Libertarianism

[Polyphonic Foxes]

So this guy I know, he's nice, working class, smart, he says he's a fan of Ayn Rand, and I stay easy, I say cliched things about her awful writing, eventually it comes down to me asking him this: "When you say you're a libertarian, what do you mean?" and him replying in such a way that says "you would never understand".
So I'm wondering "If he thinks a prole like me wouldn't get libertarianism - then he must be a left libertarian - that's the only reason he'd think I wouldn't understand"

No

He eventually lets it out (though he obviously doesn't think it's a big deal that he thinks this) that Ayn Rand founded libertarianism and it originated in America in the 50's and the Austrian School and other sorts of horseshit, and I very angry at this point - he actually talked down to me about libertarianism, so I very kindly ask: Can I politely educate you on something concerning libertarianism? He blankly says "no, there's nothing I don't know about it"

And I get started, I launch into a history lesson about how libertarianism started in the 1880's among socialists who wanted to differentiate themselves from socialists they considered "authoritarian", I told him how "libertarianism" in the third world still refers to left wing politics, how it's still a leftist term in europe, how it was frickin invented by people who would despise Rand.

His response?

"you're wrong, you're deranged, the history is wrong".
That was his argument repeated over and over again for about 10 minutes, he only apologised after I apologised for shouting.

Just wanted to share that.

[NoMasters]

ROFL! Classic response by a neolibertarian.

[Lobotomy]

To be fair, I think right-wing libertarianism has its roots in the "classical liberal" school of thought eg John Locke and shit, or at least that's the kind of stuff they look to today. the term "libertarian" is only really used in a right-wing, pro-capitalist sense in the United States, so I assume the US "libertarians" just stole the word. Anyway, yeah libertarianism is dumb, it's a very dogmatic set of ideas that works perfectly in the bourgeoisie's favor.

[NoMasters]

To be fair, I think right-wing libertarianism has its roots in John Locke and shit, or at least that's the kind of stuff they look to today. Anyway, yeah libertarianism is dumb, it's a very dogmatic set of ideas that works perfectly in the bourgeoisie's favor.

False, John Locke and Adam Smith are in a lot of intellectuals eye's Socialists.

Neolibertarianism is what you are describing. They comprise of Hayek and Friedman.

True libertarianism according to Locke and Smith is libertarian socialism.

Neolibertarianism is just the complete tyranny over the lower classes with the rationalization behind "justice" and "liberty" which they have changed to favor their own interests. And it is so clever because it favors potheads, rich people, and rednecks.

[Lobotomy]

Who considers Locke and Smith socialists? Didn't they advocate private property?

I edited my first post before I had seen your post btw.

[NoMasters]

Who considers Locke and Smith socialists? Didn't they advocate private property?

I edited my first post before I had seen your post btw.

Oh my fellow poster, I have read the 1st and 2nd Treatises by Locke far too many times. And the more I read it, the more I believe he was a true socialist radical revolutionary. I recommend to read the first 7 chapters of the 2nd Treatise of Government and you will see what I am saying. In fact, just read the whole thing, the last 3 chapters are to me the greatest writing in the history of the world.

And for Smith, it is more complex, but his theory of free-markets were really based upon the idea of perfect liberty equals perfect equality. Very utopian and socialist.

Marx himself said that we must not pertain to classical economics because it is useless, he is referring to Smith and how Smith's Wealth of Nations was quite in line with final communism in a lot of ways.

Marx didn't discuss it because he could not refute it in theory. Thus I am assuming, knowing how critical Marx was of everything and everybody lol, that he had agreed to a lot of Smith's ideas.

I believe it is in Das Kapital, but I can't be sure since I haven't read Marx for a few years now.

[anticapitalista]

"Left-libertarianism" and "Right-libertarianism" are two entirely differently ideologies that, unfortunately, happening to have the same name. It seems like a pointless argument - he is correct about what he calls "libertarianism" originating when he thinks it does. You should debate him on his repugnant ideology rather than semantics.

