Do American libertarians and 'anarcho capitalists' just pisses you off? [Archive]

View Full Version : Do American libertarians and 'anarcho capitalists' just pisses you off?

Chow Foo

29th July 2009, 20:31

khad

29th July 2009, 20:37

Yes, especially the privileged shits who masquerade as leftists and bash public education in support of child labor.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/harry-potter-star-t113664/index2.html

LOLseph Stalin

29th July 2009, 21:09

But they're not full of shit. The free market libertarian economy works perfectly. Everybody gets what they want and prospers...

...oh wait...

Sarah Palin

29th July 2009, 21:12

First of all Libertarians existed long before the right wing bigots hijacked the term in America. The left is libertarian and the right is authoritarian. And yet them claim to be "free". And 'anarcho capitalists' are worst, they actually think anarchism is a right wing ideology. WTF? Communism is simply a 'classless and stateless society' and those idiots failed to see that.

What do you think? have self-center jingolists taken the term 'libertarian' from those who truly seek freedom from the oppressive system? Why are anarcho capitalists so full of ****?

Fuckin a, they irk me. Anytime I hear them saying "higher taxes, universal healthcare, and unions are limiting personal freedoms," I just want to punch them in the face.

makesi

29th July 2009, 22:10

Ned Flanders

29th July 2009, 22:36

I´ve never understood how someone can claim to be an "anarcho- capitalist", the term itself is a contradiction. and the so called "libertarianism" or "neoliberalism", is in my opinion the most athoritarian and coercive ideology ever build. It preaches the totalitarian rule of monopoly transnational corporation under the cloak of "individual freedom" etc.

*Red*Alert

29th July 2009, 22:39

Yes, and also some so-called Trotskyists, and basically any type of "College-educated Revolutionary". Bourgeoisie impersonators just in it for the "lifestyle".

Sarah Palin

30th July 2009, 00:01

and basically any type of "College-educated Revolutionary".

Why the objection to education? Surely to be well informed on leftist issues, one needs to be educated. Communism aims to provide free and emancipating college education to all citizens as well.

Pogue

30th July 2009, 00:02

Yes, and also some so-called Trotskyists, and basically any type of "College-educated Revolutionary". Bourgeoisie impersonators just in it for the "lifestyle".

I actually share this sentiment. Fuck the wanky middle class student left.

Pogue

30th July 2009, 00:05

Why the objection to education? Surely to be well informed on leftist issues, one needs to be educated. Communism aims to provide free and emancipating college education to all citizens as well.

Don't take this as a personal attack because its not, but thats really snobbish. The 'left' is meant to be the movement relevant to the working class. So leftist issues are issues relating to the working class and 'one' does not need to be 'educated' in the university, intellectual neabubg of the word to understand it. That said I don't celebrate ignorance or believe the working class is dense, quite the opposite, but to believe to be involved in these issues you need to be a scholar is one of the most appallig things holding back our politics. I think a large amount of the left holds such attitudes and is preceisly such a middle class wanky intellectual and they will never be able to relate to the people they claim to represent, most burn out.

gorillafuck

30th July 2009, 00:08

I actually share this sentiment. Fuck the wanky middle class student left.
I didn't know that working class people didn't ever go to college.

Sarah Palin

30th July 2009, 00:17

Don't take this as a personal attack because its not, but thats really snobbish. The 'left' is meant to be the movement relevant to the working class. So leftist issues are issues relating to the working class and 'one' does not need to be 'educated' in the university, intellectual neabubg of the word to understand it. That said I don't celebrate ignorance or believe the working class is dense, quite the opposite, but to believe to be involved in these issues you need to be a scholar is one of the most appallig things holding back our politics. I think a large amount of the left holds such attitudes and is preceisly such a middle class wanky intellectual and they will never be able to relate to the people they claim to represent, most burn out.

I have been bested.

