Will there be a right wing revolution?

[Rusty Shackleford]

In the United States now, there is a raised amount of political consciousness among the right. They are being herded into protests in the grounds of anti-socialism and generally right-wing libertarianism. They may not be correct or actually understand what they are saying. but, is it possible that within a few years if this keeps up(unlikely but this is somewhat hypothetical) that right libertarianism would become the prevailing political alignment of the working class(tragic) and politicians?

i may just be overestimating the influence the conservatives and market liberals are having on the media though.

The near complete lack of left opposition taking place or being shown makes this seem, to the mass majority, like a valid thing to fight against and that leftists are in support of their target. even though us as leftists would be against the obama administration or any other administration there is no say from this alignment on a mass scale.

the point i am making, is, will things get worse before there is any from of left revolution. Is it going to be darker before it becomes light?

[n0thing]

Oh please. That movement's nothing more than a bunch of old-age-pensioners going to their first protest.

Just imagine a Fox News revolution: The stupidest. most ignorant, and probably the most overweight section of American society waging war against the US military.

[cb9's_unity]

Personally I doubt we'll see any sort of mass right wing revolution. If there were some sort of prevalent "ultra" nationalist group in the U.S (like i believe their is in england with the BNP, thought I could be wrong) then we might be more worried. However right now the right is apparently starting to form factions between the Moderates, Christian Conservatives, and Libertarians. Right wing revolution usually comes through the form of fascism and as of right now no popular right wing group seems to be explicitly descending into that.

What we could see is a few rowdy god/second amendment loving militia's spring up here and there but they will be viewed as extreme even by the most right wing members of the republican and libertarian parties.

[Rusty Shackleford]

i may have misworded it. what i mean is politically. for them, change is possible through reformism. and for them, capitalists, it is just giving themselves more authority which is much simpler than overthrowing the bourgeoisie is for the left.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Glenn Beck would have to 'ok' it since he's like their Karl Marx or something. And I don't see that happening. It was a big enough deal when he called Obama a racist, no way he calls for a revolution.

Although I could see some kind of secessionist movement with strong right-libertarian and conservative influence possibly being created. Maybe a Hawaiian or Alaskan nationalist movement?

All in all though I think the U.S. will be pretty much status quo until there's a complete economic meltdown (hyper inflation?) or if a major conflict breaks out.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

i may have misworded it. what i mean is politically. for them, change is possible through reformism. and for them, capitalists, it is just giving themselves more authority which is much simpler than overthrowing the bourgeoisie is for the left.

This is another reason I don't see a revolution happening. Most right-libertarians just want smaller government rather than completely abolishing/overthrowing it. They're reformists, not revolutionaries. Only Ancaps probably support the complete overthrowing of the state and there aren't many of them.

[GPDP]

This is another reason I don't see a revolution happening. Most right-libertarians just want smaller government rather than completely abolishing/overthrowing it. They're reformists, not revolutionaries. Only Ancaps probably support the complete overthrowing of the state and there aren't many of them.

And even then, ancaps tend to be pacifists of sorts, preferring some sort of peaceful mass refusal of statism rather than actual revolution. There's a reason libertarians are called the "hippies of the right."

[BIG BROTHER]

Facism could arise in the U.S. through the form of right-wing populism. But right now we are at a stage were this is still just a possibility and nothing more than that.

[Mindtoaster]

Fat, old fucks won't do shit

[Rusty Shackleford]

so with the unlikeliness of an actual right (be it violent or not) revolution happening, is there still a probability of a major shift to the right?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

so with the unlikeliness of an actual right (be it violent or not) revolution happening, is there still a probability of a major shift to the right?
Yes. But a major shift to the right would probably only amount to going back to the Bush years, rather than any kind of fascist/libertarian takeover.

(libertarians are America's fascists, and it's time we acknowledged that)

[Rusty Shackleford]

Ok well since my quesrtions have been answered. i want to move onto this point.


(libertarians are America's fascists, and it's time we acknowledged that)
How are they fascist if they are anti statist?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

How are they fascist if they are anti statist?
They are not anti-statist. They are fanatically in favour of the state defending property ownership with all means at its disposal. They would, for example, approve of the state sending in the cops to break a strike, or to beat and arrest workers who occupy a factory.

[ezza_lv]

the problem is that most americans don't see what's going on, it's like the media is saying that Obama is a socialist (what is not true) and some americans think this is like fascism (what also is not true) and starting to make protests that USA is becaming some kind of fascist country and that's probably the idea, to make people think that socialism or communism is like fascism...and most would say that USA is a fascism country, well it looks like it is, but the american capitalists (who control the USA) they want to make people stupid and so they wont get a shit about what's going on in their country and in the end people will be living in fascism or later even in totalitarism! the law is being made against the peole freedom but not for protecting them frome ''terrorism'' ( and there never was no such thing)

[Dimentio]

In the United States now, there is a raised amount of political consciousness among the right. They are being herded into protests in the grounds of anti-socialism and generally right-wing libertarianism. They may not be correct or actually understand what they are saying. but, is it possible that within a few years if this keeps up(unlikely but this is somewhat hypothetical) that right libertarianism would become the prevailing political alignment of the working class(tragic) and politicians?

i may just be overestimating the influence the conservatives and market liberals are having on the media though.

The near complete lack of left opposition taking place or being shown makes this seem, to the mass majority, like a valid thing to fight against and that leftists are in support of their target. even though us as leftists would be against the obama administration or any other administration there is no say from this alignment on a mass scale.

the point i am making, is, will things get worse before there is any from of left revolution. Is it going to be darker before it becomes light?

Probably not. These Tea parties are actually more hurtful for the conservatives than for the liberals. They espouse the popular image of them as ignorant hillbillies.

[rednordman]

Probably not. These Tea parties are actually more hurtful for the conservatives than for the liberals. They espouse the popular image of them as ignorant hillbillies.Thats true, but they still get loads of press coverage and support from big news corporations, thus giving them a huge scope to send their messages across to a very wide audiance. Who was it that quoted that if you lie and lie, time and time again, it will eventually be taken as the truth?..

[n0thing]

Yes. But a major shift to the right would probably only amount to going back to the Bush years, rather than any kind of fascist/libertarian takeover.

