Libertarianism as bad as fascism

[graffic]

One of the many things that worries me about idealism and politics today is so many people I know buy into "Libertarianism". In the 60s and 70's there was a wave of radical youth but today I don't see anything like that. At my university the Libertarian party is huge and growing and many of my friends sneer at "out dated Marxism" say things like "ideology is dead" and admire Ayn Rand and apparantley want to embrace consumerism and materialism and become rich above anything else. This worries me because I think all ideologies, whether fascism, communism, conservatism all want the best for society. They just have radically different ways of doing it. Whatever colour you wrap around the politics most politicians want to help the worst off in society. But the reason I think libertarians are perhaps worse than, for example, a non-violent ideological fascist, is that libertarianism is pure nihilism. It's the mindset of "fuck you Jack I'm alright" and a kind of sadistic, demonic contempt for the poor that Jesus, Buddah, Marx - all great teachers - throughout history have preached against. It's a primitive type of survival of the fittest mentality and it's extraordinary that there are so many individuals, presumably aware of the long history of human progress, who want to turn the clock back. It disgusts me more than those who entertain fascist ideology because it's not even an ideology. It's pure nihilism. Fascism and communism are modern ideologies.Libertarianism belongs not just pre-21 st century or pre-modern or pre-antiquity - it is a mindset that belongs in the stone age.

[Marxaveli]

I actually agree with most of this. Ideologically speaking, Rand is worse than Hitler. Yep, I said it. Hitler, as horrible as he was, thought he was doing what was in society's best interest, even though it certainly wasn't. But nihilism is indeed worse than fascism, and Rand was certainly a nihilist - I mean, anyone who writes novels about billionaires going on strike because they have to pay more taxes, and idolizes a child rapist and murderer is one sick, twisted individual. Objectivism put into practice is truly a scary thought. I'm not sure if Rand could be classified as Libertarian, or that Libertarianism is the equal of nihilism, but many lolbertarians do seem to have a disturbing idolization of her.

[Questionable]

I actually agree with most of this. Ideologically speaking, Rand is worse than Hitler. Yep, I said it. Hitler, as horrible as he was, thought he was doing what was in society's best interest, even though it certainly wasn't. But nihilism is indeed worse than fascism, and Rand was certainly a nihilist - I mean, anyone who writes novels about billionaires going on strike because they have to pay more taxes, and idolizes a child rapist and murderer is one sick, twisted individual. Objectivism put into practice is truly a scary thought. I'm not sure if Rand could be classified as Libertarian, or that Libertarianism is the equal of nihilism, but many lolbertarians do seem to have a disturbing idolization of her.

I'd say Hitler was worse because fascism is actually possible to implement. Ayn Rand was little better than a fantasy author with her vision of capitalism. As far as who was personally more fucked up however, I'm not sure.

For anyone who's interested, Ayn Rand got her education at the Petrograd State University, a university that banned women and Jews until the Bolsheviks abolished those Tsarist laws. So ironically, without the socialist regime she railed against her whole life, Ayn Rand would have died a peasant in a patriarchal anti-Semitic society.

[hetz]

Libertarianism as bad as fascism
How can this possibly be true?
Do you have gangs of Randists beating up communists on the streets?
Do you have antira movements?

[graffic]

How can this possibly be true?
Do you have gangs of Randists beating up communists on the streets?
Do you have antira movements?

Ideologically speaking Libertarianism is more sinister than ideological fascism. Fascists, as horrible as they are , think they are was doing what is in society's best interest, even though they aren't. Libertarians don't do protests or beating people up because they don't care. It's even more sinister than any other ideology because it's completely apathetic and nihilist.

[Thirsty Crow]

Ideologically speaking Libertarianism is more sinister than ideological fascism. Fascists, as horrible as they are , think they are was doing what is in society's best interest, even though they aren't. Libertarians don't do protests or beating people up because they don't care. It's even more sinister than any other ideology because it's completely apathetic and nihilist.
I think it would be more productive, for any person and without regard for political allegiance, to view different ideologies through the lens of their practice it is practice, after all, and an ideology's relation to it that produces the most important - tangible - consequences.