Jimmie Higgins

30th July 2009, 02:02

Those two ideologies are particularly amenable to the American dream and the general ethos of American freedom and individualism. The pervasive influence of a range of ideas that reflect the particular form of individualism that underlie those two modes of thought is very widespread today. Anti-statism, the key element of libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism, is bound up very tightly with pro-capitalist sentiment in the United States.Well I agree that these ideas contribute to this kind of politics, but I don't think there's anything "inherently" American about it. US politics are fucked and strange because political repression and a legacy of McCarthyism and weakness of the left-wing to build a sustained alternative. Without a coherent left alternative, people's dissatisfaction at the status quo generally does not leave the orbit of ruling class ideology.

So, crudely, it plays out like this: I know from experience that public schools are shit, the Republicans say we spend too much on schools as it is, the Democrats say it's fine and we need more experamentation in schools - well maybe then private charter schools would be better since there is more freedom of cirriculum and it won't cost as much in taxes.

An organized left would be able to interfere with the attaction of people to ruling class ideas and pull some people into its orbit and even effect the tides of American politics (if I want to be an asshole about this metaphore) by making the ruling class respond to left-wing ideas rather than just ignoring them outright as they do now.

n0thing

30th July 2009, 05:19

There aren't that many of them. They make a lot of noise, but, well just look at Ron Paul's results in the primaries. And the Libertarian Party regularly gets less votes than the Greens. They just make more noise than everyone else; probably because they're more arrogant and self-righteous than everyone else.

I think most of the "anarcho"-capitalists are in it for the image. They cover themselves with anarchist imagery, and talk an awful lot about smashing the state, but when it comes to actual political activism, like the WTO and G20 protests, they have absolutely no presence. Despite their professed numbers, there has never been anything that even came remotely close to a serious anarcho-capitalist political movement. It's an ideology for high-school students.

So yes, they piss me off. Total hypocrites. According to them; the corporate revision (natural evolution tbqh) of capitalism isn't real capitalism, but their complete and utter revision of anarchism is the only legitimate form of anarchism. You can't talk to people like this.

ckaihatsu

30th July 2009, 13:07

What do you think? have self-center jingolists taken the term 'libertarian' from those who truly seek freedom from the oppressive system? Why are anarcho capitalists so full of ****?

Just as ruling-class "representatives" in the political system are a bastardization of politics, and "pro-lifers" are knee-jerk fuckheads who politicize something shouldn't even be political (women's health), libertarians are full of shit because they, too -- like pro-lifers -- don't have a *coherent* basis for any kind of politics. Rather, they are the equivalent of what an English football firm is to the football league -- *around* it, and building their own kind of noise in its periphery, but it *ain't football* (soccer)...!

To recap -- the "pro-life" "stance" is a non-issue, and therefore non-politics, because the embryo or fetus is part of the woman's body, and should be under her personal sovereignty, absolutely. Once born it's a different matter, because then the child is *separate* from the mother and society can always intervene, if appropriate.

Libertarianism is non-politics because they don't want to deal with the *material basis* of society -- they substitute an idealistic, retro-Jeffersonian, rosy-colored-glasses version of the world and attempt to pass it off as a cohesive set of politics. It isn't. In their attempt to turn back the clock to pre-corporate (early 19th century) days they *forget altogether* that the U.S.'s material basis at that time WAS FUCKING SLAVERY.

If it ain't gonna be corporatized industry, and it ain't gonna be agriculture-based slavery (or feudalism), then what's it going to be? Mercantilism?

And *that's* where they're fucked -- one can only be a merchant if others are doing the work to make the products and services in the first place. And that's the part they ideologically *ignore* -- for anyone who looks into this stuff it's the realization that libertarians are trying to dance in between the raindrops. They deserve *no* respect or legitimization in the political arena.

So yes, they piss me off. Total hypocrites. According to them; the corporate revision (natural evolution tbqh) of capitalism isn't real capitalism, but their complete and utter revision of anarchism is the only legitimate form of anarchism. You can't talk to people like this.

I´ve never understood how someone can claim to be an "anarcho- capitalist", the term itself is a contradiction. and the so called "libertarianism" or "neoliberalism", is in my opinion the most athoritarian and coercive ideology ever build. It preaches the totalitarian rule of monopoly transnational corporation under the cloak of "individual freedom" etc.