(libertarians are America's fascists, and it's time we acknowledged that)
Or we could stop calling them libertarians, and make some sort of effort to reclaim that word.

[Spawn of Stalin]

I think it will be a very long time before libertarianism is associated with socialism and anarchism in America, but it's okay, life goes on without labels.

[Jethro Tull]

the "tea party" shit is gonna run its course, but right-populist uprising in the u.s. is very likely.

[NecroCommie]

I find it uncomfortable talking about things that I have not witnessed first hand, but here goes.

As far as I understand there is a great deal of political polarization in the U.S. nowadays with no signs of calming down. If things keep going this way, I actually believe right wing revolution (attempt) is very plausible. If such an occurence were to happen, it would surely mean increased authoritarianism in the country despite the winner of that revolution. It would also be the last nail in the coffin of U.S. global hegemony.

[mannetje]

the dutch party 'party for freedom' from the nazi-bastard called geert wilders, is something i start to fear. That man talks all kinds off jibberish about the muslim population. a lot of people support that asshole. that',s very dangerous. iin the next elections it is expected that he"s gonna get a lot of votes. If that happens I immigrate to canada.:mad:

[What Would Durruti Do?]

They are not anti-statist. They are fanatically in favour of the state defending property ownership with all means at its disposal. They would, for example, approve of the state sending in the cops to break a strike, or to beat and arrest workers who occupy a factory.

Actually, they would probably prefer using their own private militias to do that. Libertarians don't even like paying taxes, let alone supporting governments that restrict their freedoms. (Most libertarians I know despise cops) Their argument would probably be that they should have the freedom to break up strikes or beat workers themselves.

[GPDP]

Actually, they would probably prefer using their own private militias to do that. Libertarians don't even like paying taxes, let alone supporting governments that restrict their freedoms. (Most libertarians I know despise cops) Their argument would probably be that they should have the freedom to break up strikes or beat workers themselves.

That sounds like some Nazi SA/SS shit right there.

[Dimentio]

Thats true, but they still get loads of press coverage and support from big news corporations, thus giving them a huge scope to send their messages across to a very wide audiance. Who was it that quoted that if you lie and lie, time and time again, it will eventually be taken as the truth?..

Their behaviour reveals them as ignorant loudmouths who are paranoid and crypto-racist. They will just make urban people disgusted with the conservatives. The more exposure they get, the better for Obama.

[Comrade B]

I doubt it, the right wing in the US is too divided, and wouldn't even know what their revolution was. They could never become organized enough to lead a revolution. However it is quite possible that there will be a surge in right wing domestic terrorism.

If I am wrong... well... it won't matter much now, will it.

[Death By Starbucks.]

its been endorsed by chuck norris, i used to love texas ranger, but that arsehole can fuck a duck:D:D

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

No, right-wingers can only come to power via a coup or with huge amounts of aid from the ruling class. They can never get enough popular support to organize the lower class into revolt, as they don't have a fitting message nor the capability of organising the lower class.

[Dimentio]

No, right-wingers can only come to power via a coup or with huge amounts of aid from the ruling class. They can never get enough popular support to organize the lower class into revolt, as they don't have a fitting message nor the capability of organising the lower class.

The USA should be studied as an extra-case then. While I agree that the urban lower classes in America generally are left-leaning, the large rural segment of the lower class has many rightist tendencies. The foot soldiers in the conservative movement are people of low income living in areas which have been ignored for a long time.

[Death By Starbucks.]

Bill Orielly prays for it every night, then he goes and touches himself to George bushes sublime speeches:D:D:D

[chegitz guevara]

(libertarians are America's fascists, and it's time we acknowledged that)

Not in the least. If real fascism reared its head, libertarians would be on our side of the barricades. Libertarians oppose state intevention in the economy, but they also oppose state intervention in your life, and facsism involves major state intervention in your life.

[chegitz guevara]

First, I think a lot of people are misunderestimating the birther/9-12/anti-health care nutes. These folks are not a fringe minority, but a very large percentage of our population. On 4-15 here in Fort Liquordale, most of the people I saw protesting weren't "old" or "fat" (and as an old fat person, fuck you, Mindtoaster), but young, frat boy, soccer mom types. There were a lot of older people, but if you think it's just a bunch of old fools, you're quite mistaken. The question is whether this movement is different from the Moral Majority/Promise Keeper types, or whether we've entered a new phase.

Trotsky and Guerin teach us that fascism is a movement of the enraged middle classes. They have either been ruined by capitalism or fear ruin by capitalism. They do not see capitalism as the problem, but various groups who are ruining capitalism: women, Blacks, illegal aliens, unions, etc.

Guerin shows us the inextricable link between big capital, especially finance capital, and the growth of these movements, how, when their profitability is threatened, they begin funding the fascists to smash unions, but up opposing political rallies, etc.

American capitalists have long funded these movements, but haven't really mobilized them, except electorally. So, for about twenty years or so, they've been a kind of proto-fascist movement. With the election of Obama, however, in the midst of a severe financial crisis, they are mobilizing them in non-electoral ways: to disrupt the political process. They are attacking those who oppose them and have even been carrying guns near rallies where the President is present.

I've heard nut job conservatives claiming a civil war is coming, and that the rank and file military is opposed to the President. Clearly a lot of people are detatched from reality in this country. That doesn't mean they aren't dangerous. Consider which segment of the populace is more likely to be armed.

Unfortunately, liberals, and even many socialists and communists, have been denouncing conservatives, neo-conservatives, the GOP, etc. as fascists, that now, when real fascism has finally appeared, they'll have no credibility, ala the boy who cried wolf.

[rednordman]

I find it uncomfortable talking about things that I have not witnessed first hand, but here goes.

As far as I understand there is a great deal of political polarization in the U.S. nowadays with no signs of calming down. If things keep going this way, I actually believe right wing revolution (attempt) is very plausible. If such an occurence were to happen, it would surely mean increased authoritarianism in the country despite the winner of that revolution. It would also be the last nail in the coffin of U.S. global hegemony.This I definitly agree on. It could well be the last nail in the coffin, so to speak. Like you, i havnt actually seen the scale of these 'teaparties', but by the sounds of some of the american posters, they are not actually that large.

