I have long believed that there needs to be a refocusing of American leftist theory. I will not claim to be deep into the current of contemporary commentators of Marxist and anarchist theory. However, from what I have read, and from conversations I have witnessed and participated in, the general level of intellectual development on several questions has stagnated. There is a belief that most of the problems which the left broadly wishes to deal with are, in fact, theoretically solved and are only waiting for a solution. I think two clear examples stand out against this idea: policing in socialist countries and state capitalism.
As an abstract political project, I have a great deal of respect for the People’s Republic of China. I also believe that their government is a great deal more democratic in practice than it is often given credit for, a presumption based in the fact that the legitimacy of the CPC is rooted in what it delivers for the people rather than in simply strengthening its institutions (though it obviously does these things, too). However, it would be wrong to discount the fact that China’s government is highly repressive. This can be considered a necessity in a world which is dominated by hostile capitalist actors, or at least a reasonable precaution, but that does not mean that it is a desirable outcome. In the same way, though China has managed to find success using a system that appears capitalistic, it should not be ignored that Marx has pointed out – and later economic and social investigation has confirmed – that capitalism is built on essential exploitation. Again, though this has led to practical success, it is not an ideal which would have been anticipated by any socialist, communist, or anarchist theory.
I don’t bring these up to denigrate China. Capitalist countries have gone through far worse crises of repression and capitalist exploitation. Nor is China’s experience unique to it among communist-socialist countries: the Soviet Union quickly moved to “capitalistic” processes, and pretty much every existing socialist country continues to use private enterprise and police repression, just under the supervision of the state. But the fact that these old ideas are still relevant for socialist countries is evidence of the point I am trying to make: leftist theory has not yet solved key issues relevant to the creation of a truly fair and equal society.
The crisis we face now in America (and in the West more broadly) is one which requires a new motivation. I think that will only come when we have a core of real solutions to the problems that we are facing. I do not subscribe to non-ideology, but I am also eager to learn from other ideologies, and adapt and change my own thinking. That is to say that the project of a new theory, or the theoretical exploration of these topics, should not be thought of as being restrained to any particular school of politics. Anyone who is interested in truly solving these problems, and not in covering them over as the traditional liberal governments do or crushing them into nonexistence as authoritarians do, should be considered “on the left”. As for the particular flavors, we should recognize each other for who we are and nevertheless be willing to collaborate in seeking answers. Even if we do not all find the same answers, our answers are likely to be variations on a correct theme if we work together to build the ideas.
What I will lay out is a series of questions and sub-questions that should be engaged in and (hopefully) answered by a New Vanguard Theory Group. This will include a variety of related issues primarily centered around politics, persuasion, and social control. I’ve chosen these issues because I believe they are the most relevant open questions to be solved. You will not see many “practical” issues in terms of things such as logistics or quotas among the topics, as these are procedural issues that are better handled with data and concrete examples, and they generally don’t rely on major ideological or theoretical shifts.
Also not appearing are important issues such as race, gender, and disability. As I just said, they are important, and so the reason they are not here is not as a slight on these topics, but more on us as a society. Unlike questions such as policing, with sub-questions I’ll bring up shortly, we have basically figured out how to reach equality on issues of race, gender, disability, etc. The problem is not theoretical in these cases, it is practical. We can measurably improve the condition of social and political minorities, of women and other gender groups, of disabled and differently-abled people, and so on. We have achieved these things in ways that are sustainable except that they have been attacked and dismantled.
However, I am able-bodied (for the moment) and I am a man. I’m Black but I live in an area and in a manner where I have not experienced a lot of personal racism. I understand that I may not understand the breadth of the issues I’ve brought up, and it is more than possible that relevant theoretical questions do still remain. Therefore I want to make it clear that me laying out these questions and sub-questions is meant to be a foundation for a New Vanguard Theory Group. As new questions are found to be relevant in a theoretical sense, they should be brought in and studied with the same attention that is given to the questions which are elaborated.
