Is Libertarianism a paradox?

[ontheyslay]

We hear a lot of capitalists say Libertarian Socialism is a paradox, I disagree, and instead claim Libertarianism is the paradox.

Capitalism requires state intervention. There is, and cannot be, a capitalist economy which does not exhibit some form of state action within it. The state is forced to intervene in society for three reasons:

1. To bolster the power of capital as a whole within society.
2. To benefit certain sections of the capitalist class against others.
3. To counteract the anti-social effects of capitalism.

The state is an instrument of class rule and, as such, acts to favor the continuation of the system as a whole. The state, therefore, has always intervened in the capitalist economy, usually to distort the market in favor of the capitalist class within its borders as against the working class and foreign competitors. This is done by means of taxes, tariffs, subsidies, etc.

Therefore, Libertarianism is a paradox. There cannot be a society where business is free to wield power over their own affairs, and at the same time, expect government not to intervene, because the capitalist corporations will always lobby the government to intervene in their favor.

Any thoughts?

[Psy]

When talking to libertarians they seem to contradict themselves when talking about the transition from Feudalism to Capitalism, when you point out the enclosures they view it as privatization of the commons but then they run into problem when you point out the privatization the commons required not only the power of the state but required the state to drive peasants of the commons (land they used for generations). Thus they contradict themselves all over the place trying to justify early capitalists using the state to take land from peasants (those smart enough to see if they don't we can easily question why decadents of those capitalists should be rewarded in society) in their anti-state capitalist ideology.

Worse offender are followers of Ayn Rynd that support US imperialism and libertarianism, the view that the US should occupy barbaric states like Iraq forever since America is superior thus American capitalists deserves the capital of Iraq far more then capitalists of Iraq yet claim the state can't do anything better then the free-market.

[Ohnoatard]

Are we talking about REAL libertarianism or the right wing conservative American 'libertarian' shitty version?

[bosgek]

I think it goes even further: capital without state is paradox.
Assuming that capital can buy as well means of production and commodities, then those that have no capital will always envy those that have. Without some for of a state, there is no barrier or repercussion to take that capital for their own.

If you follow that line, it would only lead to oligarchy: the capitalists would, to protect their capital, build their own state or at least an army controlled by the rich.

[Muzk]

3. To counteract the anti-social effects of capitalism.


You sure? Wouldn't that be a 'social democratic' state, and not a pure libertarian one without state intervention?

And, state intervention as in taxes, minimum wages, environmental rules etc.

After all, their liberty means freedom of the market, and
1. To bolster the power of capital as a whole within society.
2. To benefit certain sections of the capitalist class against others.
aren't really influencing the market.

Anyways, when those right wingers rule, it's not really a state anymore, as in a third power next to workers and owners, but rather a... totalitarian state, since the state, which is supposed to defend everyone, will now play the game for the owners.

Still, this can't be generalized since power is also shared among the state, but if all the ones able to influence the MARKET through laws are owners/owner supporters it would surely be a deficit for the workers. Doesn't mean they wouldn't help the people too, as long as it helps whatever they want to achieve.




Assuming that capital can buy as well means of production and commodities, then those that have no capital will always envy those that have. Without some for of a state, there is no barrier or repercussion to take that capital for their own.Durr. You buy things with your money, how are you going to buy things if noone produced them? And by buying you PAY someone for it(or many people)

There is only as much money as there are goods. Should be common knowledge to everyone here, and owners of capital want MORE, homo oeconomicus, they let others work with their money to PRODUCE goods, pay them, and keep a part for themselves.
I just read it again, you probably didn't mean it like that, but this thread is more about the libertarian version of capitalism, not the newly invented social democratic version where the state helps the workers.. a little. Am I right? :)



There cannot be a society where business is free to wield power over their own affairs, and at the same time, expect government not to intervene, because the capitalist corporations will always lobby the government to intervene in their favor.Their liberty means a market without rules. A market where they can do whatever they want. If they 'lobby' the state to do something, whatever it is, it isn't going to 'do bad things' to the market. Are we talking about a libertarian state ? I'm not sure, because in a social democratic state there shouldn't be a pure libertarian market.


Post probably organized like crap, sorry

[What Would Durruti Do?]

I sympathize with the right-wing libertarians because by abolishing the state I would assume a social revolution wouldn't be much further behind and their version of pure capitalism would allow for our own vision to more easily come into existence.

The state is a tool of the capitalists. They are severely weakened without it and there's no way the working class would sit around and take it.

[MilitantWorker]

I sympathize with the right-wing libertarians because by abolishing the state I would assume a social revolution wouldn't be much further behind and their version of pure capitalism would allow for our own vision to more easily come into existence.

