This is a summary and response to Chris Ammerman (@cammerman) re: a twitter thread that I (@nicholascloud) initiated with this post. I will state my intended point, summarize the point I believe that Chris has made, and then offer a more long-form response as Twitter is simply not conducive to such discussions.
First, the following quote, which constitutes the bulk of my initial post:
My intention when posting this was simply to offer Rand's commentary on the growing tendency of people to segregate themselves into "tribes" based on birth culture, or "ethnicity". I do not believe that Rand here refers to food, music, dress, or other minor cultural rituals which everyone adopts by default, but rather to the brand of identity politics that have become common means of social organization. So common, in fact, that people now form tribes around religion, sexual orientation, gender, etc., seeking the approval of, and power in, the numbers that may be accumulated in these groups. And certainly this phenomenon is not limited to small groups, or merely those who are not "in power". Western America has created its own share of larger tribes that function in exactly the same way. Rand ascribes this sort of "racism" to the rejection of reason, and in its absence, the adoption of collectivism as a means of establishing identity. If a person does not own himself, he borrows his identity from a group.
Chris's objection to this, as I understand it, is that "ethnic" groups, or small collectives, often form out of necessity to combat oppression by those "in power". Their membership is an act of survival, and as survival is a rational goal, this precludes the notion that tribalism is a form of irrational collectivism. Chris also states that power may accidentally or purposefully held; that those in power may, simply through numbers or some other actual exertion of pressure, oppress people who are then justified in forming tribes to survive or perhaps retaliate. He rejects as insufficient the call to abandon collectivism and embrace individual rationality as a means of addressing oppression in these forms.
The problem as I see it is that the situation of oppression is simply one of warring tribes, where one happens to be bigger than the others. Each tribe marches to war drums--the beat of its narrative--and should the larger be toppled the smaller will simply take its place as oppressor precisely because collectivism demands conformity in the absence of individual identity. Faith in the tribe's narrative must be upheld at all costs, and the tribe's shamans--the most vocal and visible among its members--will always call for the sacrificial obedience of its members (except themselves, of course).
Classical liberals, libertarians, voluntaryists, and anarchists of certain strips have grappled with how one addresses power imbalances in the face of an overwhelming, opposing force, and have invented rather interesting ways to both foster individuality and subvert the tribal system from within, notably countereconomics and agorism. These groups practice radical inclusivity based on a respect for individual autonomy and self direction, and eschew the initiation of force which is always the outcome of collectivist tribalism.
So there are means to counteract the oppression of the biggest tribe without further perpetuating the problem. No one denies that oppression occurs and that it ought not, but the basis of our objection to it cannot simply be that "our group deserves a shot at the reigns of power", a belief that the existing tribe in power once held as well. To truly protect those who find themselves enmeshed in a culture not-their-own, the philosophy of individualism--of self-direction and individual identity--must be accepted and practiced. As Rand also says, "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights, cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."
Two books that address possible solutions to real social problems from an individualist perspective are:
- Everything Voluntary, a collection of essays by various authors
- The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman
There are a handful of different aspects of this I would like to respond to, but I need time to ruminate on most of them and may write on them another time. The most fundamental thing that I feel I can and should respond to is this statement: "The problem as I see it is that the situation of oppression is simply one of warring tribes". I don't think this is true at all. Certainly some forms of active and passive (or de facto) oppression do proceed from that, either directly or indirectly. But not "simply" and not definitely not all.
Plutocrats can certainly wield oppression for reasons other than tribalism. There is nothing about monetary or social power that is in-born or inherent in the individual, it is entirely possible to gain or lose it many times within the course of a life, for reasons both intrinsic and extrinsic, just and unjust.
Passive oppression may simply be due to power differentials between two groups, which as noted above may have arisen as a direct consequence of wise vs unwise investments, lucky vs unlucky wagers, or just fortunate vs unfortunate events in the universe. But a power differential need not be directed at anything in order to constrain the freedom of one group. The network effects of individuals simply going about their business in a rationally self-interested way can produce an emergent unjust constraint on the freedom of others. This is what people are talking about when they talk about "privilege".
It would be convenient if all oppression were simply due to individuals choosing the wrong side of a fundamental value judgement. But it's not true. This emergent constraint on the activity of groups is a phenomenon inherent to social networks and group dynamics. It can't be "solved". It happens in the same way that market crashes happen without any single root cause. It is the way of complex systems. We can't fully control the system. We can't stamp out these occurrences without achieving a fully static state, and the only individual in a static state is a dead one.
That doesn't mean that we should shrug it off callously when these effects emerge and harm people, reward them unjustly, and constrain their freedom. What we can do is consider the batches of conditions that we know tend lead to these emergent effects, as well as how to guide the phenomenon's evolution and resolution once they appear. The doctrine of individualism can only be a part of this, not the whole.