With all that said, here are the six questions and the 21 sub-questions.
1. The Police Question
- 1.1: The question of public safety. While it’s recognized that the police are not originally or primarily used to perform a public safety function, the preservation of public safety is still a critical function. How can endeavors like crime prevention, investigation, control of civil unrest, and so on be engaged in without replicating the abuses of traditional police?
- 1.2: The question of cogency and/or coercion. A less-recognized and less-savory use of the police is in coercing people into doing what is necessary. How are taxes collected, or how are important facilities protected, without the use of some process to convince or coerce people to do what has been required? If the question is to be answered by rejecting cogency/coercion, then this becomes a question of how the state can function without doing this, or how a society might function without such a process.
2. The Military Question
- 2.1: The question of civilian control of the military. A society’s military possesses its greatest ability to apply violence to a target, and that ability is concentrated inside a single group which tends to be allied to itself more strongly than to the rest of society. These tendencies emerge spontaneously. How can a civilian government ensure that it will not be overtaken by military interests, directly or indirectly?
- 2.2: The question of military development. As has been observed by several, the military is like a machine which continually improves itself. In one sense, the technical capability of a military must be maintained and updated in line with the general state of technology and science. In another, increased militarization requires more resources and may end up creating a self-interested body which may act against the state. How, then, should military development be managed?
- 2.3: The question of military aggression. Having a large and capable military makes acts of aggression possible. An aggressive military will often, especially when successful, seek to use aggressive force in more situations. However, a military which is insufficiently aggressive may also be inadequate to defending the state.
- 2.4: The question of state defense. Given the previous three sub-questions, the entire concept of defense of the state must be questioned as well. What ultimately does it mean to defend the state, especially a state which fully respects the wishes of all its inhabitants? To what degree does defense of the state justify the erosion of civil liberties and/or local government? Can state defense be pursued in a way that is permissive of, and even encouraging of, independent liberal society?
3. The Economy Question
- 3.1: The question of inflation and unemployment. As I understand it, in orthodox economics, there is a base level of unemployment which is assumed as a kind of counterweight against ever-expanding monetary inflation. While it is true that “economics is fake”, economics is real in the sense that the decisions of economic actors are predicated on their understanding of economics, practical or not, and therefore a better theory must be put in place in order to convince economic actors that they should not react poorly to reduced unemployment.
- 3.2: The question of the nature of money. I believe that the labor theory of value has to be discarded as a question of pure economics. As a basic political ideology of economics, which is to say a roadmap to the proper distribution of resources, it is excellent. As a way to understand the nature of money and actual economic relations, it is totally inadequate. However, we must have a truly advanced understanding of money, capital, and economic value in order to supersede capitalism. It is my belief that this nature is best found through the state theory of money, but this is not a binding belief. Instead, what I would say is that the theory we are seeking is not that of orthodox economics. A true theory of money will be a theory which explains historical monetary movements in a detail not found before and which has some predictive power. This is not accomplished by orthodox economics or, in what I have found, by Marxian economics.
- 3.3: The question of value and population. One of the major but under-discussed (in my experience) problems of international politics is the “population race”: the demand that each country has to raise the number of people so that they can increase “productivity” etc. I am not against increases in population, but I believe it is destructive on an essential social level for states to look at their populations as breeding stock for the purpose of producing more GDP. In order to move away from these population races, we must find a way to express the value/influence held by a state (or other group) in some way other than sheer production per head.