The state is a tool of the capitalists. They are severely weakened without it and there's no way the working class would sit around and take it.

BIG MISTAKE, comrade.

First of all, "right-wing libertarians" has no meaning in terms of the class struggle. Are the people involved in the right-wing libertarian movement workers? Are they farmers, small store owners? Are they bosses and Senators?

I understand where you're coming from, and I like that you're willing to work with people based on common goals. But believe me when I say, if you are a Marxist, you have no common goals with right-wing libertarians.

Plus there's the whole issue of the state. You were correct to say the State is a tool of the ruling class. But, it's an essential tool. The state cannot just be taken away from the Bourgeoisie. First of all, they are going to try and hold onto it after a revolution. And secondly, after the Bourgeoisie is rendered inactive, various other elements of society might attempt to hold on to the state.

It is the job of communists to wither away the state, and keep withering it away. Communists do not cooperate with the state. They take it and slowly begin dismantling it in a way that is beneficial to all people after the revolution. One thing to remember though..the party and the state should never become one thing. It's the job of the communist to put forth clear positions so this doesn't happen.

[mikelepore]

You're doing them an undeserved service by using the name that they prefer. The word "libertarian" means "supporter of liberty." Supporters of capitalism aren't entitled to that description. They chose that name only for the same reason the "right to life" movement chose theirs -- a dishonest attempt to win an argument in advance by choosing a name that seems to settle the whole argument in their favor automatically. When such groups aren't entitled to the names that they pick for themselves, then other people shouldn't apply the names to them. Only socialists are the genuine suporters of liberty. Only socialists can be libertarians.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

BIG MISTAKE, comrade.

First of all, "right-wing libertarians" has no meaning in terms of the class struggle. Are the people involved in the right-wing libertarian movement workers? Are they farmers, small store owners? Are they bosses and Senators?

Most are white (so obviously a bit more privileged) working class people I believe. A bit nationalistic at times and they obviously fall for the rhetoric of the upper class, but they are working class nonetheless. Just a little misguided. While they may not see the error in capitalism, they do have a hatred for the state that once they became aware of this necessity for a state in capitalist systems I would have no problem believing they would come over to our side.


I understand where you're coming from, and I like that you're willing to work with people based on common goals. But believe me when I say, if you are a Marxist, you have no common goals with right-wing libertarians.

I'm not a marxist, I'm an anarchist (aka a libertarian) which may further explain my sympathy for my class-conscious lacking brethren.


Plus there's the whole issue of the state. You were correct to say the State is a tool of the ruling class. But, it's an essential tool. The state cannot just be taken away from the Bourgeoisie. First of all, they are going to try and hold onto it after a revolution. And secondly, after the Bourgeoisie is rendered inactive, various other elements of society might attempt to hold on to the state.

Yes, I was not refuting this. This, along with the myriad of other social problems that would come about from a completely unrestricted free market capitalist system would obviously keep it from functioning and, as I theorized, I believe this would cause our longed-for social revolution to come about much quicker and there would be no state (or a much smaller and less powerful state anyway) to repress it. The state as it exists now has the sole purpose of keeping the working class happy and content and without it's backhanded, profiteering, corrupt workings the capitalist lifestyle would be nowhere near as extravagant and comfortable as it is in the nations on the winning side of the system today.


It is the job of communists to wither away the state, and keep withering it away. Communists do not cooperate with the state. They take it and slowly begin dismantling it in a way that is beneficial to all people after the revolution. One thing to remember though..the party and the state should never become one thing. It's the job of the communist to put forth clear positions so this doesn't happen.

I concur wholeheartedly. Though just because it is OUR job to wither away the state doesn't mean we can't accept help from others who wish to wither it away as well, even if they do support an inherently flawed economic system.

[gorillafuck]

I'm not a marxist, I'm an anarchist (aka a libertarian) which may further explain my sympathy for my class-conscious lacking brethren.
I could imagine an anarchist-communist being sympathetic to a post leftist who's anti-capitalist but doesn't put labor struggles at the center of their strategy, but you really have nothing in common (in terms of ideology) with right wing capitalist libertarians.

[Raúl Duke]

I sympathize with the right-wing libertarians because by abolishing the state I would assume a social revolution wouldn't be much further behind and their version of pure capitalism would allow for our own vision to more easily come into existence.

The state is a tool of the capitalists. They are severely weakened without it and there's no way the working class would sit around and take it.

No, don't. The answer is even in your post.

Libertarianism is an ideology that in some aspects one should not take seriously (in others yes).

