Libertarianism

[(A)(_|]

I understand that libertarianism essentially means that the individual should be granted as much liberty as possible. I'm gutted when I see capitalists using the term claiming that it would be a deprivation of individual rights if you don't grant individuals financial liberty, promoting pro-property rubbish. Can capitalists call themselves libertarian?

[RED DAVE]

Capitalists can call themselves whatever the fuck they want, but that doesn't make it so. The only "liberties" that they are fundamentally interested in are the liberties to extract surplus value, to buy cheap and sell dear and to celebrate themselves while the rest of us get screwed.

So-call libertarianism is one of the most bizarre belief systems around. It's right up there with scientology. Bashing libertarians is great sport, but it's about as difficult as shooting catfish in a barrel (to use an old metaphor).

RED DAVE

[Thirsty Crow]

First of all, I think that we should abandon any notion whatsoever of "essential meaning". Libertarianism as an attitude towards life and rights of man and woman may very well be appropriated by the ideology of (absolutely) free market, as well as marxist ideology/ideologies.

Therefore, the most important struggle here to be won is the struggle for the meaning of the concepts of liberty and freedom.
For example, I think that it would be extraordinarily important to "dissect" Hayek's The Road to Serfdom in order that a proper process of demythologizing of their vision of notions of liberty and human creativity may be conducted.
A footnote: I don't claim that this book is THE source for our decipherment, of course. Other ideas and sources should be dissected as well.

If we can agree on this point, I think that we could agree also on the following: one of the most important battles that need to be won is the battle over a vision of freedom, but this is a battle that can only be won by a successful sinergy between radical critique of the superstructure and a radical imaginative construction of a NEW vision of freedom. Then, and only then, may the public debate begin
Another footnote: Of course, economic issues need the same treatment.


Capitalists can call themselves whatever the fuck they want, but that doesn't make it so. The only "liberties" that they are fundamentally interested in are the liberties to extract surplus value, to buy cheap and sell dear and to celebrate themselves while the rest of us get screwed.

So-call libertarianism is one of the most bizarre belief systems around. It's right up there with scientology. Bashing libertarians is great sport, but it's about as difficult as shooting catfish in a barrel (to use an old metaphor).

RED DAVE
Oh, but I beg to differ.
The "bashing" needs to be uplifted to a whole new level. And I think that we cannot afford ourselves the luxury of self righteousness and condescension.

[(A)(_|]

First of all, I think that we should abandon any notion whatsoever of "essential meaning". Libertarianism as an attitude towards life and rights of man and woman may very well be appropriated by the ideology of (absolutely) free market, as well as marxist ideology/ideologies.

Therefore, the most important struggle here to be won is the struggle for the meaning of the concepts of liberty and freedom.
For example, I think that it would be extraordinarily important to "dissect" Hayek's The Road to Serfdom in order that a proper process of demythologizing of their vision of notions of liberty and human creativity may be conducted.
A footnote: I don't claim that this book is THE source for our decipherment, of course. Other ideas and sources should be dissected as well.

If we can agree on this point, I think that we could agree also on the following: one of the most important battles that need to be won is the battle over a vision of freedom, but this is a battle that can only be won by a successful sinergy between radical critique of the superstructure and a radical imaginative construction of a NEW vision of freedom. Then, and only then, may the public debate begin
Another footnote: Of course, economic issues need the same treatment.


Well, what I believe freedom means in plain simplicity: is to grant the individual the means to a prosperous life. If someone were to violate this notion, he would then be violating someone else's freedom. Libertarianism is the maximization of individual rights; if an individual's efforts cripple another individual's freedom, then this effort would be deemed not a part of his rights. This is why I see a contradiction between capitalism which relies on exploitation to be in anyway a Libertarian concept.

What a person's rights are I think would be more appropriate to discuss.

[Robocommie]

There's nothing wrong with supporting personal liberties in their social or cultural context, in fact I'm very supportive of them in a general sense. The problem with capital L Libertarianism is that they don't understand that "fiscal liberty" is a contradiction in philosophy. Laissez-faire capitalism liberates the wealthy and enslaves the poor. You cannot be free in a system that forces people to choose wage labor or starvation.

When people talk about being "socially liberal" and "fiscally conservative" remember that while it's important to support gay rights, and we shouldn't put people in jail for smoking reefer, most social repression comes from economics anyway. Folks who don't understand that, just don't understand society period.

[Daz]

Libertarianism is just anarchism for the rich.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Chomsky had a talk about the American use of Libertarian.

It was valid and quite correct.

Youtube it.

[mikelepore]

"Do not be deluded by the abstract word Freedom. Whose freedom? Not the freedom of one individual in relation to another, but freedom of Capital to crush the worker."

-- Karl Marx, "Address on the Question of Free Trade", 1848