Another way of saying this is that in the process of touting their idealistic pre-corporation nostalgia the reality is that they have *no political basis* for a solid movement of any sort, so they wind up effectively *being a prop* for capitalism as it exists, which is totalitarian monopoly transnational corporate capitalism.

Chris

--

--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

-- Of all the Marxists in a roomful of people, I'm the Wilde-ist. --

cyu

30th July 2009, 18:32

From various people at http://www.revleft.com/vb/economic-calculation-argument-t113038/index.html

Well, I really don't see the point in engaging in this debate, insofar as Austrian economics is not so much a serious theory as it is a matter of blind faith, an ideological justification of the market.

In the ancient empires, Mesopotamia and Egypt and Rome, there would always be a class of priests who had the job of thinking up philosophical excuses for why the people should believe that the emperor was a god, etc. In modern capitalist society, this role of apologetics for the status quo of power is performed partly by economics professors.

The Austrian professor Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) was one such.

Indeed. There are two ways to study the economy. One is to simply study it. The other is to study it with the explicit goal of trying to protect the privileged position of the wealthy. The second is basically what Austrian economics is all about - it is what the funders of their research organizations pay them for. The problem with this kind of study is that the "science" becomes handcuffed - it is only "allowed" to show results that ultimately favor the wealthy - thus it is no longer a science at all.

Before we make fun of libertarians for supporting things that real capitalists would never accept, we must remember that the purpose of libertarian organizations is not to put their ideas into practice, but to produce bourgeois propaganda. The job of libertarians - and the reason they get funded - is to persuade people away from socialism. As such, we must vigorously attack their propaganda, not simply dismiss it as being insane.

Libertarianism is the bourgeois method of persuasion and pacification; a peaceful method of repression, if you will. It is, as was said by mike, a kind of farce perpetuated by high priests who claim to be objective know-it-alls of how things should be run because they have fancy credentials. They exist to shut down debate when talk of change arises.

Of course, some of these high priests are more idealistic than others, as can be seen by comparing the "radical" Austrian school loons to their tamer and obviously more in-tune-with-reality neo-classical Chicago school counterparts. The later have far more pull in terms of influencing policy, but the former obviously have their part to play, else they would not get the funding they currently do. As was also said, however, the ruling class is not stupid. They fund these think tanks and organizations not because they actually embrace libertarianism, but because they can ignore all the bullshit unfavorable to them and merely take what's useful. They will toss aside the stuff about ending government favors to big business, and happily take the stuff about gutting the welfare state.

Pathetic, really. Libertarians, especially the idealist ones, really are nothing but goons. Their purpose is to shill for the current order, all while they are supposedly trying to better it by turning it into something not even the ruling class would ever go for.

makesi

30th July 2009, 23:07

Well I agree that these ideas contribute to this kind of politics, but I don't think there's anything "inherently" American about it. US politics are fucked and strange because political repression and a legacy of McCarthyism and weakness of the left-wing to build a sustained alternative. Without a coherent left alternative, people's dissatisfaction at the status quo generally does not leave the orbit of ruling class ideology.

So, crudely, it plays out like this: I know from experience that public schools are shit, the Republicans say we spend too much on schools as it is, the Democrats say it's fine and we need more experamentation in schools - well maybe then private charter schools would be better since there is more freedom of cirriculum and it won't cost as much in taxes.

An organized left would be able to interfere with the attaction of people to ruling class ideas and pull some people into its orbit and even effect the tides of American politics (if I want to be an asshole about this metaphore) by making the ruling class respond to left-wing ideas rather than just ignoring them outright as they do now.

I dont think that the effects of McCarthyism explain the individualist ethos that, in my opinion, is very pervasive and promotes those 2 systems of thought. In fact, I would agree with David Harvey and some others, that these modes of thought gained much more traction and influence not under and because of McCarthy or because of the admittedly weak presence of the US left, but, rather, quite to the contrary, acquired a real momentum during the last period of resurgence on the US left, i.e. during the 1960s.

