Persuading Right Libertarians to the Left

[Belleraphone]

This belongs in Practice and Propaganda but it's such a slow board, and I wanted your opinion. This is really a question aimed at Anarchists and other Libertarian Leftists, so ML views won't apply here, no offense to any of you.

Anyway, I was thinking about the differences between the Left and Right libertarians, I think the biggest difference in theory is what each group defines as coercion. Both groups are against what they call coercion, and Left Libertarians agree with everything that Right Libertarians would call coercion, but not vice versa. Meaning Left Libertarians agree with the Right that a centralized state is a harmful thing, but the Right does not agree with the Left about the coercion of wage, capitalism, private property, ect. If we can convince them that capitalism is coercive, we will have ourselves a new comrade.

By the way, when I say Right Libertarians I mean real Right Libertarians, not Randroids and Paulbots that are okay with an abuse government as long as it isn't the federal government.

I've also noticed that they sort of see the free market the same way Left Libertarians see communes and cooperative economics, everything falling into place and yielding the maximum benefit for the citizens because of competition/cooperation.

I think having discussions with Right Libertarians would be more productive than American Liberals since ideologically, we're very close in some ways. Right Libertarians also aren't as arrogant and pretentious as liberals are, and among the 3 biggest factions of the right (Right Libertarians like I've discussed, Neocons like Rick Perry or George Bush, or Nationalists/Fascists like David Duke) I think Right Wing libertarians are the most rational.

Thoughts?

[Tim Cornelis]

I sometimes have discussions with right-wing libertarians and I suspect I have 'converted' about three or four (only one explicitly stated so, the others stopped replying).

I usually play the 'freedom-cart':

Bob Black: "The liberals and conservatives and libertarians who lament totalitarianism are phonies and hypocrites. There is more freedom in any moderately deStalinized dictatorship than there is in the ordinary American workplace. You find the same sort of hierarchy and discipline in an office or factory as you do in a prison or monastery. In fact, as Foucault and others have shown, prisons and factories came in at about the same time, and their operators consciously borrowed from each other's control techniques. A worker is a par-time slave. The boss says when to show up, when to leave, and what to do in the meantime. He tells you how much work to do and how fast. He is free to carry his control to humiliating extremes, regulating, if he feels like it, the clothes you wear or how often you go to the bathroom. With a few exceptions he can fire you for any reason, or no reason. He has you spied on by snitches and supervisors, he amasses a dossier on every employee. Talking back is called "insubordination," just as if a worker is a naughty child, and it not only gets you fired, it disqualifies you for unemployment compensation."

and point out that not only political authority but also financial constraints limits personal autonomy.

Anyway, I would say arguing with liberals is more productive as they usually value freedom to some degree already and also stress the need for social justice (or rather what they wrongly think is social justice). Right-Wing libertarians tend to have a well established usually sophisticated philosophy while liberals tend not to.

[CommunityBeliever]

In fact, as Foucault and others have shown, prisons and factories came in at about the same time, and their operators consciously borrowed from each other's control techniques.

Actually, its the same thing with schools. You go to school then leave when the bell rings, just like a factory. This process drills conformity into people's heads from the very start. The main reason we have to introduce workers to socialism ourselves is that the education system sucks.

[Marxaveli]

One thing is for sure, both Socialists and Right Libertarians understand the important and fundamental relationship that economics and politics share. But whereas Socialists view government as necessary to upholding the interests of the ruling class in a Capitalist society, Right Libertarians live in some fantasy world where they think government will only hurt the free-market system and its so called efficiency. For Socialists, politics and economics are mutually inclusive, for Libertarians, they are mutually exclusive (or should be). Libertarians are funny because for the so-called Capitalists to maintain their "economic democracy", they need a centralized political system that will see to it their interests are upheld, yet they think government does the very opposite of this. :rolleyes:

[Scrooge]

I will tell you what persuaded me from the right. Property appropriated by the Lockean principle and homesteading makes sense for the first humans which have access to natural resources. However, once an economy develops and resources have mostly been appropriated, those born into such a system have no choice but to subject themselves to wage labor, charity, or starvation. This is "unjust" in my view because of the involuntary and unequal nature of it.

As an aside, we know that most of the property in our world throughout history was not appropriated according to the right-libertarian ideal. Given that, current property outcomes are illegitimate and we would have to have a worldwide reappropriation of property according to voluntary exchange, homesteading, etc. I have never heard a right-libertarian advocate this, which indicates to me that they aren't interested in "enlightened principles" but rather seek to justify current property norms and economic hierarchies.

[Die Neue Zeit]

While "Free Market Anti-Capitalism" of the Kevin Carson type is still reactionary, would that be a first stepping stone? Combine that, then, with this surprising Austrian political analysis:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/vanguard-rising-occupy-t166382/index.html

[Tim Cornelis]

While "Free Market Anti-Capitalism" of the Kevin Carson type is still reactionary, would that be a first stepping stone? Combine that, then, with this surprising Austrian political analysis:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/vanguard-rising-occupy-t166382/index.html

It certainly is. I spoke to one former right-wing libertarian turned individualist anarchist, who became sympathetic to anarcho-communism. Individualist anarchism is a gateway to revolutionary anarchism.

The step from right-wing libertarianism to communism is too big, and too hard to immediately understand (distribution according to needs) whereas individualist anarchism is relatively easy to understand: collective ownership; workers' cooperatives; markets; and credit unions (basically).

I personally also took the route of individualist anarchism because I couldn't understand communism immediately. That's why I always explain mutualism, collectivism, and communism briefly so when communism is not immediately appealing they at least stick to mutualism and hopefully turn to communism a little later.

[Lobotomy]

I agree that we probably have more in common with right wing libertarians than center-left liberals. I've met many libertarians who I thought had great potential to be leftists if only they were to see the inherent coercive nature of capitalism. the problem is that they still believe in some idealized world in which workers could actually get their "fair share" for their work in a capitalist society.

I hope that communists will try to not dismiss right wing libertarians as hopeless loons. I would say it is worth it to try and understand their position so we can break some of these illusions about capitalism.

[Ocean Seal]

Don't do it. Don't do it. Its a waste of time. Most of them aren't working class, and are really just ignorant self-centered assholes. Let them continue quoting Ayn Rand and masturbating to their future corporations. They don't have any effect on the proletariat.

[Drosophila]

To me leftists and right-libertarians are pretty much opposites. I just put them in the same category as the Republicans really.