Clarifying the term "antipolitics"
If there’s one thing I really hate, it’s being misunderstood. And an excellent post by Brad Spangler about revolutionary strategy and tactics has raised an alarm in my head. Is my habitual use of the word antipolitics, a term that dates as far back in this movement of ours as Karl Hess’s seminal 1968 essay “The Death of Politics,” being misinterpreted? Like many radicals, I often use the word as a shortcut to express my rejection of party and electoral politics (i.e., voting) as tactically inconsistent with libertarian philosophy and goals. But “antipolitics” may imply that I’m opposed to all political action. And that’s simply not true. As Samuel Edward Konkin III pointed out more than three decades ago (New Libertarian Notes, No. 23, July 1973):
“I do not wish libertarians to become anti-political, but rather anti-party. Politics includes revolution, coup d’etat, voting, assassination, philosophic ruminations on whether the State leadership should be changed or abolished, communicating this to others, demonstrations, agitation, propaganda, and even graffiti.
“Parties are a very small fraction of Politics, and can not only be dispensed with, a sustained attack on them will bring more libertarians into more productive political activities. ...
“The LP only pursues votes, eschewing the other 57 varieties of political activity. That leaves a lot of avenues remaining unexplored.”
Until a better word comes along, I’ll continue to use “antipolitics” as a verbal shortcut in the ongoing war against political parties and state elections. But I’m certainly open to suggestions for a less foggy term. Anyone?