Also, my reading of the performance of US schools internationally (and to speak from my own experience as someone who went to a good public school, was a teacher for 2 years at a bottom of the barrel charter school, and had the chance to speak with transfer and/or expelled students from some of the worst public high schools [as opposed to mine, one of the better] in my city) is that our public schools are not that bad. They have problems, our high schools have even more problems, but it is facile and inaccurate to simply dismiss them as a collective dump, incapable of educating their students.
Moreover, I would say the general bashing of public schools that is rather popular with the general public today is colored more by propaganda and media representation than even personal experience and actual fact and that it is symptomatic of the hegemonic character of the capitalist-liberal discourse that dominates in this society and which is conducive to the growth of libertarian and anarcho-capitalist ideas.

An organized left could do a shitload of different things, and part of the reason why it doesn't exist (outsider of splinters and groupuscules) is precisely because of the pervasively hegemonic influence of the base- and building block-level of ideologies and understandings that provide the soil for libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism, and similar systems of thought.

What Would Durruti Do?

31st July 2009, 04:39

Of course, some of these high priests are more idealistic than others, as can be seen by comparing the "radical" Austrian school loons to their tamer and obviously more in-tune-with-reality neo-classical Chicago school counterparts.

I'm not sure if I would describe the neo-classical economists as "in tune with reality". They're probably just as bad if not worse than the Austrians.

GPDP

31st July 2009, 07:42

I'm not sure if I would describe the neo-classical economists as "in tune with reality". They're probably just as bad if not worse than the Austrians.

When I wrote that, what I meant by in-tune-with-reality is they are more likely to be honest shills and apologists for the status quo than their Austrian counterparts, who like to think of themselves as "radicals".

WhitemageofDOOM

31st July 2009, 08:42

They have problems, our high schools have even more problems, but it is facile and inaccurate to simply dismiss them as a collective dump, incapable of educating their students.

The biggest problem facing the American school system is the ideological background of America, including pervasive anti-intellectualism.
Which is ironic considering how much it buys into the cult of the designer, but American ideals are far from consistent.

I think a large amount of the left holds such attitudes and is preceisly such a middle class wanky intellectual and they will never be able to relate to the people they claim to represent, most burn out.

I admit to both agreeing with this, and uhhh being the problem in this. The socialist revolution cannot come from useless intellectuals like me, it needs to come from the lower classes.

Axle

31st July 2009, 09:17

They do piss me off.

Most Libertarians/Anarcho-Capitalists I've met are former Republicans who want to look cool and edgy by being "anarchists", but still want to get rich.

In my experience, something about the Libertarian Party also tends to turn ordinary humans in to Ayn Rand quote-spouting, smug know-it-alls who revel in the the percieved logic of their party's politics without realizing that Anarcho-Capitalism is a massive contradiction.

...That said, I do have two good friends who are Libertarians. We just can't, you know, talk politics.

Jimmie Higgins

31st July 2009, 17:10

I dont think that the effects of McCarthyism explain the individualist ethos that, in my opinion, is very pervasive and promotes those 2 systems of thought. In fact, I would agree with David Harvey and some others, that these modes of thought gained much more traction and influence not under and because of McCarthy or because of the admittedly weak presence of the US left, but, rather, quite to the contrary, acquired a real momentum during the last period of resurgence on the US left, i.e. during the 1960s.I'm not sure what you mean here. I was addressing more of the ideological "individualism" which is a ruling class ideology and contrary to the social movements of the 1960s. The civil rights movement was addressing systematic racism - lunch-counter sit-in are not individualistic: an individualistic solution would be, "why don't you save money and open your own integrated cafe or department store?". In the later phase of the movement, Black Panthers had breakfast programs and drug programs for poor communities as a way to both get support and demonstrate the neglect of the federal government - if a bunch of guys in berets could help get people to kick drugs and feed poor kids, why isn't the government able (or, willing more to the point) to do the same.

