Unclebananahead
5th February 2011, 03:58
After an extended encounter with a right libertarian in the comments section of a friend's post on Facebook, I concluded that right libertarianism is a dangerous red herring for the proletariat -- an ideological dead end. So last night I took some time away from playing Jenga to author this piece, which will be the script for the next Comrade Banana Head video. Any and all constructive criticism will be much appreciated.
Right Libertarianism: A Red Herring
By Comrade Banana Head
Here in the United States, and presumably elsewhere, there is the phenomenon of pro-free market, right-wing libertarianism. It’s an economic philosophy, as well as a political party. Perhaps you’ve encountered the American Libertarian Party (a party which uses a big government statue as its symbol) and their “World’s smallest political quiz” (AKA the Nolan test) -- a propaganda device designed to make you feel like a rugged, macho, individualist if you answer the questions contained therein ‘correctly.' Maybe you have some familiarity with former presidential hopeful Ron Paul, maverick Texas politician whose supporters had some measure of presence on You Tube in the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections. Mayhaps you’ve had the misfortune of being exposed to the ironically named 'objectivists,’ followers of the pseudo-philosophical fiction writer Ayn Rand. Then there’s the 'radical fringe’ of the right libertarian ideology, the anarcho-capitalists, who strangely believe that capitalism can exist just fine with no state whatsoever. In any case, all serve the function of being a 'red herring’ -- an ideological dead end for the working class.
Unlike more garden-variety class enemies of the proletariat, the right-wing libertarian concedes the problematic and abominable nature of the system of corporate rule, and its 'socialism for the wealthy’ (e.g. bail-outs and corporate subsidies) and calls for its removal and replacement by something else. The ‘something else’ they want to replace it with, is a variety of ‘pure capitalism’ untainted by government intervention into the affairs of the market. They want a completely privatized society, with some sort of minimal state (or absolutely none whatsoever in the case of the anarcho-capitalists) to ensure the ‘negative rights’ of its citizenry (a right *from* something, rather than a right *to* something) of life, freedom and property. Right libertarians desire that all goods and services are provided privately via the market, which may or may not include police protection, or fire protection, depending upon the flavor of libertarianism we’re discussing. Generally, all argue for the radical minimalization, or sometimes abolishment of taxes as a form of theft.
The biggest problem at the very outset, were we to take the right libertarians at their word, is that no such social order exists currently, or has ever existed. Of the roughly 195 nations on planet earth, not one of them conforms to the idealistic vision of society as laid out by the right libertarians (with the possible exception of Somalia, which I’ve read corresponds to anarcho-capitalist ideas). Some of them will suggest that the sort of social order which existed in the US somewhere in the neighborhood of 125 to 150 years ago was something akin to a libertarian society (they generally mark it somewhere prior to the institution of the income tax). This can seem true at first to the uninformed, because no one from that period is still around to remember it. It’s true that the federal government was less involved, and didn’t have quite as ‘heavy a hand’ as it did in the 20th century, and does today. But this power vacuum wasn’t exactly empty. Instead, it was filled by local and state governments. And there were plenty of taxes, most of which were various property taxes or ‘head taxes.’ It must also be taken into account that this period in US history was prior to the industrial revolution coming to this country, and it was at that time an agricultural nation of farmers. The laws from that era would be an anachronism today. And let us not forget the American state’s role in the enforcement of the institution of slavery through the enforcement of the property rights of slave owners, as well as the liquidation of native peoples (I’m not really certain how libertarian those things are in the minds of the right libertarians, but I certainly wouldn’t hold those up as exemplars to be followed by anybody).
The right libertarians like to imagine their fantasy social order as being devoid of force and coercion. Their literature speaks at length about the state’s ‘initiation of force’ against property holders, and the American Libertarian Party’s membership form contains a pledge which reads: “I do not believe in, or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.” Unfortunately for them, property in the real world requires force to enforce it. As P.J. Proudhon succinctly put it, “property is theft.” Property, in the case of land ownership, is when a person claims a parcel of land for their own exclusive use. What could possibly justify exclusive use of what nature has bestowed upon us? Land existed before we came around, and it will continue to exist after we’re gone. It’s a mere social abstraction to seize, or by some other means acquire a parcel of land and declare, ‘this is mine exclusively, no one else can use it without my permission.’ Nature certainly doesn’t recognize our arbitrary land property boundaries, and neither do people generally, unless forced to do so by some coercive means (a state with armed enforcement agents, or sufficient force of arms by the ‘property owner’). People won’t pay rent, or allow themselves to be evicted from their homes off of ‘someone’s property’ without something coercing them to go along with that without them resisting it.