However, every empire ends at sometime, and mabey this would be the end for the USA being the world main superpower. The largest irony is that it would be due to the peoples desparate ignourance. Why do so many american believe that the world would work best if there was zero state interference?

The question I must pose to the 'right-wing revolutionaries' is that what happens to the law when there is no state to administrate it? Would different private authorites have different laws? wouldnt this cause an absolute beurocratic and logistic nightmare? I tell you now that the more we push towards complete libertarianism (this will happen and is already happening), the less respect that people will have to follow the 'contraints' of universal law. In other words, forget about values and ethics, people will always feel outdone by and contest every verdict. I could go on forever.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

Not in the least. If real fascism reared its head, libertarians would be on our side of the barricades. Libertarians oppose state intevention in the economy, but they also oppose state intervention in your life, and facsism involves major state intervention in your life.
I wouldn't count on that...

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

The USA should be studied as an extra-case then. While I agree that the urban lower classes in America generally are left-leaning, the large rural segment of the lower class has many rightist tendencies. The foot soldiers in the conservative movement are people of low income living in areas which have been ignored for a long time.
Those people are ignorant morons who are being abused and manipulated by their reactionary right-wing masters.
Hitler's SA had many of those guys as well.

[gorillafuck]

Those people are ignorant morons who are being abused and manipulated by their reactionary right-wing masters.
Or maybe it's because so often liberals (like that asshole Bill Maher) talk about them as though they're toothless idiots who can't read.

[chegitz guevara]

I wouldn't count on that...

I don't even count on self-proclaimed communists being there.

[Zeus the Moose]

(libertarians are America's fascists, and it's time we acknowledged that)


Not in the least. If real fascism reared its head, libertarians would be on our side of the barricades. Libertarians oppose state intevention in the economy, but they also oppose state intervention in your life, and facsism involves major state intervention in your life.

Not all of America's libertarians are fascists. However, I'd argue what we think of as the libertarian movement has taken a sharp right turn in recent years, particularly with the Ron Paul campaign in 2008 and the subsequent identification of Ron Paul and libertarianism. I do agree that fascist movements in the US might try to use libertarian or anti-state rhetoric on order to gain support, but to lump all libertarians into this camp glosses over real differences inside this movement. There definitely still are many of the "hands off my money, my gun, and my body" type libertarians out there. I don't know if they'd be on our sides of the barricades once events get to that point, but I can say it might be a hard choice for them.

From what I have seen (and this is based primarily on the observation of movement in student clubs at my school), many of the libertarians that we hear about these days are former Republicans who have moved away from the Republican Party's supposed "statism" (it's an institutional party, what do you fucking expect, really?). The Constitution Party would probably be more of a fit for them, particularly with their slavish devotion to the "strict interpretation of the constitution," but possibly get turned off by the Constitution Party's strong support for/from the Religious Right. These are the people that could be seen as proto-fascists.

I don't know if a strong-enough socialist movements could exploit these fissures within the libertarian movement, and even if we could, I don't know if it would make sense to do so as a strategy. But either way, it needs to be understood that reality of libertarianism in America is more complicated than what we've seen dominate it in the past couple years (and there's certainly more complication that what I'm outlining here.)

[Robespierre2.0]

There will be no right-wing revolution. I'm convinced these people are a minority. Of course Fox News will try to make it appear as if these people are the majority, however, consider this: How many right-wing people that you know don't vote? I don't know any. It seems to me that the American right has had to play all their cards each election cycle in order to hold onto power.

Now, I'm going to try and make an inference based upon my observations of American culture. American conservatives have always *****ed about the 'secret leftist agenda' of most of the culture propagated by American media companies- This is an overestimation on their part, but they are correct in observing that most of the media propagates values that, while not explicitly leftist, certainly don't reinforce their 'traditional conservative values'.

Now, consider that an enormous chunk of the population are non-voters who have not declared allegiance to either party. There could be a variety of different explanations for why they choose not to participate in the American political process, whether it be apathy, disillusionment with the American way, or outright bolshevism. Whatever the reason, I'm inclined to believe that they certainly aren't conservative, as otherwise they'd be out protesting with these teabagger assholes. Anyways, I believe that it's these people who are the audience the 'secret leftist' media has pandered to for decades, and that, if this whole thing were to come to blows, they would come out on the side of progress.

You see what I'm getting at? Right-wingers truly believe in the innate goodness of the American system, and because of that, they can be counted on participate in every election.

Their time is running out. It may be hubris on our part, but I suspect we have a 'silent majority'. Of course nobody's doing anything at the moment, because everyone's still disillusioned with trying to change things. However, I think all we need is a single spark- some catastrophic event that awakens the apathetic masses- a reprise of the 60s, if you will. Then, it's all a matter of channeling this latent energy towards our purposes. Think of the 60s as our own 1905 revolution- in both cases you had an ancient system forced to give up major concessions due to massive popular discontent. The killing blow is coming soon- don't forget how grim the situation looked for the bolsheviks right before their victory.

Whatever, that's my two cents. I'm probably wrong, and we're all going to get stuffed into incinerators by stormtroopers. I don't even know why I logged on here to write that. Most of you guys suck, but I guess we'll end up on the same side of the barricades...

[GPDP]

Here's a good article reflecting on the right-wing furor we are facing today. A fair warning, though: this article has a serious case of Bobkindles Endless Paragraph Syndrome (BEPS):

http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/22605

[What Would Durruti Do?]

http://mises.org/liberal/ch1sec10.asp

That is what the free market market libertarian Mises wrote. Judge for yourself where the libertarians' allegiances lie..

So if libertarians are such big fascism fans, and are calling the U.S. government fascist, why are they so anti-government? Wouldn't they be praising Obama rather than fearing him?

One quote by Mises doesn't really reflect the entire modern libertarian movement in the U.S.

[chegitz guevara]

How does it make any difference if they are "anti-government" or not? They are "anti-government" only when it comes to taxing the rich etc, not when it comes to curbing working class living standards or imperialist wars:

Even the Ron Paul fake libertarians oppose imperialist wars. Libertarians are simply anarchists who believe in private property. They do not support government efforts to curb workers living standards. They do not support any government efforts, except to protect private property. That is the only legitimate function of government in the view of a libertarian.

