Theory and Action
by Joshua Katz
I have received more emails, positive and negative, about The Man Behind the Mask than I had ever received in my life on any other topic. I certainly could not begin to address the many good points that were raised in a short essay here. However, one topic came up often enough that it ought to be addressed. By way of introduction, I will point out that on Wednesday night, Free Talk Live had a segment about V for Vendetta. This segment consisted largely of a reading of my review, with positive comments, for which I was quite grateful. The hosts, though, took exception to the last line of the review. Here’s what I wrote:
Since I received more than 50 emails asking what movement I meant, I will conclude that my attempt at subtlety failed. I meant, for the record, the Lew Rockwell and Austrian Economics movement. The hosts complained "A think tank? They aren’t blowing anything up – where the heck does he see action in that? The real movement where the action is is the FSP, not Lew Rockwell." I called tonight to deal with this topic. I pointed out that I didn’t say the Mises Institute, and anyway, the Institute is not a think-tank; it is far too involved in education and outreach to be considered a think-tank. It is anything but insular. But I did not get involved in the "who is more important" argument. After all, if someone could show me a libertarian movement which is more important than Austrian Economics, I’d be thrilled. I also do not want to get sidetracked into addressing my particular problems with the FSP. What I do want to address, though, is this action-theory divide. There is a line in the movie in which V says, "A building is a symbol, as is the act of blowing it up." Very true – but so is a movie about blowing it up. Such an act does not need to be taken literally. If I were to blow up the White House tomorrow, the people of the US would not dress up like me and storm Washington to remove the state – they’d cheer as I was executed and say "What a disgraceful terrorist." This would not be an effective action. It was only effective in the movie because it was done in a situation where it could contribute to the outcome desired. Today is not that time, and this would be counterproductive. Does anyone imagine that the British government could not continue to rule without its building? Blowing up an empty Parliament does not end state rule – it is, as V says, a symbol. The government was unable to continue its rule because no one bought the myth of the State any longer. It was revealed to be nothing but a bunch of bullies exercising power – power which was weaker than that of the people rising up. The act of blowing up the building was done as an educational tool, not as a way of directly ending government. So, what we should do is what best accomplishes our goal of soundly demonstrating that the difference between a government and a mafia is a flag. Governments are groups of people who come together for a common purpose – to command and control their countrymen. They bring enough guns and firepower to do the job when only a few deviate. They do not have the power to maintain their rule if the entire population rejects it. That is why it is important for the people to believe that the State has the right to exercise power – that is, legitimacy. V showed that legitimacy to be a myth, and the state was done for. He did begin by blowing up the Bailey, a move to gather attention, getting people to ask "Now why would someone do that?" Is this a necessary move? Probably not. The key to his revolution was his second act – speaking to the people directly and speaking the truth. This is what our movement seeks to do every day. V did not attempt to segregate himself off and form a small utopia, as some movements might seek. He simply presented his case in soft, reasonable tones. "I know why you did it: you were afraid." He reassures them that he understands why they gave up their freedom, and educates them on how to get it back. The Austrian Economics movement is seeking the best arguments for this, and presenting them publicly. Most faculty at the Institute are on faculty elsewhere – presenting these arguments to hundreds of students on a daily basis. Lewrockwell.com spreads this message to untold thousands every day. This is how we create the situation where such action is possible. It is possible to misunderstand what I wrote, I admit. I did not mean that if you hang out with Walter Block and David Gordon a lot, they’ll invite you to their secret underground lairs and ask you to help them blow things up. I did not say that Lew Rockwell will don a mask and go out avenging the victims of the state. I said that if a masked man – an effective activist – were to arise, he would be found in the vicinity of this movement. The reason is clear. V is not a teenager in a black shirt with a Mohawk haircut. He is well-read, intelligent, and able to present clear, cogent arguments for freedom when challenged. One would not be surprised to hear him quote Rothbard or Hayek. To be effective, libertarian action must be grounded in libertarian theory. The actor must be able to explain why he did what he did, and why freedom is right. If he cannot, he can easily be dismissed as an evil terrorist. Of course, all official channels will call him this anyway. The point is that it is hard for the tv viewer to agree with the reporter’s assessment when he knows that what the "terrorist" said is true, and that the rightness of the action follows from this truth. He might still pull it off – but it will be hard. If the "terrorist" acts a second time, it will be harder still – and there will come a breaking point. The moment that breaking point is reached is precisely the moment at which the State loses its true power. Its guns are not nearly as powerful as its ideas. When the idea of legitimacy is lost, so is the state. Conclusion April 11, 2006 Joshua Katz [send him mail] is a graduate student in philosophy at Texas A&M. He has studied philosophy of mind, logic, and epistemology of economics from an Austrian perspective. He holds a bachelor's degree in mathematics, and is presently looking for work after the academic term. He enjoys a glass of port and a wedge of Brie as a way to start his day. Copyright © 2006 LewRockwell.com |
There
need not be any dichotomy and argument between theory and action.
If an action matches a theory, no theorist will complain, and no
actor would really say "stop giving me justification for my
actions." Of course, a theorist might well complain about counterproductive
actions, but so much the better. It is not true that some action,
however wasteful, stupid, or counterproductive, is better than none.
If you expect people to be inspired by your actions, you had better
be able to explain, at least to yourself, why your actions are inspired.
Actions will not overthrow the government – they are but symbols.
They are important symbols, though. They can be effective, and decisive,
if and only if the intention and ideas behind the actions can be
explained, and are understood, by the viewers.