Schulman Leaves C4SS Advisory Panel

Earlier today, award winning science-fiction author and close Konkin associate J. Neil Schulman resigned from the C4SS Advisory Panel and his resignation was regretfully accepted. We wish him well.

Advertisements

16 thoughts on “Schulman Leaves C4SS Advisory Panel

  1. "I actually decided ahead of time to not publish your next submission, regardless of what I thought of it, in the aftermath of your *previous* article — because I felt that the article itself combined with your ensuing comments called into question your support for what we're trying to do and I wanted to see how you'd react." — Brad Spangler, in an email to me today

    Like

  2. Brad,

    Thanks for publishing the full correspondence. Saves me the trouble.

    Enjoy your narrowing little clique. Which is bigoted against anyone who believes in God — except, of course, when they hate Christians and Jews. Which is prejudiced against anyone who understands that in the absence of generally accepted customs coercive laws move in to fill the void. Which accepts Marxist class theory and labor-theory-of-value economics then plays a game of Three Card Monty so the clueless think you can have freedom without individualism and an uncoerced exchange as the only objective proof of value.

    The main magic trick the left these days — and I include leftist libertarians in that — is New Wine in an Old Bottle. It's redefining an old and universally understood term to mean something radically new, then bullying people into substituting their new meaning for the history usages of the old one.

    That's what we in the writing biz call bullshit.

    C4ss readers who miss me on these pages can find me at http://jneilschulman.rationalreview.com.

    Those who don't miss me — it's probably mutual.

    Neil

    Like

  3. I like Stephan Kinsella. … But I see all of you as deviationists from the core anarcho-CAPITALISM I learned from SEK3 and Rothbard.

    How is Stephan a deviationist?

    That’s a term out of Marxist class theory, pal, and is otherwise meaningless.

    Actually Marx got his class theory from radical libertarians like Dunoyer and Hodgskin (and then screwed it up). And if you reject libertarian class theory it's hard to see in what your adherence to Konkin consists.

    Enjoy your narrowing little clique. Which is bigoted against anyone who believes in God — except, of course, when they hate Christians and Jews.

    A scintilla of evidence for this last charge would be nice.

    Like

  4. I once said Neil was being "bourgeois" in the cultural sense of "boringly middle class" as Bohemians might use the term. Naturally, he then proceeds to virtually paint a picture of me swapping spit with Lenin. The "enfant terrible" strikes again.

    Like

  5. Or, to be more precise, I didn't call *him* bourgeois but instead said (once) that he targets for scorn anyone *he* deems insufficiently bourgeois (rather than engaging them in terms of libertarian theory).

    Like

  6. I once said Neil was being “bourgeois” in the cultural sense of “boringly middle class”

    I don't know .. his fascination with people pooping in their pants (not just in his recent article but also the scenes in Alongside Night and The Rainbow Cadenza) seems to transcend the limits of bourgeoisitude. 🙂

    The mention of “God” above is a reference to both Neil’s published religious views and some of his fiction.

    If Gloamingerism is true, it was imprudent on your part to suggest that Neil might be God.

    Like

  7. It's a good thing that as an enormous activist bloc our ideas are so influential that we can spare members to waste time with quibbling over the finer points of ideology. Oh wait…

    Like

  8. The debate between our pro-quibbling and anti-quibbling factions has gotten bogged down in a dispute over the definition of "anti"; more news as events unfold.

    Like

  9. Bigoted? Really?

    When I read that piece on Christian anarchism I assumed we were just trying to lure Christians into the anarchist movement so that our Muslim terrorist friends could kill them. Wasn't that what we discussed at the secret meeting?

    Like

  10. Well, our Al Qaeda allies will behead the men, with help from Mexican immigrants — but I fully intend on keeping their innocent women-folk around a while to corrupt them. Didn't you get the memo?

    Like

  11. Roderick, as for me being a deviationist–I think he means left-libertarian (deviating from Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism). I'm not a left-libertarian, I don't think–nor a right-libertarian; I think the left-right spectrum is useless and corrupt, and view both left and right as variants of statist. I'm not sure Wendy McElroy is properly described as a left-libertarian or deviationist either–though she's an individualist feminist (I would have thought most libertarians are).

    I've been clear about being anti-war, including anti-Iraq war, and have made clear I have a more revisionist, skeptical, and negative attitude about our racist, statist, hypocritical, politician Founding Fathers–but these are not leftist positions and it seems to me they should not give a fellow anti-state anarchist pause.

    I suspect what Neil has in mind is my opposition to IP which I think is shared by the all the C4SS people (we also share a belief in individual freedom, the "free market" generally understood, and anti-statism). Even this is not deviationist or leftist–Rothbard was against patent and at most was for some kind of contract-based copyright system. On IP the left is not any better on this than the right: plenty of leftists are for IP (Eben Moglen and Richard Stallman and even Cory Doctorow want reform but are not opposed to IP in principle, I believe). The most sound on the IP issue (that is, anti-IP) are the young, and the Austrian-anarcho-libertarian types, as well as a healthy group of radical left-libertarian-anarchist types.

    Like

  12. I see Neil wants to make sure everyone is fully informed. I’ll lend a hand.

    ———- Forwarded message ———-
    From: Brad Spangler
    Date: Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 9:21 AM
    Subject: afterthoughts
    To: J. Neil Schulman

    Dear Neil,

    I write to you this morning because, although some expressed relief to
    me at your departure, I have a measure of concern for you that I’d
    like to share. I’m not trying to repair anything because I just can’t
    see that working out. In fact, the most likely response (if any) which
    I might get from you will probably be increased scorn — either
    because I am so far off-base that you’ll think me a bigger fool than
    you might already do, or because I might be correct enough to make
    what I have to say uncomfortable to consider.