I guess, while we're at it, neo-conservatives are not fascists or paleo-conservatives or libertarians. Neo-conservatism is simply a foreign policy doctrine, which believes the armed forces of the United States should be used to spread democracy. Individual neo-conservatives may hold conservative or liberal or any other view, as long as it is comparable with political democracy. It would be nonsensical for a neo-conservative to believe in democracy abroad but support fascism at home.

[GPDP]

This is an example (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010344) of a pro war libertarian. Also, check out (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/lower-labor-costs.html) the "workers rights" advocated by libertarian Lew Rockwell and by Walter Block (http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block35.html). Also, I believe there are two major schools of libertarians: the Mises types, who follow the anti-war line like you mention, and the Cato Institute or mainstream types who mainly vote for the Republican party and follow the pro-establishment line. I don't know which "school" is more powerful or numerous in the real world, never mind the massive internet presence of Misesian types.

It's the later, by faaaaaaaaaaar. Mises cultists are nearly non-existent in the real world. It's only on the internet that they have any kind of presence, and even then they are marginalized in comparison to other right-wingers.

[Salyut]

This is an example (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010344) of a pro war libertarian. Also, check out (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/lower-labor-costs.html) the "workers rights" advocated by libertarian Lew Rockwell and by Walter Block (http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block35.html). Also, I believe there are two major schools of libertarians: the Mises types, who follow the anti-war line like you mention, and the Cato Institute or mainstream types who mainly vote for the Republican party and follow the pro-establishment line. I don't know which "school" is more powerful or numerous in the real world, never mind the massive internet presence of Misesian types.


(Why, by the way, is it not "discriminatory," and "hateful," to describe workers willing to take less pay, and to compete with unionized labor, as "scabs"? Should not this be consider on a par with using the "N" word for blacks, or the "K" word for Jews?)

The more I read Block's nonsense, the more I am convinced that he is in fact, completely insane.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Not in the least. If real fascism reared its head, libertarians would be on our side of the barricades. Libertarians oppose state intevention in the economy, but they also oppose state intervention in your life, and facsism involves major state intervention in your life.
Libertarians are perfectly fine with state intervention in your life as long as it's justified by the need to protect someone else's private property. Fascism can acquire the allegiance of libertarians simply by finding convenient excuses for why sending in the stormtroopers to beat workers to death represents a defense of someone's property.


Libertarians are simply anarchists who believe in private property.
"LAND, n. A part of the earth's surface, considered as property. The theory that land is property subject to private ownership and control is the foundation of modern society, and is eminently worthy of the superstructure. Carried to its logical conclusion, it means that some have the right to prevent others from living; for the right to own implies the right exclusively to occupy; and in fact laws of trespass are enacted wherever property in land is recognized. It follows that if the whole area of terra firma is owned by A, B and C, there will be no place for D, E, F and G to be born, or, born as trespassers, to exist."
- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

Private property can be used to justify any form of exploitation and oppression, up to and including mass murder (just ask the Native Americans). Anyone who believes in absolute private property rights - no matter how much he calls himself a supporter of freedom - is a repulsive, reactionary, totalitarian madman.

[chegitz guevara]

This is an example (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010344) of a pro war libertarian. Also, check out (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/lower-labor-costs.html) the "workers rights" advocated by libertarian Lew Rockwell and by Walter Block (http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block35.html). Also, I believe there are two major schools of libertarians: the Mises types, who follow the anti-war line like you mention, and the Cato Institute or mainstream types who mainly vote for the Republican party and follow the pro-establishment line. I don't know which "school" is more powerful or numerous in the real world, never mind the massive internet presence of Misesian types.


It's the later, by faaaaaaaaaaar. Mises cultists are nearly non-existent in the real world. It's only on the internet that they have any kind of presence, and even then they are marginalized in comparison to other right-wingers.

I have known rather a lot of libertarians in the real world, and been friends with many of them. Not one of them favors either of America's wars, nor any of our multiple foreign occupations. Libertarians who vote Republican are as libertarian as socialists who vote for the Democratic Party are socialist. At some point or another, a definition has to have some meaning. All of them have supported the right to unionize and withhold labor from employers. Conservatives who call themselves libertarians are like liberals who call themselves socialists. Unless you want to start being held to the standard of Bernie Sanders, this is not a road you want to go down.

BTW, Lew Rockwell stands outside the libertarian "mainstream." He's a "Paleolibertarian." The Barnett piece seems more self-serving, as he doesn't point to any pro-war libertarians other than himself. When we're discussing libertarianism, we shouldn't be pointing to the outliers.


Libertarians are perfectly fine with state intervention in your life as long as it's justified by the need to protect someone else's private property. Fascism can acquire the allegiance of libertarians simply by finding convenient excuses for why sending in the stormtroopers to beat workers to death represents a defense of someone's property.

A libertarian who supported fascism would be like an anarchist who supported Stalin. Any self-proclaimed libertarian who supported fascism would, by definition, not be a libertarian, but, rather, a fascist.

Fascism is a mass movement of the enraged middle classes supported by the most powerful sections of the bourgeoisie. It supports a massive state, which interferes in all aspects of life, gives huge state subsidies and contracts to the most powerful bourgeoisie, and engages in aggressive warfare to expand both markets abroad and the need for military spending. It has little respect for private property except the property of those largest capitalists.

Libertarianism hold the that best state is a no state or a minimal state. If a state exists, it should be limited to national self-defense and the protection of property rights (including the right to your own body, the right to hold property collectively, etc). The state should interfere in no aspect of life except to defend you from the coercive force of others, for example, if a group of Sicilians want to sell you insurance or your workers seize your factory or your boss forces you to work for free, some religious nut jobs block your access to an abortion, etc. Fascism and libertarianism are incompatible.

We need to be precise in our understanding of opposing ideologies and movements. Sloppiness only discredits us.

[chegitz guevara]

There is this little thing called the Libertarian Party.

[Misanthrope]

A right wing revolution against a right wing regime? Nope.

[chegitz guevara]

A right wing revolution against a right wing regime? Nope.

