They are grounded in the free society. Conservatives want to save abstract principles and what we made of them in the present, but the combination that makes us the most free and open in the world. We could integrate immigrants. But we dont try. We are terrible failure of assimilation in the country. If we can address that we dont have to be any less of a nation of immigrants than we ever have been. I dont think if that is what burke thought, but it is what i thought. Host yuval levin, thank 0 f0 thanks for doing this. I hope everyone goes out and gets the book. The beauty of america is in this country we have the ability to write the script of our own life. We are in a sense in the drivers seat of our own future and her biggest decisions in life are made i us. America creates the sense of possibility and out of that you can become an activist, a Community Organizer read in a sense what are you doing . You are living off the great capitalist explosion of wealth that you didnt even create trade. So many strong men set up is hard to know where to begin. Nobody said his america is the most terrible place that there are a couple of assertions that you have to take on faith that are astonishing. One is the idea that americaamerica s great invention was Wealth Creation not based on theft at all. What about the theft of the entire continent . That was the theft. [applause] that doesnt mean 90 of the residents who live here were murdered. That was a part of it too. [applause] it is hardly a secret that the terms of political discourse are not exact leg models of precision and considering the way terms are used it is next to impossible to try to get a meaningful answer to such questions as what is socialism or what is capitalism or what our markets, free markets and many others in common usage. That is even more true of the term anarchism for reasons that nathan pointed out. It has not only been the subject of very use but also quite extreme abuse. Sometimes by bitter enemies and sometimes unfortunately by people who call it a manner of highs so much so, so much as a variation that it is that it resists any simple characterization. In fact the only way i can see to address the question that is posed this evening for anarchism is to try to identify some leading ideas that animate this major current of the rich and complex and often contradictory traditions of anarchist thought and virtually anarchist action. I think the sensible approach can start with remarks by the perceptive important anarchist intellectual and also activist rudolf rucker. He saw anarchism not as a fixed and closed social system with a fixed answer to all the multifarious questions and problems of human life but rather as a definite trend in the Historic Development of mankind, which strives for the free unhindered unfolding of all the individual and social forces in life. Its from the 1930s. These concepts are not really original. Big derive from the enlightenment and the early romantic period and rather similar words. Wilhelm then humbled one of the founders of classical liberalism among many other achievements described the leading principle of his thought as the absolute and essential importance of Human Development in its richest diversity. That is a phrase that jon stewart melt is the epigraph to his liberty. It follows from that than institutions that constrain such Human Development are illegitimate unless of course they can somehow justify themselves. You find a similar conception widely in enlightenment thought so for example and adam smith, everyone has read the opening paragraphs of wealth of nations where he extols the wonders of division of labor that not many people have gotten farther inside to read his bitter condemnation of division of labor and his insistence that in any Civilized Society the government will have to intervene to prevent it because it will destroy personal integrity and essential human rights. It will turn people he said into creatures as stupid and ignorant as a human can be. Its not too easy to find that passage, whatever the reason may be. If you look in the scholarly edition the university of chicago bicentennial, its not even in the index but its one of the most important passages in the book. Look at in these terms anarchism as a tendency in Human Development that seeks to identify structures of hierarchy and others that constrain Human Development. And then it seeks to subject them to very reasonable challenge. Justify yourself. Demonstrate that you are legitimate and maybe in some special circumstances or conceivably in principle, and if you cant meet that challenge which is the usual case, the structure should be dismantled and as nathan rightly as not just dismantled but to reconstruct it from below. The ideals that found expression during the enlightenment and the romantic era, they floundered on the shoals of rising industrial capitalism which is completely antithetical to them but rucker argues quite plausibly that they remain alive in libertarian socialist traditions that these range pretty wisely widely. They range from aunty bolshevik marxism, people like Carl Koresh Paul Maddock and others including the anarchists syndicalism that reaches peak of achievement in the revolutionary period and in spain in 1936 its well to remember that despite substantial achievements and successes it was crushed by the combined force of fascism, communism and western democracy. They have differences but they agreed that this had to be crushed the effort of free people to control their own lives. That had to be crushed before they turned to their petty differences which we call the spanish civil war. The same tendencies reached further to worker controlled enterprises. They are springing up in large parts of the old rust belt of the United States and northern mexico. They have reached the greatest development in the vast country of spain, monitor gone partly a reflection of the achievements of the long complex rich spanish tradition and partly it comes up with christian anarchist sources. There is also