Karl Marx (whose wisdom and insights the Libertarians deny) teaches us that all states are instruments of coercion, serving the function of enforcing the rule of the dominant social class, which under capitalism is the bourgeoisie, the class which owns the means of production. What suggests that this would not be the case under a hypothetical libertarian, ‘pure free market social order’? Are we to believe they wouldn’t require a vast police force, army, judges, and prisons to enforce private property, as all capitalist states have in the present and past? How would a right libertarian society suppress or control the labor unions and strikes which would invariably manifest (as happened in the US during the second half of the 19th century)? What would be meaningfully different about a right libertarian society as to not require these things? And if a society contains these elements, can it truly be described with the term ‘libertarian’? This, to us Marxists, makes right libertarianism a glaringly self-contradictory idea. Were it to be actually realized in the realm of fact, rather than just in the realm of ideas, it would immediately create a set of conditions that would result in its negation. So not only has the sort of society advocated by right libertarians never existed, it cannot exist. This suggests that right libertarianism is not an ideology based in material reality, but only in the realm of ideas, making it an ‘idealist’ movement in the philosophical sense.
In conclusion, right libertarianism is a red herring. It’s an ideological dead end for the working class. Right libertarians are like snake oil peddlers, holding up a ‘truly free market’ as a cure-all tonic which will successfully address all of society’s ills. They exclaim, “just leave everything to the market. The market is wise. The market is efficient. The market is self-correcting. It’ll cure what ails you.” When you encounter them, remember to read between the lines of what they say, for the real gist of what they’re trying to sell you, and send them packing. The working class, in order to achieve a forward trajectory, needs to base itself upon a class analysis, not crackpot delusions from small bourgeois who resent not being able to take advantage of ‘socialism for the wealthy.’ This can only serve to distract us, and siphon off our righteous indignation at corporate rule into futile, safe, and even harmful endeavors which actually run counter to our interests. We need to focus our efforts into building class consciousness, and socialism, not waste our time on red-herrings.
Right Libertarianism: A Red Herring
By Comrade Banana Head
Here in the United States, and presumably elsewhere, there is the phenomenon of pro-free market, right-wing libertarianism. It’s an economic philosophy, as well as a political party. Perhaps you’ve encountered the American Libertarian Party (a party which uses a big government statue as its symbol) and their “World’s smallest political quiz” (AKA the Nolan test) -- a propaganda device designed to make you feel like a rugged, macho, individualist if you answer the questions contained therein ‘correctly.' Maybe you have some familiarity with former presidential hopeful Ron Paul, maverick Texas politician whose supporters had some measure of presence on You Tube in the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections. Mayhaps you’ve had the misfortune of being exposed to the ironically named 'objectivists,’ followers of the pseudo-philosophical fiction writer Ayn Rand. Then there’s the 'radical fringe’ of the right libertarian ideology, the anarcho-capitalists, who strangely believe that capitalism can exist just fine with no state whatsoever. In any case, all serve the function of being a 'red herring’ -- an ideological dead end for the working class.
Unlike more garden-variety class enemies of the proletariat, the right-wing libertarian concedes the problematic and abominable nature of the system of corporate rule, and its 'socialism for the wealthy’ (e.g. bail-outs and corporate subsidies) and calls for its removal and replacement by something else. The ‘something else’ they want to replace it with, is a variety of ‘pure capitalism’ untainted by government intervention into the affairs of the market. They want a completely privatized society, with some sort of minimal state (or absolutely none whatsoever in the case of the anarcho-capitalists) to ensure the ‘negative rights’ of its citizenry (a right *from* something, rather than a right *to* something) of life, freedom and property. Right libertarians desire that all goods and services are provided privately via the market, which may or may not include police protection, or fire protection, depending upon the flavor of libertarianism we’re discussing. Generally, all argue for the radical minimalization, or sometimes abolishment of taxes as a form of theft.