It's happened before, when the even righter wing didn't think the government was right-wing enough. Fascist coup in Italy ring any bells?

[Comrade B]

The republicans are not a threat because if they were to share a political identity, it would have to be fascist, and they dislike the name fascist (the entire reason for rightwing dislike of other capitalists is because of the name, that is why they think that Obama can be a Nazi communist, because the Nazis had 'socialist' in their name).
They will never organize unless forced to self defense.

[FreeFocus]

There is this little thing called the Libertarian Party.

Since when are these lolbertarians pro-union by any stretch of the imagination?

[Rusty Shackleford]

Since when are these lolbertarians pro-union by any stretch of the imagination?

Maybe libertarian socialists but not right libertarians

[Spawn of Stalin]

The Libertarians are most certainly not pro-union, and they're not even anti-war in principle, the only reason they oppose military intervention is because it costs so damn much to invade a country, that and it makes them look good to gullible leftists.

[Rusty Shackleford]

its always cheaper and more efficient to use a private military! :laugh:

[Jimmie Higgins]

First, I think a lot of people are misunderestimating the birther/9-12/anti-health care nutes. These folks are not a fringe minority, but a very large percentage of our population. On 4-15 here in Fort Liquordale, most of the people I saw protesting weren't "old" or "fat" (and as an old fat person, fuck you, Mindtoaster), but young, frat boy, soccer mom types. There were a lot of older people, but if you think it's just a bunch of old fools, you're quite mistaken. The question is whether this movement is different from the Moral Majority/Promise Keeper types, or whether we've entered a new phase.

Trotsky and Guerin teach us that fascism is a movement of the enraged middle classes. They have either been ruined by capitalism or fear ruin by capitalism. They do not see capitalism as the problem, but various groups who are ruining capitalism: women, Blacks, illegal aliens, unions, etc.

Guerin shows us the inextricable link between big capital, especially finance capital, and the growth of these movements, how, when their profitability is threatened, they begin funding the fascists to smash unions, but up opposing political rallies, etc.

American capitalists have long funded these movements, but haven't really mobilized them, except electorally. So, for about twenty years or so, they've been a kind of proto-fascist movement. With the election of Obama, however, in the midst of a severe financial crisis, they are mobilizing them in non-electoral ways: to disrupt the political process. They are attacking those who oppose them and have even been carrying guns near rallies where the President is present.

I've heard nut job conservatives claiming a civil war is coming, and that the rank and file military is opposed to the President. Clearly a lot of people are detatched from reality in this country. That doesn't mean they aren't dangerous. Consider which segment of the populace is more likely to be armed.

Unfortunately, liberals, and even many socialists and communists, have been denouncing conservatives, neo-conservatives, the GOP, etc. as fascists, that now, when real fascism has finally appeared, they'll have no credibility, ala the boy who cried wolf.

Good post and I agree that this should not be underestimated, however I disagree that this is a large portion of the population. It is tiny at the moment but gets a lot of coverage because I think there is a section of the ruling class that sees the momentary slowing of the economic crisis as signal to try and stop any of the changes to capitalism that seemed urgent at the height of the crisis.

The flip-side is that as angry as that small fringe is workers and opressed people are just as angry. More people protested prop 8 in California than went to DC to protest "socialism". Society is highly polarized but unfortunately our side is thwarted by timidness and disorganization.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

There is this little thing called the Libertarian Party.
Yes, and it has a political platform so reactionary that it makes the Republicans look like Marxists. Let me give you a few examples from their party website (http://www.lp.org/).

1. PRIVATIZE EVERYTHING!!! Let us all embrace neoliberalism:


All over the world, governments are busy selling airlines, power plants, housing, and factories to private owners. Where inefficient government bureaucrats lost money and squandered tax dollars, hard-working private owners now make profits and create new jobs. Why can't we do the same thing in America?

2. Fuck the poor:


It is time to recognize that welfare cannot be reformed: it should be ended.

We should eliminate the entire social welfare system. This includes eliminating AFDC, food stamps, subsidized housing, and all the rest. Individuals who are unable to fully support themselves and their families through the job market must, once again, learn to rely on supportive family, church, community, or private charity to bridge the gap.

3. Bring back the Gilded Age:


Before 1913, federal income taxes were rare and short-lived. [...] People took responsibility for themselves, their families, and their communities. That is how the founders of America thought it should be. And it worked. It can again!

4. No more health care for the poor or elderly:


The federal government has increasingly intervened through Medicare, Medicaid, the HMO Act and tens of thousands of regulations on doctors, hospitals and health-insurance companies.
[...]
We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system.

5. Eat at your own risk. If food contains poison - well, sucks to be you:


We should replace harmful government agencies like the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) with more agile, free-market alternatives.

4. No more school for kids guilty of being born to poor parents:


Education, like any other service, is best provided by the free market... Recognizing that the education of children is inextricably linked to moral values, we would return authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. In particular, parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education.

5. No more retirement for the working class:


Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. We favor replacing the current government-sponsored Social Security system with a private voluntary system. The proper source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.

6. Fuck the environment, turn national parks into private farmland, and domesticate endangered species:


Obviously, owners make better environmental guardians than renters. If the government sold its acreage to private ranchers, the new owners would make sure that they grazed the land sustainably to maximize profit and yield.
[...]
The second step libertarians would take to protect the environment and save endangered species would be to encourage private ownership of both land and animals.

And after all that, perhaps you're hoping that they will at least be progressive on foreign policy and advocate the end of imperialist wars? Think again. Their entire foreign policy page is dedicated to talking about how the US should not give any aid to poor countries.

