[A Selection from Libertarian Review, August 1978.] <\/p>\n
If victory is indeed our given end, an end given to us by the requirements of justice, then we must strive to achieve that end as rapidly as we can. <\/p>\n
But this means that libertarians must not adopt gradualism as part of their goal; they must wish to achieve liberty as early and as rapidly as possible. Otherwise, they would be ratifying the continuation of injustice. They must be abolitionists. <\/p>\n
The objection is often raised that abolitionism is unrealistic, that liberty (or any other radical social goal) can be achieved only gradually. Whether or not this is true (and the existence of radical upheavals demonstrates that such is not always the case), this common charge gravely confuses the realm of principle with the realm of strategy ... <\/p>\n
The realism of the goal can only be challenged by a critique of the goal itself, not in the problem of how to attain it. Then, after we have decided on the goal, we face the entirely separate strategic question of how to attain that goal as rapidly as possible, how to build a movement to attain it, etc. <\/p>\n
Thus, William Lloyd Garrison was not being unrealistic when, in the 1830s, he raised the glorious standard of immediate emancipation of the slaves. His goal was the proper one, and his strategic realism came in the fact that he did not expect his goal to be quickly reached. Or, as Garrison himself distinguished, <\/p>\n
Urge immediate abolition as earnestly as we may, it will, alas! be gradual abolition in the end. We have never said that slavery would be overthrown by a single blow; that it ought to be, we shall always contend. (The Liberator, August 13, 1831) <\/p>\n
From a strictly strategic point of view, it is also true that if the adherents of the pure goal do not state that goal and hold it aloft, no one will do so, and the goal therefore will never be attained. Furthermore, since most people and most politicians will hold to the middle of whatever road may be offered them, the extremist, by constantly raising the ante, and by holding the pure or extreme goal aloft, will move the extremes further over, and will therefore pull the middle further over in his extreme direction. Hence, raising the ante by pulling the middle further in his direction will, in the ordinary pulling and hauling of the political process, accomplish more for that goal, even in the day-by-day short run, than any opportunistic surrender of the ultimate principle. <\/p>\n
In her brilliant study of the strategy and tactics of the Garrison wing of the abolitionist movement, Aileen Kraditor writes, <\/p>\n
It follows, from the abolitionists conception of his role in society, that the goal for which he agitated was not likely to be immediately realizable. Its realization must follow conversion of an enormous number of people, and the struggle must take place in the face of the hostility that inevitably met the agitator for an unpopular cause. ... The abolitionists knew as well as their later scholarly critics that immediate and unconditional emancipation could not occur for a long time. But unlike those critics they were sure it would never come unless it were agitated for during the long period in which it was impracticable. ... <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Read the original:<\/p>\n
What Libertarians Should Learn From the Abolitionists<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" [A Selection from Libertarian Review, August 1978.] If victory is indeed our given end, an end given to us by the requirements of justice, then we must strive to achieve that end as rapidly as we can. But this means that libertarians must not adopt gradualism as part of their goal; they must wish to achieve liberty as early and as rapidly as possible. Otherwise, they would be ratifying the continuation of injustice Continue reading