I don't think that it is possible to stick to that rule and claim libertarianism is worse than fascism. It matters little what fascists think they're doing, it matter what they do, and furthermore, I don't think that this would mean they actually care. The same goes for libertarians, and I don't think it is true to claim that they "do nothing" beacuse they don't care, but raher because they are an essentially impotent bunch whose ideas simply do not correspond to the necessities forced onto people by the historical conditions and the resulting social antagonisms.

In other words, how can a fairy land "ideology" be so sinister?

[graffic]

I think it would be more productive, for any person and without regard for political allegiance, to view different ideologies through the lens of their practice it is practice, after all, and an ideology's relation to it that produces the most important - tangible - consequences.

I don't think that it is possible to stick to that rule and claim libertarianism is worse than fascism. It matters little what fascists think they're doing, it matter what they do, and furthermore, I don't think that this would mean they actually care. The same goes for libertarians, and I don't think it is true to claim that they "do nothing" because they don't care, but rather because they are an essentially impotent bunch whose ideas simply do not correspond to the necessities forced onto people by the historical conditions and the resulting social antagonisms.

In other words, how can a fairy land "ideology" be so sinister?

I would argue that the Libertarians who argue for example that corporations such as Starbucks shouldn't be blamed for avoiding tax because corporation tax is "too high" and who defend city greed and plutocracy on the false basis that there is some "trickle down effect" of wealth is far more sinister than ideological fascists, traditional conservatives,social democrats even religious fundamentalists. I see them as sub-human. One of the characteristics of being human, which separate us from animals, is a desire to develop ourselves. Whatever colour you wrap around the ideology most want to help the worst off in society and develop ourselves for the better. Libertarianism is primitive and wrong.

[l'Enfermé]

Fascists, as horrible as they are , think they are was doing what is in society's best interest, even though they aren't.
That is quite untrue. Historically fascist ideologies and political leaders were quite aware of their actions, they were consciously advancing the interests of the their classes, the petty-bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie. Their aim was to reinforce the capitalist mode of production and maintain the system of oppression of proletariat by capitalist. Exploitation of the majority by the minority is in no way in society's best interests and can't possibly be misinterpreted as such by any sensible person.

[graffic]

That is quite untrue. Historically fascist ideologies and political leaders were quite aware of their actions, they were consciously advancing the interests of the their classes, the petty-bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie. Their aim was to reinforce the capitalist mode of production and maintain the system of oppression of proletariat by capitalist. Exploitation of the majority by the minority is in no way in society's best interests and can't possibly be misinterpreted as such by any sensible person.

Well fascism advocates a mixed economy and the unity of a nation based on ancestry and culture. As horrible as they are, they think they are doing what is in society's best interest, even though they aren't. Fascism, traditional conservatism, Marxism and other ideologies are all perhaps attempting to achieve some form of social justice. They just have radically different ways of achieving it. Alternatively, Libertarianism is nihilst, rejectionist, barbaric, and destructive, pure unsullied evil. If the devil himself was alive on earth he/she would be exactly like Ayn Rand.

[zoot_allures]

Ideologically speaking Libertarianism is more sinister than ideological fascism. Fascists, as horrible as they are , think they are was doing what is in society's best interest, even though they aren't. Libertarians don't do protests or beating people up because they don't care. It's even more sinister than any other ideology because it's completely apathetic and nihilist.
Until about 16, I was a libertarian. I swung between a more minarchist approach and pure "market anarchism" - but I was firmly on the "right-wing" side economically.

Most libertarians are not "apathetic and nihilist", nor is it that they just "don't care". Most people who accept libertarianism do so because they think it's the best option for society as a whole - some even think that it'll be better for the poor than any other system, too (this was my view). There are plenty of libertarians who are very passionate about society and politics and who genuinely believe that libertarianism is the right way forward. I was one of them, and I met plenty of other people who were the same.