Libertarianism doesn't understand that the capitalist class (or in Randian terms, the "productive individuals of our society") have things to gain from the state such as subsidies and such. Plus, while the capitalist class may dislike and/or advocate cuts on welfare/social programs I doubt they want to get rid of it completely. Without these programs they'll only end up with too much "sticks" and less "carrots" to keep the working class down.

Libertarians are, to the elite, useful idiots. There ideology is, implicitly or explicitly (depends), used as an excuse to cut funding of social programs, lower taxes, or privatization/less market restrictions. All which benefits the elite Rarely is it used to get rid of subsidy or for civil libertarian issues. A "libertarian world" will likely never exist.
As an ideology it is mostly a kind of "false consciousness" type ideology.

Also, we social anarchist should never think we have anything in common with these people. It's just ridiculous. Although perhaps this differs between anarchist; I'm more anti-capitalist then "anti-state"; I jut find that ridding of the state to be part of the anti-capitalist process. In fact, most anarchist (anarcho-communists) here are somewhat the same as me in this issue.


Most are white (so obviously a bit more privileged) working class people I believe. In my college this is not the case.
They are usually middle class.


I'm not a marxist, I'm an anarchist (aka a libertarian) which may further explain my sympathy for my class-conscious lacking brethren.<facepalm>
Stuff like this makes me jump to the left-communist camp.

However, I'll coincide that some libertarians can be persuaded to the anarchist left. But many of them I highly doubt it's feasible.

The rest of your post I won't address specifically but I'll say this.

I repeat: It's highly unlikely, in my opinion, that the libertarian's world will ever take place in reality.

[JimmyJazz]

Therefore, Libertarianism is a paradox. There cannot be a society where business is free to wield power over their own affairs, and at the same time, expect government not to intervene, because the capitalist corporations will always lobby the government to intervene in their favor.

I agree, and have argued this in a thread on Mises.org. They have no reply other than, "well we're against that". No materialist reason why it would ever cease to happen, though.

Ancaps can actually be interesting to debate with. Libertarians, however, have been some of the most lustily statist people I've ever met. They just want the government to have a limited role (protecting private property, enforcing private contracts)--not limited powers. I've seen LPUSA-style "libertarians" go out of their way to defend police brutality. How libertarian! :lol: Once I was actually on a discussion board where two "libertarians" were the only ones in the entire discussion daring to defend this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riboisae0JY). Everyone else, Republican, Democrat, Green, socialist, apolitical--literally everyone else was shouting them down for being such blatantly authoritarian shitheads.

edit: oh yeah, and one of these particular libertarians was an ardent defender of attacking Iraq circa 2002-03.

[Durruti's Ghost]

They are usually middle class.



The modern group that is labeled "middle class" based on income is mostly part of the proletariat. Unless by "middle class" you mean "petit-bourgeois", that is.

[gorillafuck]

The modern group that is labeled "middle class" based on income is mostly part of the proletariat. Unless by "middle class" you mean "petit-bourgeois", that is.
He means people with lots of job security, comfortable lifestyles, usually professional at something, etc. What people traditionally brand as middle class. That in itself isn't a bad thing but since these people have had concessions granted to them by capitalism I would think right wing libertarianism is more likely to appeal to them. While what people usually call middle class isn't a real thing (or is flimsy at best), it can be a good indicator sometimes.

[1billion]

When talking to libertarians they seem to contradict themselves when talking about the transition from Feudalism to Capitalism, when you point out the enclosures they view it as privatization of the commons but then they run into problem when you point out the privatization the commons required not only the power of the state but required the state to drive peasants of the commons (land they used for generations). Thus they contradict themselves all over the place trying to justify early capitalists using the state to take land from peasants (those smart enough to see if they don't we can easily question why decadents of those capitalists should be rewarded in society) in their anti-state capitalist ideology.

Worse offender are followers of Ayn Rynd that support US imperialism and libertarianism, the view that the US should occupy barbaric states like Iraq forever since America is superior thus American capitalists deserves the capital of Iraq far more then capitalists of Iraq yet claim the state can't do anything better then the free-market.
Ayn Rand really isnt a libertarian, I would argue that anyone who supports a state is not a libertarian.

[1billion]

BIG MISTAKE, comrade.

First of all, "right-wing libertarians" has no meaning in terms of the class struggle. Are the people involved in the right-wing libertarian movement workers? Are they farmers, small store owners? Are they bosses and Senators?

I understand where you're coming from, and I like that you're willing to work with people based on common goals. But believe me when I say, if you are a Marxist, you have no common goals with right-wing libertarians.