Compare this to the individualistic approaches of "post-racial" politics: In Obama's speech to the NAACP, the problem of black inequality wasn't a social problem, it could be taken care of if black people stopped playing video games and read a book to their kids.:rolleyes:

Yes, later when the movements are in decline, many activists turned to "individualistic" or "moralistic" or "collaborationist" approaches - but this has more to do with the fact that the movements were in decline and so the counterweight to ruling class ideas became weaker and so people were pulled back into status-quo solutions.

our public schools are not that bad.Don't get me wrong - I support public schools and teachers and conservatives do often fear-monger about public schools to make ideological arguments about privitzation. But in many areas, public schools are indeed THAT bad. I went to a variety of differnt public schools and even though they are supposed to offer the same level of education, this is just now true. (I also worked at a "public" school in a rich part of LA for 2 years and it was quite different than the public schools I went to. A friend of mine who teaches in LA complained about there not being enough desks for all his students and they were told by the administrator that not all the students will always show up and many will drop out and so there's be enough desks by winter break. In Oakland, state bureaucrats took conrol over the school district here and many parents simply do not trust the school system. This is why arguments about charters and private schools gain traction with working people and many minorities and if we don't pose an alternative view of schools, then they will be drawn to privatization arguments since these are the only "reforms" on offer.

They have problems, our high schools have even more problems, but it is facile and inaccurate to simply dismiss them as a collective dump, incapable of educating their students.
Moreover, I would say the general bashing of public schools that is rather popular with the general public today is colored more by propaganda and media representation than even personal experience and actual fact and that it is symptomatic of the hegemonic character of the capitalist-liberal discourse that dominates in this society and which is conducive to the growth of libertarian and anarcho-capitalist ideas.I definitely agree - but constant cutting of education does have a real impact and has lead to a deterioration of schools. It's kind of like a self-fufilling prophacy of the right - public ed sucks and so we shouldn't wast money on it when we can build an new air force jet; let's cut the budget... oh what do you know, public schools actually do suck.

Manzil

31st July 2009, 17:22

In my experience, something about the Libertarian Party also tends to turn ordinary humans in to Ayn Rand quote-spouting, smug know-it-alls who revel in the the percieved logic of their party's politics without realizing that Anarcho-Capitalism is a massive contradiction.

An American I know at university is the epitome of this sort.

I understand now that whenever anyone mentions 'Objectivism' or asks if you've heard of John Galt, the only proper response is to shout 'Look over there!' and flee while they're distracted, but at the time I didn't understand the mutual exclusivity of 'libertarianism' and 'sanity'. What a mess of contradictions.

Anyway, little backstory: the guy was already signed up to the United States Army for when he finished his degree, quoted Rand obsessively, was the most unapologetic defender of American imperialism I ever met and never once wondered how a capitalist society with no taxes or public authorities whatsoever would manage to fund his glorious, world-conquering and profit-protecting Übermensch of the US armed forces.

He also had an horrific phobia of the colour green. True story.

What Would Durruti Do?

1st August 2009, 00:21

When I wrote that, what I meant by in-tune-with-reality is they are more likely to be honest shills and apologists for the status quo than their Austrian counterparts, who like to think of themselves as "radicals".

Ah, I see.

Well, I'd still probably support the Austrian school over anything that comes out of the Chicago school myself. The Chicago school is full of imperialists and big government tools who spread propaganda on behalf of neoliberal globalization and the international institutions who support it. I think the Austrian school should at least be commended for positioning itself against those things even if they aren't "radicals" as we like to view them.

ckaihatsu

1st August 2009, 01:06

ckaihatsu

1st August 2009, 01:08

Ah, I see.

Well, I'd still probably support the Austrian school over anything that comes out of the Chicago school myself. The Chicago school is full of imperialists and big government tools who spread propaganda on behalf of neoliberal globalization and the international institutions who support it. I think the Austrian school should at least be commended for positioning itself against those things even if they aren't "radicals" as we like to view them.

Austrian schooler are more of Monarchists or feudalists than the imperialist cronies at Chicago school. In short, they'd rather see a white only, neo-confederate, petty bourgeois, slave-holding, ultra-religious, non-homosexual, "stateless" society that did not invade other countries. The only glitch being they are obviously crazy.:rolleyes:

Seriously, though -- here we have described the *major* attitude and policy differences among the top-level bourgeoisie of the world. I refer to them as the "Atlanticists" as compared to the "Europeanists":

Hey, remember the three mega-empires of the world in George Orwell's _1984_ -- ? They were Eurasia, Oceania, and Eastasia -- not that far off from today's Atlanticists (England and the U.S., plus Japan and now China), Europeanists (Western Europe), and then the Middle East as a bloc (more or less). Of course the boundaries aren't nearly *that* tidy, as in Orwell's dystopian fiction, but it *can* be argued to be along those lines, especially given the history of world-historical development among the major nations and their historically chummy relationships with each other....

cyu

1st August 2009, 17:40

Well, I'd still probably support the Austrian school over anything that comes out of the Chicago school myself.