[Lobotomy]

Oh my fellow poster, I have read the 1st and 2nd Treatises by Locke far too many times. And the more I read it, the more I believe he was a true socialist radical revolutionary. I recommend to read the first 7 chapters of the 2nd Treatise of Government and you will see what I am saying. In fact, just read the whole thing, the last 3 chapters are to me the greatest writing in the history of the world.

I read the 2nd Treatise a few years ago, perhaps I will revisit it sometime, but what specifically did Locke say that sounded socialist?



And for Smith, it is more complex, but his theory of free-markets were really based upon the idea of perfect liberty equals perfect equality. Very utopian and socialist.

Marx himself said that we must not pertain to classical economics because it is useless, he is referring to Smith and how Smith's Wealth of Nations was quite in line with final communism in a lot of ways.

Marx didn't discuss it because he could not refute it in theory. Thus I am assuming, knowing how critical Marx was of everything and everybody lol, that he had agreed to a lot of Smith's ideas.

I believe it is in Das Kapital, but I can't be sure since I haven't read Marx for a few years now.

I don't think of socialism as being about "equality". Equality of power over means of production, maybe. The only vaguely socialist thing I can think about Adam Smith is that he agreed with the LTV to a small extent

[Ostrinski]

Yeah but they believed in private property, markets, capital accumulation, and exchange value. And you are honestly going to try and make the case that they were socialists?

[NoMasters]

I read the 2nd Treatise a few years ago, perhaps I will revisit it sometime, but what specifically did Locke say that sounded socialist?



I don't think of socialism as being about "equality". Equality of power over means of production, maybe. The only vaguely socialist thing I can think about Adam Smith is that he agreed with the LTV to a small extent

Equality for Smith is very close to utopian socialist equality.

As for Locke, I really don't wanna go through specific detailed posts because it would take several hours to do so. Just read a few pages and you will notice how socialist he is. It will really surprise you.

s. 38. I believe about 5 pages before and 5 pages after will give you some insight. I would advocate to start on page 15 and go through 35. Those twenty pages are classic.

[NoMasters]

Yeah but they believed in private property, markets, capital accumulation, and exchange value. And you are honestly going to try and make the case that they were socialists?

Marx believed in private property. Doesn't mean it is how people see private property today.

Sure they aren't pure socialists in Marxist terms, but they are radical leftists. Locke specifically mentions how all actions of all people and the actions of government must only benefit the public good and if it doesn't, they are violating the law of nature.

Locke in fact was maybe the first to truly coin the terms "each according to his abilities".

Exchange value for Locke is not in anyway as you seem to understand it. For Locke, exchange value was never 100% accurate and that it is labor alone that determines the value of anything.

But of course, what you are saying is what a lot of right-wingers say. Intellectuals think otherwise.

[Lobotomy]

Equality for Smith is very close to utopian socialist equality.

But what does "utopian socialist equality" have to do with workers' control over the means of production? Unless they advocated that idea to some extent I don't think they can really be considered socialist at all.

[NoMasters]

Why are those factors socialist? Workers' rights can exist in fascism and liberalism.

You need to open your view about socialism and expand it past 19th century dogmas.

Socialism is very broad

[Lobotomy]

Why are those factors socialist? Workers' rights can exist in fascism and liberalism.

What? You're trolling right?

[NoMasters]

No. Corporatism in theory gives workers some rights. So does liberalism in theory. Does that mean they are part "socialist"? No.

Socialism in fact could be far different than in the way you understand it. For example social anarchism does not care for specific detailed definitions like workers rights because the main focus is to be harmonious without any government or state. However, they are socialistic because they focus on society and the good of society.

So don't think that Marx's definition of socialism is what Locke and Smith represent.

[Ostrinski]

Marx believed in private property. Doesn't mean it is how people see private property today.This doesn't deserve a reply.


Sure they aren't pure socialists in Marxist terms, but they are radical leftists. Locke specifically mentions how all actions of all people and the actions of government must only benefit the public good and if it doesn't, they are violating the law of nature.And since when does this qualify one as a leftist?


Exchange value for Locke is not in anyway as you seem to understand it. For Locke, exchange value was never 100% accurate and that it is labor alone that determines the value of anything.That's the labor theory of value, actually, you fool.