    I accept that.

    Some have tried to tell me that you’re supposedly jealous of what
    we’re doing at C4SS. I don’t find that credible. We’re middlin’ sized
    fish in a very small and very low-rent pond, at best.

    Others have suggested that your tantrums have apparently all been a
    petty personal vendetta against Carson going back to at least the
    Yahoo list brouhaha. That may be just barely more likely, but it still
    seems a very remote possibility overall.

    One possibility I considered and then mostly discarded (without
    completely ruling it out) is that, since we live in a world of
    pervasive surveillance and secret searches right out of what would
    have been considered the most lurid paranoid fantasy only a few short
    years ago, you act like a jerk as a way of manipulating, testing,
    misdirecting and herding people toward your own, hopefully benificent,
    ends. After all, it’s not “conspiracy” if you’re not conspiring with
    anyone.

    Here’s what I suspect is most likely, though…

    You deserve both respect and things to work on that matter. I
    recognized the first need and partially addressed it as best I could
    (in my characteristically ham-fisted manner) while failing to
    recognize the other because my presumption was that the Alongside
    Night movie project has to be higher priority than any way I might
    conceivably put you to work.

    You’ve lashed out because of that unmet second need. You don’t really
    want to be successful with the Alongside Night movie project. You’re
    afraid of trying your best to make it a success (and potentially
    failing), desperately looking around for something new to sink your
    teeth into so that you’ll have an excuse to offer to your harshest
    judge — yourself.

    Not getting that excuse, you’ve decided to be a turd. Fine.

    I hope you’re not God[*], J. Neil Schulman, because you’re crafting a
    particularly hellish and cruel damnation for yourself between your own
    ears.

    Go ahead. Hate me for saying that. You’re still a hero to me.

    Regards,

    Brad Spangler

    ———- Forwarded message ———-
    From: J. Neil Schulman
    Date: Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 3:01 PM
    Subject: Re: afterthoughts
    To: Brad Spangler

    Brad,

    First of all, put your mind at ease. The Alongside Night movie project is my top priority and resigning from C4ss is probably an advantage to me in terms of getting it off the ground. If I’ve discovered anything new it’s that trying to be an opinion writer — which engenders controversy –and trying to get a movie set up — which requires being a pussy — tend to step on each other’s toes.

    Look, I like you. I like Tom Knapp. I like Stephan Kinsella. Hell, I’d probably like Kevin Carson if we were sitting in a pub drinking beer the way I used to do with SEK3. But I see all of you as deviationists from the core anarcho-CAPITALISM I learned from SEK3 and Rothbard. You guys all strike me as putting ideology above common sense. You all take the worst lessons from SEK3 and Rothbard — one I struggled with him about for our entire relationship — that whenever there’s a conflict between theory and the real world, it’s the real world that gets left on the cutting room floor. That’s no particular fault of C4ss; it’s an endemic problem with all intellectuals. I think it’s why Karl Hess kept drifting from right to left, then outside ideology entirely. He realized, finally, that ideology itself is the problem.

    Look, I know why you rejected my article. Culturally and emotionally you’re of the left — your constantly calling me bourgeois pretty well seals that deal. That’s a term out of Marxist class theory, pal, and is otherwise meaningless. So when I point out that the leftists who are using the issue of gay marriage to leverage “bourgeouis” Sarah-Palin/Christian/Tea Party/Red State values have failed — because all they’re doing is denaturing “marriage” so that the term means no more than domestic partnership and is entirely severed from its historical meaning — you’re worried that they will see C4ss as some Tea Party front group and not play with you any more.

    So I have to go because I parsed the bullshit and have the bad taste to notice the emperor has no clothes.

    But, you see, you’re not paying me to write. The only payment you were offering me for the use of my brand name was a guaranteed audience for my opinion writing. You reject me when I write something inconvenient for your ideological fetishes and that payment is off the table … and I don’t work for free. So I quit.

    No Psych 101 needed to understand that.

    Have a nice day.

    Neil

    ———- Forwarded message ———-
    From: Brad Spangler
    Date: Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 3:26 PM
    Subject: Re: afterthoughts
    To: J. Neil Schulman

    On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 3:01 PM, J. Neil Schulman wrote:

    > Look, I know why you rejected my article.

    Nope. That’s a reasonable supposition but it’s wrong in this case.
    That’s why I would have not *liked* your article, which is itself not
    necessarily an obstacle to getting it published.

    I actually decided ahead of time to not publish your next submission,
    regardless of what I thought of it, in the aftermath of your
    *previous* article
    — because I felt that the article itself combined
    with your ensuing comments called into question your support for what
    we’re trying to do and I wanted to see how you’d react.

    As it happens, this piece had all of the advocacy of market anarchism
    in it that a doorknob has.

    I’ll publish such puff pieces occasionally and I’ll publish
    “culturally right” stuff occasionally and your previous piece shows
    I’ll even publish arguably “poison pill” stuff just to prove a point.
    Put it all together, though, and don’t expect me not to wonder what’s
    going on.

    Go in peace.

    ———- Forwarded message ———-
    From: J. Neil Schulman
    Date: Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 3:37 PM
    Subject: Re: afterthoughts
    To: Brad Spangler

    Regardless of what I wrote? And you want me to believe you’re a fan of my writing?

    You are exactly what I thought.

    ===================

    [*] The mention of “God” above is a reference to both Neil’s published religious views and some of his fiction.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s