrooke Street
London SW1P 4NN

URL http://www.digiweb.com/igeldard/LA/