[Rusty Shackleford]

just read an article on southern poverty lawn center

http://www.splcenter.org/news/item.jsp?pid=414

its a bit lengthy but it ends with this:

In a mid-April mass E-mail to followers, Schwilk linked his group's resistance to "the invasion from Mexico" with the greater cause of thwarting the "socialist takeover" of America. In the same E-mail, Schwilk announced the formation of the Patriot Coalition, made up of 23 organizations including Minuteman factions, tax-protest groups, pro-gun rights groups and two anti-immigration outfits listed as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center. A subsequent press release described the common cause of the groups under the motto, "Secure Borders, Constitution and Rule of Law." It stated that "Patriotic and Constitutional American grassroots groups" had come together to "fight the growing threats to our region and to the taxpaying American citizens."
It used to be that Minutemen declared their vigilance against foreign invaders. Now they're taking a stand against perceived enemies both foreign and domestic. "Revolution is brewing!" Schwilk declared.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I have known rather a lot of libertarians in the real world, and been friends with many of them.
I have a friend who is a libertarian. We joke about politics a lot, but in the more serious moments, I've made it absolutely clear that I think his politics is despicable and that I would try to have libertarian organizations banned if I was in government. We get along because neither of us has any power. If one or both of us did, we would have to be enemies.


All of them [libertarians] have supported the right to unionize and withhold labor from employers.
Yes, as well as the right of bosses to fire anyone at any time for any reason. For example, because they joined a union, because they are black, or because they have the wrong kind of political views.


We need to be precise in our understanding of opposing ideologies and movements. Sloppiness only discredits us.
You are correct. Fascism can be defined as a mass movement drawing support mainly from the reactionary petty bourgeoisie, using rhetoric that is both anti-socialist and anti-establishment, aiming to restore an imagined golden age from the nation's history, and advocating militarism, nationalism, and a traditional, patriarchal lifestyle. In countries that have significant ethnic minorities, fascism is also defined by racism against those minorities.

Libertarianism fits most parts of that definition. It draws support mainly from the reactionary petty bourgeoisie (i.e. small business owners), it uses rhetoric that is both anti-socialist and anti-establishment, it aims to restore an imagined golden age from the nation's history, and it advocates a patriarchal lifestyle in that it calls for the transfer of responsibilities from the state to the family (the LP website even hints at one point that it's unfortunate that women have to work).

Many libertarians are also gun nuts. There you have your militarism.
Many libertarians treat the US Constitution like a holy book and the "founding fathers" like god-men. There you have your nationalism.

Racism is probably the least prevalent fascist element in the libertarian movement, but you can still find it rather often, as when libertarians blame the black population for its own poverty.

Does libertarianism also advocate a minimal state? Yes. But what is a minimal state? A state that consists only of the police, army and judiciary. The police and army are precisely the only branches of the state that are strictly necessary for a fascist government, and the only ones that fascists really care about.

[Dimentio]

Not all of America's libertarians are fascists. However, I'd argue what we think of as the libertarian movement has taken a sharp right turn in recent years, particularly with the Ron Paul campaign in 2008 and the subsequent identification of Ron Paul and libertarianism. I do agree that fascist movements in the US might try to use libertarian or anti-state rhetoric on order to gain support, but to lump all libertarians into this camp glosses over real differences inside this movement. There definitely still are many of the "hands off my money, my gun, and my body" type libertarians out there. I don't know if they'd be on our sides of the barricades once events get to that point, but I can say it might be a hard choice for them.

From what I have seen (and this is based primarily on the observation of movement in student clubs at my school), many of the libertarians that we hear about these days are former Republicans who have moved away from the Republican Party's supposed "statism" (it's an institutional party, what do you fucking expect, really?). The Constitution Party would probably be more of a fit for them, particularly with their slavish devotion to the "strict interpretation of the constitution," but possibly get turned off by the Constitution Party's strong support for/from the Religious Right. These are the people that could be seen as proto-fascists.

I don't know if a strong-enough socialist movements could exploit these fissures within the libertarian movement, and even if we could, I don't know if it would make sense to do so as a strategy. But either way, it needs to be understood that reality of libertarianism in America is more complicated than what we've seen dominate it in the past couple years (and there's certainly more complication that what I'm outlining here.)

I think that paleo-libertarianism is quite close to fascism in the respect that it is rousing the same segment of the population, a beleaguered petty-bourgeoisie. But I would claim that both American fascism and American libertarianism in general is isolationist.

One of the reasons that the US bourgeoisie has never put any support behind fascist movements, is that the US fascist movements want to decrease the power of the federal government and increase the power of the states. That is because a very peculiar history where the federal government acted as an agent of progress both in the 1860's and the 1960's, disturbing the social status quo of many states which had a culture less meritocratic than the ruling class of the USA.

[chegitz guevara]

Maybe libertarian socialists but not right libertarians


Since when are these lolbertarians pro-union by any stretch of the imagination?

Lolbertarians. lybertyrants, whatever you want to call them, believe in the right of people to combine and form organizations, to freely assemble, to withhold their work, etc. What they oppose are most union tactics, which are frequently coercive: blockading, beating scabs, vandalism, factory occupation, etc. So, libertarians believe workers have the rights to form unions, just not do anything terribly effective (picketing, boycotts, work to rule). They also believe the capitalist, unless compelled by contract (because contracts are sacred) to get rid of unionized workers. Individual libertarians may hate unions, and want to see them destroyed, but they are pro-union in that they believe workers have the right to make them.

[chegitz guevara]

Yes, and it has a political platform so reactionary that it makes the Republicans look like Marxists. Let me give you a few examples from their party website (http://www.lp.org/).

None of which is fascism, and all of which is a logical consequence of opposing the state. Anarchists oppose the state engaging in all that as well, because they oppose the existence of a state. If you oppose the existence of a state, you cannot be in favor of the state engaging in welfare. You can't be in favor of the state doing ANYTHING!

Why is that so hard to understand?

Also, why is is so hard to understand that people whole oppose the existence of a state (libertarians) would NOT ally with people who want a total state (fascists)?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

None of which is fascism, and all of which is a logical consequence of opposing the state. Anarchists oppose the state engaging in all that as well, because they oppose the existence of a state. If you oppose the existence of a state, you cannot be in favor of the state engaging in welfare. You can't be in favor of the state doing ANYTHING!

Why is that so hard to understand?

Also, why is is so hard to understand that people whole oppose the existence of a state (libertarians) would NOT ally with people who want a total state (fascists)?
Because libertarians do not oppose the existence of the state. They support a state with a police and army.

[chegitz guevara]

Only in as much as they think they are necessary to protect private property, nothing beyond that.

[Durruti's Ghost]

If they are not fascists, so what? I am sure you are Not saying we fight fascists alone.