included in this general tendency but quite substantial and corporative movements that exist in many parts of the world. I think it also encompasses at least a good part of the feminist and human rights activism. Impart all of this sounds like tourism so why should anyone defend illegitimate structures . No reason of course. I think it is correct. It really is a truism, anarchism is what we call a truism that truisms have anarchism has merits. This particular truism belongs to an interesting category of principles, principles that are not only universal but doubly universal. They are universal in that they are almost universally accept it and universal in that they are almost universally rejected and practice. This is one of many of these. For example the general principle that we should apply to ourselves the same standards we do to others if not harsher ones, few would object that few would practice it or a more specific policy proposal like democracy promotion or the humanitarian intervention professors generally, rejected and practice almost universally. All doubly universal in this truism is the same. The truism that we should challenge and coercive institutions of all kinds, demand that they justify themselves, dismantle in reconstruction if they do not. Easy to say but not so easy to act done in practice. While proceeding with similar thoughts rocker iggy and trade anarchism seems to free labor from economic exploitation and to free society from ecclesiastical or political guardianship. And by doing that opening the way to an alliance of free groups of men and women they start corporative labor and a planned administration at of things in the interest of the community. Now he was in anarchist activist as well as a political thinker and he goes on to call on the workers and organizations and the popular organizations to create and im quoting not only the ideas but also the fact that the feature itself within current society. Its an injunction that goes back to conan. One traditional anarchist slogan is no god, no master. Its a phrase that took as his value old title of anarchist classics. I think its fair to understand the phrase no god in the terms that i just quoted from rocker. Positions as the ecclesiastical guardianship. Individual beliefs are a different matter. Its no matter of concern to a person concerned with Free Development of thought and action and that leaves the door open to the lively and impressive tradition of religious anarchism for example. But the phrase no master is different. That refers not to individual belief but to a social relation, a relation of subordination and dominance, a relation that anarchism if taken seriously seeks to dismantle and rebuild from below unless i can somehow meet the harsh burden of establishing its legitimacy. By now we have departed from truism. In fact to ample controversy. In particular right at this point the rather peculiar american brand of what is called libertarianism departs very sharply from the libertarian provision. It accepts and indeed strongly advocates the subordination of working people to the masters of the economy and furthermore the subjection of everyone to the restrictive discipline and destructive features of markets. These are topics worth pursuing and i will pick them up later if you would like but i will put them aside here. I am also recommending to you nathans comment, his suggestion about bringing together in some way the energies of the young libertarian left and right. As indeed it has sometimes done. For example its done in the quite important work of valuable theoretical and practical work of economists david ellerman. Anarchism of courses famously of posts to the state while at the same time advocating planned administration of things in the interest of the Community Rockers phrase again and beyond that broader selfgoverning communities and workplaces. In the real world of today the same dedicated anarchists who were opposed to the state often support state power to protect people and society and the earth itself from the ravages of concentrated private capital so it takes a venerable anarchist general like freedom. It goes back to 1886 formed journalist anarchism by supporters of her pod can. If you open the pages you will find much of it is devoted to defending the rights of people, the environment, society often by state power. Like regulation of the environments or safety and Health Regulations in the workplace. There is no contradiction here is sometimes his thought. People live and suffer and endure in this world and not some world that we imagine and all the means available should he used to safeguard and benefit them even if the longterm goal is to displace these devices and construct preferable alternatives. In discussing this i have sometimes used an image that comes from the brazilian Workers Movement that is discussed in interesting work by avery lewis. They speak of the image of widening the floors of the cage. The cages existing course of institutions that can be widened by committed popular struggle. It happened effectively over many years and if you could extend the image beyond think of the cage of coercive state institutions is the kind of protection from the savage beasts that are roaming outside and with a predatory state supported capitalist institutions that are dedicated to the principle of private gain, power, domination that was the interest of the community and may be revered in rhetoric but practice and even in angloamerican law. While its also worth remembering that anarchists condemned really existing states, not visions of unrealized democratic dreams such as government of, by and for the people. They bitterly opposed the rule of what looks and had called the bureaucracy which he predicted 50 years in advance would be among the most savage of human creations and they also opposed the parliamentary systems that are instruments of class rule. The contemporary United States for example which is not a democracy. Its a plutocracplutocrac y and very easy to demonstrate. The majority