Probably some of the richer libertarians are only concerned about advancing their own interests, whatever the costs to the rest of society. But the same can be said about the richer fascists. If we're talking about the libertarian movement as a whole (or the fascist movement as a whole), then it's just ridiculous to pretend that they're all a bunch of satanic animals who care about nothing but themselves.

If put in practice, "right-wing" libertarianism would lead to utterly horrific consequences, and it should be resisted. Would it be worse than fascism? It's difficult to say, but I think in the real world, fascism has a far more destructive record and remains a greater threat. And on a more personal level, I'd say that while libertarians do have rather nasty economic beliefs, I've never encountered a libertarian express the disgusting bigotry, hatred, ignorance, etc, against various minorities that's so common to fascists. I'm not aware that there have ever been gangs of libertarians assaulting people for looking different, acting different, or holding different beliefs. In fact, one of the things I like about libertarians is that they tend to be pretty tolerant about that stuff.

(Oh, as for Ayn Rand: personally, I thought that Ayn Rand totally sucked as a philosopher and a writer, and I certainly wasn't the only libertarian who felt that way.)

[Marxaveli]

Well fascism advocates a mixed economy and the unity of a nation based on ancestry and culture. As horrible as they are, they think they are doing what is in society's best interest, even though they aren't. Fascism, traditional conservatism, Marxism and other ideologies are all perhaps attempting to achieve some form of social justice. They just have radically different ways of achieving it. Alternatively, Libertarianism is nihilst, rejectionist, barbaric, and destructive, pure unsullied evil. If the devil himself was alive on earth he/she would be exactly like Ayn Rand.

Marxism isn't an ideology - it is a mode of analysis that views history and the social development of human existence through a scientific lens.

And even if you substitute Marxism with communism, we have absolutely nothing in common with fascists - and especially not with how our respective ideologies define social justice, let alone how to achieve it. The only thing a communist and fascist have in common is that we hate each other's guts, and thats about it.

Nor is Libertarianism necessarily mutually inclusive with nihilism. As I said before, I do believe Rand was very much a nihilist, and some libertarians do have a strange fascination with her or Objectivism, but it is a bit of a stretch I think to say that Libertarians are intrinsically nihilist. If anything, many of them are utopian capitalists that think we can keep the system intact by minimizing government, and that all the worlds problems will solve themselves. This is of course false, but I don't think it is quite nihilist either. Rand's ideology has elements of libertarianism in it, but she takes it further by saying that anything that results from it, no matter how unjust or evil it is, is legitimate. Now THAT is nihilism. But it is difficult, at best, to directly link Libertarianism and nihilism.

[graffic]

zoot allures, The simple fact remains, Libertarians don't want 'the best for the poor'. They don't even acknowledge the poor. It's not realism to say "greed is good" and then say that you want 'the best for the poor'. The strand of Libertarians who believe "greed is good" are pure nihilists. For example there are fascists and traditional conservatives who believe that greed is wrong and want to tackle it. Many traditionalist conservatives would believe that excessive greed is wrong and would want to tackle that via light touch government regulations and charitable giving or simply if they are religious believe that God will judge them. But their convictions hang on some form of social justice and morality and the thing to remember is that they want the best for society, even if they are perhaps completely wrong.

Today the top 1% give far less to the poor than they used to when elites were more traditional and perhaps more religious. Many of the bankers and other professions in the top 1% give less to charity than the middle classes precisely because they have a Libertarian mindset similar to Ayn Rand. I consider this far more sinister and disturbing than those who entertain the ideology of fascism.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I think that your analysis of libertarianism is limited. The fact is that many libertarians actively propagate their view as the best society that mankind can enjoy. Why would they write books, start foundations, and publish websites if this weren't the case. Libertarianism is not an insular, constantly inward-looking ideology...many (probably most) libertarians want to actively recreate society in quite drastic ways.

[graffic]

I think the word "Libertarianism" can be generalized. I mean free-marketers who admire Ayn Rand and believe greed is good.

[B5C]

I think the word "Libertarianism" can be generalized. I mean free-marketers who admire Ayn Rand and believe greed is good.