The Austrian school has way too many goldbug idiots (or is taking too much funding from gold mining companies and those who hold a lot of gold assets). If they kicked out all the goldbugs, they'd at least be able to gain some semblance of plausibility. See http://www.onyxbits.de/content/blog/patrick/buying-gold-crisis-proof-investments-not-good-idea

bobroberts

1st August 2009, 19:18

There is something about trying to reconcile individual freedom with capitalist property relations that drives people insane, I think.

Pogue

1st August 2009, 19:29

I didn't know that working class people didn't ever go to college.

Did I say that? I said the wanky middle class student left. I would have thought I was referring to, um, the middle class students.

Pol Pot

2nd August 2009, 23:09

Those people get on your nerves quickly. They support the idea of removing even those institutions of state like public health, public libraries and public schools in favor of some perfect greed driven world where everything will work in some form of social-monetary-darwinistic way where those best fit get on top of others. ITS DISGUSTING.

After talking for a while you can even see that loads of those people are infact racist SCUM that support the idea largely because they believe that this system will ensure that "inferiors" fail and eventualy form the proletarian class while those best parts of whites will be the ruling class.

makes u puke!

ionwhite

2nd August 2009, 23:30

[QUOTE=Crickee;1504047]First of all Libertarians existed long before the right wing bigots hijacked the term in America. The left is libertarian and the right is authoritarian. And yet them claim to be "free".

Curious..

Would you mind very much providing links that prove your opinion is based in fact?

Why are anarcho capitalists so full of ****?

As opposed to just plain old anarchists, Idk. Why are anarchists so full of Shite?

Pogue

2nd August 2009, 23:31

Pol Pot

3rd August 2009, 00:27

[QUOTE]

Curious..

Would you mind very much providing links that prove your opinion is based in fact?

As opposed to just plain old anarchists, Idk. Why are anarchists so full of Shite?
why are u saying regular anarchists are full of sh*t?? They desire a free society which is not lead by corruptable leaders and private interest but rather by common solidarity and direct-democratic ways of decision making.

People chose Hitler who promised to bring glory to white men and all he did is kill more whites than anybody before him in whole of human history. Before him Europe had a leading role in world and now it just has a backseat while "inferior races" invade and penentrate deep into virgin lands of "glorious nordia" so much for your "savior"! Hitler also based his whole running of war upon racial bullshit causeing him to deny "inferior slavz" who wanted to fight against stalinism a chance, and because his discrimination of females denied them the same.
If only he wasnt racist, he would won the war... and if only he wasnt racist he would started the war !!!
Hitler and racism=EPICFAIL

Il Medico

3rd August 2009, 11:02

First of all Libertarians existed long before the right wing bigots hijacked the term in America. The left is libertarian and the right is authoritarian. And yet them claim to be "free". And 'anarcho capitalists' are worst, they actually think anarchism is a right wing ideology. WTF? Communism is simply a 'classless and stateless society' and those idiots failed to see that.

What do you think? have self-center jingolists taken the term 'libertarian' from those who truly seek freedom from the oppressive system? Why are anarcho capitalists so full of ****?
In short:
"Are they idiotic wankers?" Yes.

Did I say that? I said the wanky middle class student left. I would have thought I was referring to, um, the middle class students.
Come now Pogue. The 'middle class' are part of the proletariat, as they do not own the means of production, same as you and me. (even if they are the spoiled and annoying part of the Proletariat) ;)

Oswy

8th August 2009, 13:13

I just wanted to say I can't stand right-libertarians and anarcho-capitalists, they're just radical defenders of the liberties of the wealthy pretending to be something else. For example, a real libertarian should have a big problem with private property (clearly an arrangement which infringes the liberty of the masses by enhancing the liberty of the few), but they don't - they actually violently defend private property.