- 3.4: The question of financing, especially in the case of war. War is one of the great evils of the world. You will notice that you will not find “how to stop war” in any of these subquestions; I will discuss this point later. However, I bring war up here because it is the greatest single source of expense, both in spending and in losses, that a state can or will undertake. To win a war, the ability to bring a great deal of resources to bear at once is essential. One of the great benefits of capitalism, especially the processes of lending and capitalization, is that it gave the state the ability to marshal a great amount of capital that they previously did not have access to, and the test of this was that capitalist countries were able to finance wars more readily than states based on other economic systems. This creates two related problems, which are best kept grouped: first, in a political sense, any economic system which will rival capitalism must be able to finance itself at a speed which rivals a capitalist system; second, in an essential sense, we have to understand the truth of these assumptions: is financing how capitalist powers succeeded? is war the greatest expense a state undertakes? and if war is not the test, what is the test, how was it met by capitalism, and how can it met by another system?
- 3.5: The question of private vs. public enterprise. This question is fairly straightforward, I believe, but its implications are vast. Socialists have attempted to use vast collectivization and other state-led enterprises, but have always had great success with private enterprises. However, the existence of stringent controls within private or semi-private enterprises in socialist countries reveals a tension with their existence. What is the place of private enterprise in a post-capitalist economy? What is the place of public enterprise?
4. The International Question
- 4.1: The question of inter-state influence. I call this the question of power vs. priority, but it’s possibly better stated as the question of post-power. Essentially, we can readily observe that geopolitics is now a question of power politics. In the terms of this sub-question, “power politics” means that the victorious party in a conflict is understood to have exerted their power over the other, and that the defeated party is theoretically fully subjugated, saved only by the victor’s mercy and the threat of international condemnation. That justifies the extraction of huge reparations/indemnities from the defeated parties. The primary goal of this question is to imagine a geopolitics which is not based on the assumption and exertion of total power. My early thoughts on this subject revolve around the idea of “priority”, which is being “first in line” rather than “ultimate master”. Whereas power tries to construct a situation where the victor will never have to fear being defeated (which is a constructed illusion), priority accepts that things will change, but that for the moment, one side will have the heavy hand in making decisions about a subject. I do not believe that “war” as an abstract concept will go away because “war” does not mean one thing, and therefore the propensity for a war to break out does not simply boil down to whether each side “wants it or not”. Priority geopolitics would, I hope, reinforce the idea that peoples will ultimately have to live together rather than destroying one another, and thus ultimately reduce the frequency and ferocity of any conflicts which will inevitably break out. Further, we may establish political structures such as intergovernmental groups or regional authorities which can act as substitute battlegrounds, allowing certain struggles to be conducted in a largely nonviolent manner.
- 4.2: The question of international development. It is no secret that much of the world has been purposefully impoverished by imperialist, colonial, and neo-colonial powers. This has created a situation where these same powers (or their successors) can curry favor with impoverished states by offering them development aid. This allows corruption to flourish in impoverished states, or it allows foreign actors to establish their authority in those states, or it creates a dependency in those states to foreign actors. None of these outcomes is desirable. A question of how states may encourage development in one another, especially in terms of basic medical services and food distribution, without the imposition of these three evils, is one which cannot be ignored.
5. The Carceral Question
- 5.1: The question of protective custody. When I say “protective custody” here, I’m not being euphemistic; if there’s another term I should use, I apologize that I don’t know it. By “protective custody”, I genuinely mean custody for protection of the person or the public: in the case of disease, both physical and extreme mental, in particular. What are the circumstances that such custody should be used in? What are the limits of that custody, practically speaking? What are the limits, philosophically-speaking; most especially, how can we prevent the abuse of protective custody by the state (or actors working through the state)?
- 5.2: The question of correction of anti-social behavior. Again, I’m having to use terms here differently than the common usage, but any other use would be just as fraught. When I say “anti-social” I don’t mean “counter-culture” or “angsty”, I mean behavior that works in ways that actually destroys the social fabric: violent crime, organized deception, political corruption, etc. To what extent does correction justify detention? To what extent does detention facilitate correction? To what extent should correction be expected or sought? What should correction consist of? What does it mean to be corrected away from anti-social behavior?