Plus there's the whole issue of the state. You were correct to say the State is a tool of the ruling class. But, it's an essential tool. The state cannot just be taken away from the Bourgeoisie. First of all, they are going to try and hold onto it after a revolution. And secondly, after the Bourgeoisie is rendered inactive, various other elements of society might attempt to hold on to the state.

It is the job of communists to wither away the state, and keep withering it away. Communists do not cooperate with the state. They take it and slowly begin dismantling it in a way that is beneficial to all people after the revolution. One thing to remember though..the party and the state should never become one thing. It's the job of the communist to put forth clear positions so this doesn't happen.
How does one slowly dismantle the state in the correct way if I may ask. Its just a little vague :p

[MilitantWorker]

How does one slowly dismantle the state in the correct way if I may ask. Its just a little vague :p

That's a pretty big question. One that might require and article..

http://en.internationalism.org/node/2648

what do ya know!

[1billion]

That's a pretty big question. One that might require and article..

*article*

what do ya know!

ok thanks I appreciate it.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Libertarians are, to the elite, useful idiots. There ideology is, implicitly or explicitly (depends), used as an excuse to cut funding of social programs, lower taxes, or privatization/less market restrictions. All which benefits the elite Rarely is it used to get rid of subsidy or for civil libertarian issues.

As far as they are concerned, they want what will benefit them the most, and while many libertarians are of higher social status, not all of them are. The fiscal small-government conservatives that feel betrayed by the G.O.P. definitely aren't completely bourgeoisie. there's plenty of working class people among their support and the same is true of the libertarians who want less government intervention in their lives and more civil freedoms.


Also, we social anarchist should never think we have anything in common with these people. It's just ridiculous. Although perhaps this differs between anarchist; I'm more anti-capitalist then "anti-state"; I jut find that ridding of the state to be part of the anti-capitalist process. In fact, most anarchist (anarcho-communists) here are somewhat the same as me in this issue.

We have plenty in common. The state is a pretty large entity and we both wish to see it's destruction. The possibility for leftist communities would also increase in a restricted state, free market society. Fiscal conservatives don't support military spending and armed occupations so there would be less resistance for our own endeavors. Also, the failure of the free markets would be enough to convert many of these right-libertarians to the left.


In my college this is not the case.
They are usually middle class.

A lot of people in the middle class ARE working class...

[Klaatu]

"Libertarianists" do exhibit circular reasoning.

For example, I've argued with one of them: "what will you do when you abolish the police department?" Answer: "We will form small groups of our own who will defend us from crime..."

Well, DUH isn't that what the police do now??? :confused:

[Klaatu]

"edit: oh yeah, and one of these particular libertarians was an ardent defender of attacking Iraq circa 2002-03."


"Libertarians" do not believe in attacking other countries (the only thing which I agree with them upon)

[MilitantWorker]

Are you Paul Craig Roberts?!?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4a/Paul_craig_roberts.jpg

[TheoreticalShovenist]

Right Wing Libertarianism is a Paradox

Left-Libertarianism FTW :thumbup:

[Raúl Duke]

As far as they are concerned, they want what will benefit them the most, and while many libertarians are of higher social status, not all of them are. The fiscal small-government conservatives that feel betrayed by the G.O.P. definitely aren't completely bourgeoisie. there's plenty of working class people among their support and the same is true of the libertarians who want less government intervention in their lives and more civil freedoms.



We have plenty in common. The state is a pretty large entity and we both wish to see it's destruction. The possibility for leftist communities would also increase in a restricted state, free market society. Fiscal conservatives don't support military spending and armed occupations so there would be less resistance for our own endeavors. Also, the failure of the free markets would be enough to convert many of these right-libertarians to the left.



A lot of people in the middle class ARE working class...

I'm not denying that what is considered the "middle class" contains members of the working class and/or the idea that the middle class is a meaningless term in terms of material analysis.

(Getting a bit technical here; hope everyone understands)
But the concept of "middle class" is part of the "false consciousness" that arises due to the capitalist super-structure. In a sense, materially "middle class" doesn't exactly exist but in does in the minds of the people and it effects their behavior/perspective.

Also I'm basing this off my experience in the area I live in. I mostly see people who one might considered "very very well-off" liking this sort of ideology (specifically the whole "tea party" thing) ever since credit began to fail and taxes begin to rise. (although these people don't explicitly call themselves libertarians)

I do agree however that some libertarians, not all however, (which I think are into libertarianism for the wrong reasons/not knowledgeable themselves of all that ideology entails) can be persuaded to our side. Yet I won't bother getting myself worked up with trying to persuade the out-and-out libertarians nor would I ever recommend "uniting" with them or collaborating with their groups. Such an idea just sends the wrong message and is like opportunism.