of the population has no influence over policy. As you move up in commonwealths fail you get more influence in the very top people get what they want well established by academic science as a measure to everyone who looks at the way work. It surely democratic system would be quite different. It would have the character of an alliance of free groups of men and women based on cooperative labor and a planned administration of things in the interest of the community. In fact thats not too remote from one version of the mainstream democratic ideal. Thats one version and i stress that and will return to others. Take for example the leading American Social loss of her of the 20th century john dewey. His Major Concerns for democracy and education. But no one took julie to be an anarchist. But Pay Attention to his ideas. In his conception of democracy illegitimate structures of coercion must be dismantled and that includes makem domination by business for private profit through private control of ranking, land, industry reinforced by press agents and other publicity and propaganda. He recognized still quoting, that power today resides in the control of the means of production, exchange publicity transportation and communication whoever owns them rules the life of the country even if democratic forms remain and until these institutions are in the hands of the public politics will remain the shadow cast by big business on society, very much what we see around us in fact. But its important that duly went eons calling for some form of public control. It could take many forms. He went beyond in a free and Democratic Society he wrote workers should read the masters of their own industrial fate not tools rendered via employers, not directed by state authorities. Now that position goes right back to the leading ideas of classical liberalism articulated by smith and others and extended in the anarchist tradition. Turning to education, and duly held that it is illiberal and immoral to train children to work not freely and intelligently but for the sake of the worker earned and to achieve test scores for example. In which case their activity is not free because its not freely participated in and its quickly forgotten as all of us know from our experience. So he proceeded to conclude that industry must be changed from a feudalistic to a democratic social order and educational practice should be designed to encourage creativity, exploration, independence, cooperative work, exactly the opposite of what is happening today. While these ideas lead to a vision of society based on workers control of productive institutions linked to Community Control within the framework of Free Association and federal organization. In the general style of thought that includes of course along with many anarchists others to max agd h. Kohls, the left antivulture that marxism, the current developments such as for example the civitas rate economics of policies of Michael AlbertRobert Hamill and others along with important work in theory and practice by the late seymour mehlman, his associates and many others and notably a very recent contribution on worker owned enterprise and cooperatives, not just talk but actual taking place. Going back to dewey, he was as american as apple pie to borrow the old cliche, right in the mainstream of American History and culture. In fact all of these ideas and developments are very deeplyrooted in the american tradition and in American History. In fact which is kind of suppressed but actually very obvious when you look into it and when you pursue these questions to enter into an important terrain of inspiring often bitter struggles. Ever since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution which was right around here, lawrence and eastern massachusetts mid19th century. The first serious scholarly work study of the industrial worker in those years was 90 years ago still very much worth reading. He reviews the hideous working conditions that were imposed on formerly independent craftsman and immigrants and farmers as well as the socalled factory girls, young women brought from the farms to work in the textile mills around boston. He mentions that buddy focuses attention on something else, what he calls the degradation suffered by the industrial worker, the loss of status and independence which could not be canceled even where there occasionaoccasiona lly was some material improvement and he focuses on the radical capitalist social revolution in which sovereignty and Economic Affairs passed from the community as a whole into the keeping of a special class of masters, often remote from production to the producers and where it shows pretty convincingly that for every protest against Machine Industry and predation there can be 100 protests against the new power of capitalist production and its discipline. In other words workers were struggling and striking not just for bread but for roses in the traditional slogan of the workers communities and organizations. They were struggling for dignity and independence and for their rights as free men and women. Their journals are very interesting. Theres a rich lively labor press for written by working people artisans from boston and factory girls from the farms and in these journals they condemned what they called the blasting influence of monarchical influences on democratic soil which will not be overcome until they who work in the mills will own them, the slogan of the massive knights of labor and sovereignty will return to free and independent reducers. Then they will no longer be the humble subjects of a Foreign Debts but the absentee owner, slaves in the strictest sense of the word who toil for their masters. Rather they will regain their status as free american citizens the capitalist revolution instituted crucial change from price to wage. Its very important. When a producer sold this product for a price he retained his curse but when he came to sell his labor he sold himself read he quoted from the press. Thats a big difference. He lost his dignity as