I believe the initial question was whether or not the Libertarians would take our side in the event of a fascist uprising.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Only in as much as they think they are necessary to protect private property, nothing beyond that.
Yes, but you can justify any action - any action at all - with carefully worded rhetoric about protecting private property.

[Revy]

Yeah, the paleo-conservative Constitution Party is the American BNP. Fascist movements in America aren't going to publicly refer to themselves as fascist:rolleyes: Paleo-conservatives in the US want an America based on Biblical law (so they hold sexist and homophobic views) and they're also racist and highly xenophobic.

Notably, Ron Paul endorsed the Constitution Party's presidential candidate, Chuck Baldwin in 2008.

[Rusty Shackleford]

the most plausible uprising would be that of a militia uprising. The militias are all on the right but thy are not all neo-nazis, they are not all libertarians, they are not all racists. they are a variety of extreme right views with a common enemy. (sort of like the extreme left with capitalism as its enemy) The US and its seeming socialist change brought on by a black man is causing this growing popularity of militias among the right. (i say this because race is a major issue among some of the far right, a black "socialist" is one of their worst nightmares)

the militias are the militarized form of the extreme right. and like i said, they are growing (in popularity and in numbers) though small now, it may soon be a problem.

[KarlMarx1989]

To answer the question of this thread: There wasn't a left-wing revolution that succeeded. So how could there be a successful right-wing revolution?

The reason that revolution fell through is because they concentrated on their baser instincts. What do I mean by that? I mean that the people who protested the war that christian-America waged in Viet Nam protested by rioting and having random sex with one another. Not to mention doing drugs so much that people were dying and just plain stupid. The sit ins did well. Many universities were shut down. However, everything else just went wrong. First of all, all opposition to right-wing and police-state mentality was stomped out. Let's face it; John F. Kennedy was assassinated, Martin Luther King Jr. was killed, the Kent State shooting, and to officially put an end to the revolution the killing of John Lennon. After that; the corporate 80's started, anarchists spoke out more, and the USSR collapsed. Thus giving conservative USA the victory.

It's really too bad, because even after they won; christian-Americans weren't satisfied. They wanted more blood and more dominance over the world.

[chegitz guevara]

How about what we would do in case of a libertarian uprising?

In as much as they'd be trying to dismantle the capitalist state, I think we should help them. Once the state is smashed, we engage in permanent revolution.

[chegitz guevara]

Yes, but you can justify any action - any action at all - with carefully worded rhetoric about protecting private property.

Well, if you're going to go that route, you can justify Stalinism because it stood up to fascism. The logic you employ can be used to justify anything by anything. Yes, some libertarians will join the fascists. Well, a Socialist started the fascists.

So what was the point of all this. Simply this: you cannot toss all of the worker class' enemies into a bag, shake 'em up, and pretend they are all equal. They are not. Some oppose each other violently. Recognize those divisions and exploit them.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

In as much as they'd be trying to dismantle the capitalist state, I think we should help them. Once the state is smashed, we engage in permanent revolution.
Are you seriously suggesting that we should help libertarians - or anyone, really - to dismantle every social gain that workers have won over the past 150 years, from medical assistance to poor families to old age pensions to unemployment benefits to the 8-hour day??? Are you insane!?

This might make some vague sense if you were an anarchist, but, as a member of the SP-USA, I have no idea how you could possibly say something like that.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Well, if you're going to go that route, you can justify Stalinism because it stood up to fascism.
Stalinism did play a very useful and progressive role in standing up to fascism, yes. I thought that was obvious.


The logic you employ can be used to justify anything by anything. Yes, some libertarians will join the fascists. Well, a Socialist started the fascists.
A former socialist, you mean. Just like a former communist wrote the Black Book of Communism.

A person's political ideology is not set for life, you know.


So what was the point of all this. Simply this: you cannot toss all of the worker class' enemies into a bag, shake 'em up, and pretend they are all equal. They are not. Some oppose each other violently. Recognize those divisions and exploit them.
That is correct. Conservatives and liberals, for example, are two different kinds of enemies of the working class. But I contend that fascists and libertarians belong to the same species of enemy.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'm sorta torn in the middle here. I've read on the Internet that there is a tiny minority of libertarians who don't subscribe to Austrian or neoclassical pseudo-economics. This minority adopts classical political economy, and doesn't like the Ron Paul "libertarian" types who cozy up to big business.

By classical political economy, they say they can work with leftists on a stage-ist basis, accepting even nationalizations of land (not just Henry George's land value taxation) and banks as well as public utilities and other natural monopolies.

[Klaatu]

I think many people here in the U.S. have had their fill of the conservative (authoritarian) politics of the likes of George Bush, with his anti-constitutional policies (warrantless spying, torture, etc) as well as his industrial ass-kissing (pollution, anti-regulation, etc) policies. Why else did Americans elect Obama ("change")

The elections speak for themselves. The so-called 'tea-baggers" are just an exaggeration. They are a Tempest in a Teapot. They don't matter anymore. (Their "anti-socialism" signs only show their fear and ignorance.)

Watch Michael Moore's new movie: "Capitalism: A Love Story." AND GET MAD! :scared:

[Klaatu]

"Many libertarians treat the US Constitution like a holy book and the "founding fathers" like god-men. There you have your nationalism."


I love the way Glenn Beck, and Libertarians, use the founding fathers in their daily rhetoric.
"Founding Fathers this, and Founding Fathers that." And then they proceed to bash "progressives."
NEWS FLASH for the college-dropout triumvirate (Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity)

America's founders were Progressives! (for change) That is, 18th-century Conservatives would have been British loyalists. (against change)
In short, if it were not for progressives, the United States would not even exist!

(BTW, Lincoln was a progressive too. He freed the slaves)

[Rusty Shackleford]

I love the way Glenn Beck, and Libertarians, use the founding fathers in their daily rhetoric.
"Founding Fathers this, and Founding Fathers that." And then they proceed to bash "progressives."
NEWS FLASH for the college-dropout triumvirate (Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity)

America's founders were Progressives! (for change) That is, 18th-century Conservatives would have been British loyalists. (against change)
In short, if it were not for progressives, the United States would not even exist!

