Radical Liberalism, Pragmatism, and Me

As I’ve gained in followers on bluesky I’ve been meaning to write about my political views, where they come from and how they articulate the way I see the world. Not only to explain to my new followers who I am, but also for myself as a way to formalize how I see things. So let’s break it down. I am Aricie, a trans older zoomer who’s autistic, has ADHD and is recovering from depression and deals with general anxiety. I also have received a very peculiar education. I describe myself as a Radical Liberal, although my views could well be described as being anarchist. I ascribe to a similar way of seeing intelligence as Jacques Rancière. I guess I could be described as a pragmatic or realistic anarchist, although I don’t like this framing as often the people who claim to be “realist” are simply hiding from people and themselves their right wing beliefs.

The Liberal Spectrum: Beyond Labels

Given how I define myself, it is, I think, important that I address what I mean with Radical Liberalism. I want to do so, by discussing my views on political labels and their relationship with political philosophy. This is particularly important to understand how I label myself as I do not link myself in any way with the political ideology of neoliberalism, classical liberalism or any other ‘mainstream’ ones. I personally make the strong distinction between liberalism the political ideology and liberalism the political philosophy. The political ideology is, to me, the interpretation of the political philosophy in an attempt to apply it to the world we live in; namely, the values underpinning political philosophy: the fundamental right of individuals to liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property and equality before the law. And it is through those values that one can understand where I come from with the label of Radical Liberalism. It is to me the most extreme interpretation of those values, the most radical one.

How do I define myself and why?

Political equality, consent of the governed and liberty are for me the three most fundamental values out of the five I mentioned. They are the driver of my own political ideology. If one, like I do, interprets them most radically it means that everyone shall be treated as equal, that consensus is the only form of political decision that respects individual liberty and the consent of the governed as it is the most direct one. And in that sense, there is no distinction between anarchism and Radical Liberalism. But this choice by me of which liberal value to prioritize is personal, although it fits more broadly in today’s understanding of liberalism (particularly social liberalism). And so, it is simply the most extreme interpretation of human rights. Because liberty, equality and consent of the governed are the governing values it necessarily means that there cannot exist private means of production as the sole idea of private ownership of those things undermines those values. What private property defines under this framework is thus a recurring idea under anarchism of personal property. Your clothes, your toothbrush, etc. Things that are yours and do not remove the rights of others. It is the same with the idea of political equality, money as we know it today becomes abject as sociology shows, and we all know, differing levels of wealth necessarily leads to differing levels of political power. Even in a world where consensus would somehow be the way political decisions are taken, it is easy to imagine and understand how differing levels of wealth could and would lead to differing levels of political power.

All this explains why I see anarchism as the most radical way of interpreting liberalism, the political philosophy, and its values, and so why I see myself as a Radical Liberal. I know that anarchism (libertarianism or in French libertaire from the word liberté) has its roots in opposition to liberalism as the political ideology and the political philosophy were so intermingled during the 19th century, but I think that in today’s world where social liberalism is becoming the prevalent ideology and where the political and philosophical sphere of liberalism are becoming unmingled, it is not crucial, but still important, for anarchism and all the other far-left political ideology to reclaim their roots which all lead directly and indirectly to liberalism, the political philosophy.

Challenging Authority & Assumed Hierarchies

As I was implying and saying previously, this radical understanding of the values underpinning liberalism (I will from now on use interchangeably liberal political philosophy and liberalism) challenges how we approach money, private property, etc. But more broadly it also has deep implications for how we approach authorities and hierarchies. The one that comes to my mind most vividly and clearly is intelligence and its relation to teaching. And as I discuss this topic, it is probably as good a time as any to talk about my own peculiar educational journey. I say peculiar and most will probably think that I was homeschooled, but far from it. I was lucky to get at a young age into the vestiges of an educational project of the 1970s here in Quebec that had somehow survived for 40 years. What I mean by that is that I went to École alternative Jonathan, a school created in partnership in the early 70s between the school district, the relatively new (at the time) ministry of education and the department of education at the University of Montreal under the governance of Charles E. Caouette as a pilot project to create a new model for our education system here in Quebec. The concept of the school was very close to what Rancière advocated for, a school that puts the students at the center of their own education, where students and teachers are equals and that treats students of all ages and backgrounds with the idea that they are all as intelligent. This last idea is probably the most radical one, even if it might not seem so. And this is where the links with radical anarchism is and the explanation of why other interpretations of liberalism might fail to truly meet the values they seek to promote.