- 5.3: The question of punitive detention. This is a question which I personally hate to raise, but it must be raised. I think the anti-carceral movement has important and constructive points to make, and I do not want to ascribe any particular answer to the movement as a whole, as I don’t believe there is one. However, in the most extreme construction of an anti-carceral viewpoint, there is no detention at all. I believe this is naive. If we take that as our viewpoint, we then have to ask: what are the appropriate situations for punitive detention? What conditions are appropriate? While I believe that punitive detention is a necessary outcome of being a society—that is to say, in any society with a sufficient amount of people, there will be some people who act out egregiously enough that detention is the only real solution—I also believe that it should be reduced as much as possible. For that reason, we have to raise and discuss the question seriously, rather than assuming we will simply happen upon it.
6. The Political Question
- 6.1: The question of democracy’s weaknesses. To speak as though democracy is the best system of government is nonsense, but not for the reason you may immediately think. It is nonsense because democracy is the only justifiable government. There isn’t another system you can use. You can have different forms of democracy but if you do not have a democracy, your government is not legitimate in realistic terms. With that said, we must also recognize that the general form of democracy does have weaknesses, and it is prone to being overtaken by concerted effort. What are these weaknesses, both in specific forms and in general? What are the weaknesses in elections, in procedure, in composition? We will not be able to build a perfect system of government, but understanding these weaknesses is key in order to prevent “democratic backsliding” and authoritarian takeover.
- 6.2: The question of party systems. I believe that there are two valid categories of party system: multi-party competitive elections and single-party dominated elections. An independents-only system is illegitimate because political association is natural, and the effect of an independents-only system is that the sitting government always has great authority (unless there is an unofficial grouping among independents, effectively defeating that system). Both systems have opportunities for autocratic groups to come to power, either legitimately or quasi-legitimately (such as through a military coup). Multi-party competitive systems allow for voter choice and liberty, while single-party dominated systems allow for stronger control over the state and prevention of takeover by potentially anti-social elements. The main danger to multi-party systems is from an anti-social “outsider” party gaining influence and coming into government; the danger to single-party systems is that the dominant party will become closed and authoritarian rather than responsive and open to applicants.
- 6.3: The question of the process of redistribution of wealth. It must be understood by any leftist that wealth must be redistributed in some measure from those who have to those who have not, whether those who have is an aristocracy or if it is the state itself. But how should this best be done? How should value be re-directed to the people? How much? Is it best to try and give each person individually their due, or should some value be retained in institutions that work on the people’s behalf? If institutions hold some of it, how can it be ensured that they work on behalf of those who rely on them?
- 6.4: The question of distribution of state power. This is basically a question of federalism vs. provincialism. A state’s power always has to be distributed or devolved down from the main center to localities and small groups. In this dichotomy, federalism means that the major divisions and/or subdivisions of the state have significant powers and make their own decisions, while also consenting to a process of union which creates a higher federal government; provincialism, on the other hand, is when a central government makes decisions and divisions/subdivisions are largely charged with executing those decisions, perhaps with modifications based on their own situations. These are Weberian ideal types, but the merits and downsides of each method of distributing power should be investigated.
- 6.5: The question of secession. This is perhaps one of the most pressing issues that democracies have to engage with. Usually, it is simply assumed that while divisions etc. have the theoretical right to secede, it is also within the rights of the “suzerain” power to try and keep its portions, and therefore all retaliations are justified. But is this true? Must secession be effectively illegal? And if not, what are the terms under which secession may occur? What exactly does secession mean? We have states that secede into autonomy and others that fully break away, and yet some of those who make “full breaks” retain important ties with their old suzerains. I believe that this question must be posed this way, but it is actually in service of answering another question. I believe that once we can understand what secession should be, we will also understand what union should be.
A new theory of American politics will answer these questions and more. I am working on my own answers to some of these questions, but my answers will not be final. I believe that if we can answer these questions, we can develop a public political platform which will be appealing to the American public by virtue of having answers to the pressing questions of political organization, fair law, and social cohesion.