(BTW, Lincoln was a progressive too. He freed the slaves)

Well, the label of something changes as society moves on. what is a progressive idea soon becomes conservative once it becomes the status quo. They are for that type of progression which is now considered conservative if you support their actions.

Hell, say there was a perpetual revolution, you would be considered a conservative after 200 years of perpetual revolution. i dont know how the fuck a perpetual revolution would be possible without oscillating between workers control to private property. maybe i should go read some trotsky.


Also, Lincoln (with the emancipation proclamation) did not free all slaves. during the war, there were 2 or 4 ( i forget) union states that practiced slavery. to appease those states and to avoid having them end up rebelling, he did not "free" the slaves in those states. only the enemy states which he could not actually enforce since they were in another country! after the rebelling states were defeated could slavery be nationally abolished. its like enacting a law in a territory you have no jurisdiction over. say a pole told an argentinian over the phone that it was decided by the polish government that it was illegal for argentinians in argentina to flush a toilet more than 2 times a day.

[Klaatu]

This is true that the modern "conservative" wishes to preserve the "founding principles." (So they say)

But my point was more along the lines of suggesting that "progressivism" is a good thing.
That is, (A) we have a free country, thanks to progressives, and (B) we have abolished slavery,
thanks to progressives, and (C) a host of modern accomplishments: social security, medicare,
unemployment compensation, civil rights laws, consumer protection laws, and so on, all thanks
to progressives.

The bottom line is, progression means improving society, while conservatism means stagnation.

[RadioRaheem84]

I don't know about you guys, but I think that these right wing movements are a little more serious than we give them credit for. Talking to people in my local community, there is a lot of mobilization. Some of the more radical people are forming mini-militias, etc. There is talk of revolt but I doubt its anything extremely serious. Still though, we should at least engage them in conversation. They seem to be the only people as of now in the general population that is conscious of the corruption and growing gap between rich and poor. Everyone else is still swooning over Obama and his administration.

[Das war einmal]

I don't know about you guys, but I think that these right wing movements are a little more serious than we give them credit for. Talking to people in my local community, there is a lot of mobilization. Some of the more radical people are forming mini-militias, etc. There is talk of revolt but I doubt its anything extremely serious. Still though, we should at least engage them in conversation. They seem to be the only people as of now in the general population that is conscious of the corruption and growing gap between rich and poor. Everyone else is still swooning over Obama and his administration.


These people don't seem reasonable at all.

[Rusty Shackleford]

These people don't seem reasonable at all.
they are not reasonable.

but they are still a growing danger. the use of the word "patriot" to most americans is a good thing. and for these "patriots" to have this kind of support by name and anti-tax action means that it is much harder to confront them in public.

The census worker killed in Kentucky was probably killed by a "patriot"

and by patriot i mean the right wing anti-government and anti-tax ultra-constitutionalists.

libertarians arent shit compared to these people. why? libertarians tend to be anti violent, but these "patriots" can be armed to the teeth and have an extremely short fuse.


the comment on them being aware of the growing economic inequality is to them, moot. their argument would be that the poor dont work hard enough.

[chegitz guevara]

Are you seriously suggesting that we should help libertarians - or anyone, really - to dismantle every social gain that workers have won over the past 150 years, from medical assistance to poor families to old age pensions to unemployment benefits to the 8-hour day??? Are you insane!?

This might make some vague sense if you were an anarchist, but, as a member of the SP-USA, I have no idea how you could possibly say something like that.

Would you seriously side with the capitalist state if the libertarians were in a position to destroy it?

[Die Neue Zeit]

The Bolsheviks sided with the Provisional Government when Kornilov was in a position to destroy the Russian republic. As I noted above (re. the minority of libertarians and classical political economy), it depends on which "libertarians" we're dealing with. Throwbacks to feudalism, or a tiny minority of people who actually know what the term "free market" (http://www.counterpunch.org/hudson02232009.html) is all about?

[RadioRaheem84]

I have a fear that if we don't engage these people in debates or conversation to let them know our stance, they might just lump us in with bailout-supporting liberals who swoon over Obama. If we don't seperate ourselves from what they believe to be "socialism" then we'll probably face something similar to what happened in Depression era Weimar Republic. The leftists in Germany were under attack by a right wing para-military organization called the Freidkorps because these idiots believed that leftists were aligned with the liberal Weimar government.

Good socialists were lost during their reign of terror like Rosa Luxembourg.
Pissed off unemployed right wing fanatics in this nation arent too far off from going medieval on our asses.

[Rusty Shackleford]

I have a fear that if we don't engage these people in debates or conversation to let them know our stance, they might just lump us in with bailout-supporting liberals who swoon over Obama. If we don't seperate ourselves from what they believe to be "socialism" then we'll probably face something similar to what happened in Depression era Weimar Republic. The leftists in Germany were under attack by a right wing para-military organization called the Freidkorps because these idiots believed that leftists were aligned with the liberal Weimar government.

Good socialists were lost during their reign of terror like Rosa Luxembourg.
Pissed off unemployed right wing fanatics in this nation arent too far off from going medieval on our asses.

real socialist or pseudo socialist, you are still a target of anyone who has ideas similar to the freikorops. if it is right wing, it is anti socialist.

[Klaatu]

"Pissed off unemployed right wing fanatics in this nation arent too far off from going medieval on our asses."

I wonder if these people realize that their real enemy is the wealthy, controlling, politician-owning capitalist?

[Al-o]

The problem is they are driven almost souly on fear alone. And even ignorance driven fear can become a mobilizing force....As far as McCarthy...I mean Beck goes- I'm thinking he will "hang himself".......

[Klaatu]

It is also possible that this right-wing violence may take the form of isolated attacks on government workers?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/25/bill-sparkman-found-naked_n_300659.html

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Would you seriously side with the capitalist state if the libertarians were in a position to destroy it?
Yes.

For the same reason I would side with the capitalist state if other ultra-reactionaries - fascists, primitivists, or good old fashioned absolute monarchists - were in a position to destroy it. I would defend a capitalist state against libertarians for the same reason I would defend a hypothetical capitalist state in Arabia against the Saudi Royal Family.