The biggest problem at the very outset, were we to take the right libertarians at their word, is that no such social order exists currently, or has ever existed. Of the roughly 195 nations on planet earth, not one of them conforms to the idealistic vision of society as laid out by the right libertarians (with the possible exception of Somalia, which I’ve read corresponds to anarcho-capitalist ideas). Some of them will suggest that the sort of social order which existed in the US somewhere in the neighborhood of 125 to 150 years ago was something akin to a libertarian society (they generally mark it somewhere prior to the institution of the income tax). This can seem true at first to the uninformed, because no one from that period is still around to remember it. It’s true that the federal government was less involved, and didn’t have quite as ‘heavy a hand’ as it did in the 20th century, and does today. But this power vacuum wasn’t exactly empty. Instead, it was filled by local and state governments. And there were plenty of taxes, most of which were various property taxes or ‘head taxes.’ It must also be taken into account that this period in US history was prior to the industrial revolution coming to this country, and it was at that time an agricultural nation of farmers. The laws from that era would be an anachronism today. And let us not forget the American state’s role in the enforcement of the institution of slavery through the enforcement of the property rights of slave owners, as well as the liquidation of native peoples (I’m not really certain how libertarian those things are in the minds of the right libertarians, but I certainly wouldn’t hold those up as exemplars to be followed by anybody).
The right libertarians like to imagine their fantasy social order as being devoid of force and coercion. Their literature speaks at length about the state’s ‘initiation of force’ against property holders, and the American Libertarian Party’s membership form contains a pledge which reads: “I do not believe in, or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.” Unfortunately for them, property in the real world requires force to enforce it. As P.J. Proudhon succinctly put it, “property is theft.” Property, in the case of land ownership, is when a person claims a parcel of land for their own exclusive use. What could possibly justify exclusive use of what nature has bestowed upon us? Land existed before we came around, and it will continue to exist after we’re gone. It’s a mere social abstraction to seize, or by some other means acquire a parcel of land and declare, ‘this is mine exclusively, no one else can use it without my permission.’ Nature certainly doesn’t recognize our arbitrary land property boundaries, and neither do people generally, unless forced to do so by some coercive means (a state with armed enforcement agents, or sufficient force of arms by the ‘property owner’). People won’t pay rent, or allow themselves to be evicted from their homes off of ‘someone’s property’ without something coercing them to go along with that without them resisting it.
Karl Marx (whose wisdom and insights the Libertarians deny) teaches us that all states are instruments of coercion, serving the function of enforcing the rule of the dominant social class, which under capitalism is the bourgeoisie, the class which owns the means of production. What suggests that this would not be the case under a hypothetical libertarian, ‘pure free market social order’? Are we to believe they wouldn’t require a vast police force, army, judges, and prisons to enforce private property, as all capitalist states have in the present and past? How would a right libertarian society suppress or control the labor unions and strikes which would invariably manifest (as happened in the US during the second half of the 19th century)? What would be meaningfully different about a right libertarian society as to not require these things? And if a society contains these elements, can it truly be described with the term ‘libertarian’? This, to us Marxists, makes right libertarianism a glaringly self-contradictory idea. Were it to be actually realized in the realm of fact, rather than just in the realm of ideas, it would immediately create a set of conditions that would result in its negation. So not only has the sort of society advocated by right libertarians never existed, it cannot exist. This suggests that right libertarianism is not an ideology based in material reality, but only in the realm of ideas, making it an ‘idealist’ movement in the philosophical sense.
In conclusion, right libertarianism is a red herring. It’s an ideological dead end for the working class. Right libertarians are like snake oil peddlers, holding up a ‘truly free market’ as a cure-all tonic which will successfully address all of society’s ills. They exclaim, “just leave everything to the market. The market is wise. The market is efficient. The market is self-correcting. It’ll cure what ails you.” When you encounter them, remember to read between the lines of what they say, for the real gist of what they’re trying to sell you, and send them packing. The working class, in order to achieve a forward trajectory, needs to base itself upon a class analysis, not crackpot delusions from small bourgeois who resent not being able to take advantage of ‘socialism for the wealthy.’ This can only serve to distract us, and siphon off our righteous indignation at corporate rule into futile, safe, and even harmful endeavors which actually run counter to our interests. We need to focus our efforts into building class consciousness, and socialism, not waste our time on red-herrings.