But of course, what you are saying is what a lot of right-wingers say. Intellectuals think otherwise.Right wingers tend adore love Locke and Smith, actually.

[NoMasters]

This doesn't deserve a reply.

And since when does this qualify one as a leftist?

That's the labor theory of value, actually, you fool.

Right wingers tend adore love Locke and Smith, actually.

I am saying that Locke didn't believe in a exchange value theory, he might've actually created the labor theory of value.

As for Smith, he also advocated the labor theory of value.

So the post earlier about exchange value theory is irrelevant. They both didn't believe in that theory.

And authoritarian-despots like Stalin liked Marx and Engels. Does that mean Marx and Lenin are authoritarian dictators because Stalin liked them?

Your argument lacks both validity and soundness unfortunately.

[Deicide]

Here's an interesting article by Chomsky in which he addresses right-wing distortions of classical liberals like Adam Smith.

http://www.chomsky.info/books/warfare02.htm


The founders of classical liberalism, people like Adam Smith and Wilhelm von Humboldt, who is one of the great exponents of classical liberalism, and who inspired John Stuart Mill -- they were what we would call libertarian socialists, at least that ïs the way I read them. For example, Humboldt, like Smith, says, Consider a craftsman who builds some beautiful thing. Humboldt says if he does it under external coercion, like pay, for wages, we may admire what he does but we despise what he is. On the other hand, if he does it out of his own free, creative expression of himself, under free will, not under external coercion of wage labor, then we also admire what he is because he's a human being. He said any decent socioeconomic system will be based on the assumption that people have the freedom to inquire and create -- since that's the fundamental nature of humans -- in free association with others, but certainly not under the kinds of external constraints that came to be called capitalism.




It's the same when you read Jefferson. He lived a half century later, so he saw state capitalism developing, and he despised it, of course. He said it's going to lead to a form of absolutism worse than the one we defended ourselves against. In fact, if you run through this whole period you see a very clear, sharp critique of what we would later call capitalism and certainly of the twentieth century version of it, which is designed to destroy individual, even entrepreneurial capitalism.

There's a side current here which is rarely looked at but which is also quite fascinating. That's the working class literature of the nineteenth century. They didn't read Adam Smith and Wilhelm von Humboldt, but they're saying the same things. Read journals put out by the people called the "factory girls of Lowell," young women in the factories, mechanics, and other working people who were running their own newspapers. It's the same kind of critique. There was a real battle fought by working people in England and the U.S. to defend themselves against what they called the degradation and oppression and violence of the industrial capitalist system, which was not only dehumanizing them but was even radically reducing their intellectual level. So, you go back to the mid-nineteenth century and these so-called "factory girls," young girls working in the Lowell [Massachusetts] mills, were reading serious contemporary literature. They recognized that the point of the system was to turn them into tools who would be manipulated, degraded, kicked around, and so on. And they fought against it bitterly for a long period. That's the history of the rise of capitalism.

[NoMasters]

Here's an interesting article by Chomsky.

http://www.chomsky.info/books/warfare02.htm

Great link.

I should have posted it. But I didn't want to just spread Chomsky without using my own research.

[ed miliband]

i've never heard adam smith described as a "socialist" by any intellectual. some argue that he would have been a social democrat if he was alive during the twentieth century and perhaps there is some truth to that, but socialist? lol

[Tim Cornelis]

Locke specifically mentions how all actions of all people and the actions of government must only benefit the public good and if it doesn't, they are violating the law of nature.





they are socialistic because they focus on society and the good of society.


lol, by that logic almost all political ideologies are socialistic. If you believe in private property you are not a socialist, period.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Marx believed in private property. Doesn't mean it is how people see private property today.

Sure they aren't pure socialists in Marxist terms, but they are radical leftists. Locke specifically mentions how all actions of all people and the actions of government must only benefit the public good and if it doesn't, they are violating the law of nature.

Locke in fact was maybe the first to truly coin the terms "each according to his abilities".

Exchange value for Locke is not in anyway as you seem to understand it. For Locke, exchange value was never 100% accurate and that it is labor alone that determines the value of anything.

But of course, what you are saying is what a lot of right-wingers say. Intellectuals think otherwise.

