For A Radical Libertarianism: Or, On Political and Libertarian Brutalism
What is Brutalism?
In the Soviet Union, a prominent architectural feature remembered is the looming apartment buildings, rectangular blocks of concrete laid uniformly into neat little rows. Colossal, simple, perfectly pragmatic. Built specifically to maximize use and minimize materials, a perfectly utilitarian model. Yet, there is a sense of alienation, of inhumanity in such structures.
Such a style of architecture had come to be known as Brutalism, a rejection of the classical style before it. Based on a minimalist approach, its prime focus was a showcase of the barebones and the materials making the structure itself, not caring much for any decoration or flourish. It is reminiscent of modern art, such as the abstract cubism of Picasso and the neoplasticism of Piet Mondrian. However, unlike modern art pieces, the brutalist building lacked color, consisting of pallets of whites, blacks, and grays. There was a lack of any emotion in such color choice, for the most part. The materials were left, for the most part, alone, to show the naked vision of pure, abstract figures in a concrete and messy world.
Yet even so, such structures made under Brutalism can also have their own beauty. Take, for example, Habitat 67 in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. While it still used the simple, barebones design and the focus on the material itself instead of any décor in constructing it, the unique formation of such structures helped express the natural beauty in such abstract forms, forming a fascination and introspectiveness in looking upon and reflecting on this strange yet beautiful structure.
However, such forms, when repeated, can leave an emptiness. While looking at a part of Habitat 67 might be enjoyable, to see the whole of it also reveals how it can become alienating. The flaws also present in the Soviet condos reveals itself, the starkly inhumane figures showing barely any emotion, impersonal, lifeless. It creates, in essence, an existential conflict, a sort of Kafkaesque mood portrayed in the almost complete void of meaning and purpose besides the strictly utilitarian. Left with only the barebones, to not build upon them, as Brutalism does, seems a great mistake, leaving barely any space for creativity, which few structures, like Habit 67, are able to fill.
Political and Philosophical Brutalism
Just as in architecture we have Brutalism, so do we have it in philosophy . While the focus on core principles is refreshing, such focus can lead to vapidness, and an excuse for allowing any type of behavior under the claim it did not violate the core principles. In refusing to build up from the foundational principles and ideas, they create a way to adopt such ideas that contradict the philosophy, yet are able to create loopholes and fallacious logic in order to get away with such contradictory views. Brutalism, while creating a new focus on the grassroots in philosophy, has opened the gateway for corruption.
Libertarian Brutalism
Such can be seen clearly in the supposed “Party of Principle”, as well as the Liberty Movement in general. The once great Jeffrey Tucker outlined such a problem, writing that Libertarian Brutalism, in contrast with a more humanist approach, “values the freedom to reject cooperation in favor of gut-level prejudice” and “wants the freedom to assert power and privilege within the strict confines of private property rights and the freedom to disassociate.” While such an evaluation focuses on right libertarianism, it reveals a main problem of Brutalism generally: in politics, it is mainly coopted to excuse conservative or reactionary values and prejudices, no matter how much it differs from the original philosophy’s principles (let us remember that the Soviet Union, adopting brutalist architecture and views on communist philosophy, prized romantic realist portraiture, which is also prized by conservatives in regards to art). Brutalism allows those whose ideas are unlibertarian, and even antilibertarian, to absolve themselves of such faults and infiltrate the movement. It is no wonder libertarianism appears to now have a white supremacist and authoritarian problem.
However, to blame it all on Brutalism seems a rather rash decision. Those who wish to infiltrate the movement already have such reactionary views in place. Brutalism, for them, is only a means to an end. As stated earlier, such a view of philosophy has a merit: a renewed focus on foundational principles, and a new appreciation of grass roots organization. While Libertarian Humanism has its benefits, it can become too muddled and focused on the aesthetics, and can get wrapped up in the romanticism of ideological and philosophical history. Brutalism brings us back to the origin point, to the center of the philosophy, and thus renews our understanding of such concepts that makes Libertarianism what it is.
Thus, while Tucker made a good distinction between Humanist and Brutalist Libertarianism, it is important to make another distinction: Radical Libertarianism vs. Reactionary Libertarianism. Radical Libertarianism acts as the foil to Humanist Libertarianism: in rejuvenating philosophical discussion by returning and comparing libertarian ideas to its root principles, Radical Libertarianism brings back an interest into those thinkers and the history so often romanticized by the Humanists, strengthening each other and the movement in toto. Reactionary Libertarianism does the opposite: instead of adding on to discussion, it silences debate; instead of strengthening Libertarianism as a whole, it divides it and weakens it in an attempt to conquer it and implement its reactionary views. Radical Libertarianism revives; Reactionary Libertarianism only rots.
Reactionary vs. Radical: Libertarianism In Crisis
With that in mind, we must reevaluate what the intellectuals of the Liberty Movement are advocating, and whether they cause more harm than good. In more recent times, the influence of figures such as Hans-Hermann Hoppe has created a way for far-right ideas to enter and subvert the principles of Libertarianism. But while Hoppe further provided such means of subversion, Murray Rothbard, with his adoption of the term “libertarian” away from the left, as well as his advocacy of the “Paleo Strategy” in his later years to recruit conservatives to the liberty movement, truly opened the doors for such possible subversion. While both have contributed greatly to Libertarianism in some ways, to ignore their influence in the corruption of the Liberty Movement would be a great error on our part.
And while they add corruption to the Libertarian Right, the Libertarian Left has also been infected by such reactionary politics. Noam Chomsky, in his attempt to make libertarianism more palpable to the mainstream populace, created an error that opened up further corruption. His idea of “justified hierarchies” allowed for authoritarian left ideologues, such as Stalinists and Maoists, to infiltrate the libertarianism’s left sector, stifling debate and creating an atmosphere of dogmatism. The entirety of libertarianism then, is under siege.
As well as that, another problem inherent in the movement is again caused by Reactionary forces: in the focus between the romanticizing of Locke, Kant, and Ayn Rand by humanism and reactionary focus on Hoppe and Rothbard on the right, and between the romantic focus of the French Revolution, Marx, and democratic socialism against the reactionary focus on Stalin and Mao on the left, the radical thinking of people like Hess and Konkin, as well as the original ideas of Proudhon, Stirner, Bakunin, Spooner, Goldman, etc., etc., has been all but forgotten. While anarchists have tried to keep such ideas alive, it is a small flame between the great fires of Humanism and Brutalism.
It becomes our imperative, then, to grow that small flame into a mighty torch. We must feed the flames of Radicalism so as to combat such reactionary forces, and to resurrect the spirit of Libertarianism. In evaluating and criticizing the modern libertarian ideology in contrast with the original writings and central principles of Liberty, we may refocus on the core tenets of Libertarianism, and fight against the forces of the Reaction to secure the ideas of Freedom and Justice from the clutches of tyranny. Thus we must reject such labels that had divided us before: communist, capitalist, left, right, etc., etc. In rejecting such labels, and in establishing unity and cooperation between all in the Liberty Movement, can we truly forward the aims, goals, and virtues of Liberty.