This concept of equal intelligence is radical in that it undermines the idea that there are people that know and people who need to know. It breaks the authoritarian model of school where the teacher teaches its knowledge and the student is there to take in this knowledge by saying that everyone has the same capability of knowing. What it means concretely is that teachers are not there as books of knowledge, but rather as guides, helpers. The idea is not to fill the student with knowledge, but with the tools they need to get this knowledge and this, as I have personally experienced and seen, leads necessarily to students developing the necessary knowledge. I would even go further as to say that this is a plainly better way to impart knowledge to the student as the tools they get allows them independence, the ability to think for themselves, be critical, etc. The ‘downside’ to this type of schooling is that it economically costs a lot to run. It is best when teachers have no more than 10, maximum 15, students to manage. Although this direct cost is most certainly regained later in life, but I do not have factual data to back this up. This deeply personal example, is there to demonstrate how pervasive authoritarianism and hierarchies can be. It is not merely about politics or in relation to work, but also how the relation between individuals must be rethought. Instead of working towards equality, liberalism must assume equality and this is not just a matter for our public lives, but also and importantly about our private ones. If we regard consent as an important value, like it is in liberalism, then we cannot allow the government to legislate on what happens in our bedrooms, nor can we remove agency from kids to be who they want to be even if those persons who want to remove this agency are their parents.

The challenge of the law

As I said precedently, this assumption of equality and more broadly consent must be applied to all levels of one's life and this includes the law. Not only in its application as equality before the law implies, but also in how individuals obey it. I bring this up partially because of the continuity, but also and mostly because of how illiberalism has grown in the last few years and I feel it is important to remind people of the distinction between a liberal law and an illiberal law and the tension between the two, when does acting illegally becomes justified and to which degree.

And so to me a liberal law is simply one that tries to follow liberal principles. I say try, because I realize that it is a bit utopic of expecting a perfect law and that we can decide to obey an imperfect law and maybe we should as the weight of disobeying is too great and the form of resistance would be unjustifiably great compared to the harm the law creates. Maybe this is the first part where I could be called out by fellow far leftist as I have a more pragmatic approach. Navigating this in practice, however, isn't always simple. But in that pragmatic approach, I will say that it is a very personal one. As long as the actions undertaken do not touch on the fundamental rights of others I think there is no ‘law’ that can dictate what to do. It becomes a matter of personal preference, tolerance (perhaps for the potential risks or consequences involved). It is when actions taken to undermine a law or attack it directly affect others fundamental rights that there appear limitations, or at least guidelines in how one should organize their form of resistance. Taking into account the pros and the cons of obedience. This pragmatic approach involves considering competing values and potential outcomes and weighing them. To take a relatively clear cut example of such extreme circumstances demanding this kind of calculus: the French resistance during WW2. Some form of resistance was to help hide Jews, political dissidents or anyone else the regime was attacking and this is pretty clearly good. It was illegal, because the state decides what is law, but it was good (and I’ll skip here the philosophical debate of what is good and bad). On the other hand you had armed resistance which under a ‘normal’ liberal regime would have been bad and illegal too. But that in the context of combating an illiberal regime was good, even if the right to freedom and consent was not followed (as taking one's life goes pretty clearly against those principles). But the bad of not following liberal values was outweighed by the good this disobedience did by allowing others to enjoy their own rights. (someone defending themselves legitimately from someone trying to take one of their fundamental rights and by doing so taking theirs in retaliation is legitimate in my view. Although not as a penalty, but as a consequence of someone defending themselves directly.) While the Occupation was an extreme case, the principle of scrutinizing laws against core values of liberalism remains crucial even when violations are less severe.

My pragmatic approach and conclusion

I know pragmatism and realism are badly seen in leftist spheres, much too often used as an escape from the reality that we might not be as far left as we think or pretend to be. Maybe this is what I do here, but simply I do not see the ‘standard’ anarchist approach of wanting a revolution as a possible way to attain this goal. This approach also disregards the similarities between far-left movements and leftist or centrist ones. Like I pointed out and believe, there are much more similarities between ‘liberals’ and anarchists than one might expect at first. It is not to say that proactive action must be abandoned, but rather that maybe aligning ourselves with a less radical movement is not all bad. I believe that there are things we can learn and for now we still live in a non-anarchic world and we must do with what there is. Punching against our liberal enemies by using the strength of the regions, people and countries we find ourselves in, by for example forming an alliance of like minded countries; participating in the current, albeit faulty, electoral system. In all honesty, I’m not sure if the world I advocate for will or could ever exist. But it is to me a world to strive for regardless as the closer we are to it and the better life will be for everyone. Classical liberalism was born from the State overreach and control over its population, modern liberalism was born from the conflict between individuals and Radical Liberalism is simply the logical conclusion of the road liberalism is on. A world where the conflicts between individuals are resolved and where, by necessity, the State does not need to exist anymore. Could this be ever reached? That remains to be determined and until then I will work towards it.