Locke influenced many revolutionaries but was not socialist. His ideas may have influenced revolutionaries, but they were republican revolutionaries. Many of these ideas and those of Ricardo and Adam Smith and the ideas of the bourgeois revolutions also influenced Marx (who, at the same time, critiqued Lock's arguments) and the socialist movement of his time. These socialists saw the French Revolution and it's ideals as progressive but incomplete; real democracy would need the end of inequality and exploitation in their view.

So there are very recognizable connections, but Lock was not a socialist nor was he a right-wing libertarian as many contemporary US conservatives claim. Locke recognized that what he advocated created the possibility for the concentration of wealth and while he saw this as problematic, he also saw it as not of concern and that society was reasonable so it would prevent too much concentration.

[Ostrinski]

Many enlightenment thinkers would be socialists if they lived to see the industrial revolution, but that's irrelevant because a) they didn't, and b) every thinker would have changed their mind about what they were wrong about if they lived to be able to realize it.

[Ostrinski]

So the post earlier about exchange value theory is irrelevant. They both didn't believe in that theory.
Good fucking god, you keep stooping to more lows. Exchange value isn't a theory any more than the color red is a theory. Exchange value characterizes the production of a commodity in quantifying what commodities it can be exchanged for.

[Grenzer]

I don't think John Locke has been "distorted" by the Right. If anything, his works are part of the philosophical framework for the bourgeois state. His conception of "natural rights" is capitalist. He believed the right to private property to be one of paramount concern, if this doesn't give it away, then nothing will.

The enlightenment philosophies are a result of the internal material contradictions within Feudalism, just as the contradictions of Capitalism have given rise to thinkers like Marx and Engels. In this sense, the enlightenment thinkers are progressive from a historical perspective. I recommend some of the classics like Rousseau, Montesquieu, Locke, and Hobbes for their historical significance as well as the insight they provide into bourgeois thought.

Also, it should be obvious by now that NoMasters gets all of his information about Communism and Capitalism from wikipedia.

[Comrade Auldnik]

Comrade "NoMasters," I hope by "Marx believed in private property," you meant that he believe it existed. I just need to note that the abolition of private property is one of the ten planks in the Manifesto.

[NoMasters]

i've never heard adam smith described as a "socialist" by any intellectual. some argue that he would have been a social democrat if he was alive during the twentieth century and perhaps there is some truth to that, but socialist? lol

Socialist doesn't only mean a Marxian definition of socialism. That's a misconception unfortunately.

Socialism is thousands of years old

[runequester]

Socialist doesn't only mean a Marxian definition of socialism. That's a misconception unfortunately.

Socialism is thousands of years old

Here we go with the redefining of terms again.

[Garret]

Socialist doesn't only mean a Marxian definition of socialism. That's a misconception unfortunately.

Socialism is thousands of years old
Less about socialism more about religion and peasantry. Class struggle certainly has existed for ages but I don't know how you could argue 'socialism' has. Maybe the Diggers? But that's as far as I'm willing to go.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Less about socialism more about religion and peasantry. Class struggle certainly has existed for ages but I don't know how you could argue 'socialism' has. Maybe the Diggers? But that's as far as I'm willing to go.Well the concept of socialism has existed long before - Marxism just argues that the working class through revolution, is the only way it can really be achieved.

Even then, Locke wasn't a utopian socialist though. He had revolutionary ideas, but they were of a different sort - his ideas made sense of a rising capitalist world.

John Locke on the TV show "Lost" might have been a socialist though - they never went into his political beliefs... oh the mysteries that will never be answered.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Well the concept of socialism has existed long before - Marxism just argues that the working class through revolution, is the only way it can really be achieved.

Even then, Locke wasn't a utopian socialist though. He had revolutionary ideas, but they were of a different sort - his ideas made sense of a rising capitalist world.

John Locke on the TV show "Lost" might have been a socialist though - they never went into his political beliefs... oh the mysteries that will never be answered.
Judging by his behavior, I think he leaned toward the primitivist side. After all, he didn't want anyone to leave the island. He wanted everyone to stay there, live on the beach, and hunt hog with knives ... because it's where they were 'meant' to be.