Thank you for finally posting your definition of "Libertarianism." Not all forms of Libertarianism isn't really fascist. Fascism requires hyper-nationalism and use of religion to promote the state. Unless you are using a different definition of "Libertarianism."

What I can come up in a Libertarian society is an a society which America was between 1880 and the 1910s. Where communities lived around the company and the people needed the company for their survival.

The only type of fascism can come in America is through the Conservative Movement. They already have religion and nationalism ready to go.

[Robespierres Neck]

http://i.qkme.me/36fuy6.jpg

[graffic]

. In fact, one of the things I like about libertarians is that they tend to be pretty tolerant about that stuff.

(Oh, as for Ayn Rand: personally, I thought that Ayn Rand totally sucked as a philosopher and a writer, and I certainly wasn't the only libertarian who felt that way.)

I would argue most Libertarians are apathetic rather than "tolerant". Apathy is far more sinister and destructive than "intolerance". I would argue "tolerance" is a nihilst propaganda word used by liberals who want to reduce social capital, divide the working class, and make people apathetic. The Church for example is branded "intolerant' by liberals for it's traditional views towards sexuality but the Church is actually one of the most welcoming, tolerant places you will find in any town. The homophobic one's are a minority and priests who take their scripture seriously and welcome gays but can't marry them are not "intolerant". It's a testament to where their heart is that they see the Church's perhaps traditional views towards sexuality outweighing the charity work and helping the poor from a social justice perspective. Real aggressive and violent intolerance is bad but very rare and the thing to remember is the other extreme of complete "tolerance" or apathy touted by Libertarians is far more nihilst and sinister.

[zoot_allures]

I think the word "Libertarianism" can be generalized. I mean free-marketers who admire Ayn Rand and believe greed is good.
In which case, your analysis is rather trivial. If you're just defining "libertarianism" as referring to those who admire Ayn Rand and believe that greed is good, then my past self (for one example) couldn't be counted a libertarian. But according to any moderately conventional definition of the term, I certainly was a libertarian.

You acknowledge this problem above when you say: "The strand of Libertarians who believe "greed is good" are pure nihilists" - yeah, that's just a strand of libertarianism. Not all libertarians, not necessarily even most libertarians. Unless you have an extremely unusual definition of libertarianism - as you do.


I would argue most Libertarians are apathetic rather than "tolerant". Apathy is far more sinister and destructive than "intolerance". I would argue "tolerance" is a nihilst propaganda word used by liberals who want to reduce social capital, divide the working class, and make people apathetic. I mean, the Church for example is branded "intolerant' by liberals for it's traditional views towards sexuality but the Church is actually one of the most welcoming, tolerant places you will find in any town. The homophobic one's are a minority and priests who take their scripture seriously and welcome gays but can't marry them are not "intolerant". It's a testament to where their heart is that they see the Church's perhaps traditional views towards sexuality outweighing the charity work and helping the poor from a social justice perspective. Real aggressive and violent intolerance is bad but very rare and the thing to remember is the other extreme of complete "tolerance" or apathy touted by Libertarians is far more nihilst and sinister.And how are you defining "tolerance" and "apathy"? Ultimately, whatever words we use to describe it, in my opinion there's nothing "nihilist and sinister" about arguing that gays, transexuals, blacks, and other minorities, should be permitted to live their lives free from aggression, and should be held equal under the law, etc. It's frankly alien to me that anybody could see this attitude as being worse than the frenzied bigotry and hatred spewed by most fascists. You think they don't "divide the working class"? Maybe you're defining "working class" such that it doesn't include socialists, immigrants, or people with different ethnic ancestry. Again, not a definition I'd agree with.

The problem with libertarians in this respect is their opposition to anti-discrimination in the market (which usually stems from a more fundamental problem: they have a very narrow understanding of the concept of "freedom", and they apply it in a very dogmatic way.)

As for: "real aggressive and violent intolerance is bad but very rare", I'd say that's a rather optimistic view of the world.

[Jimmie Higgins]

How can this possibly be true?
Do you have gangs of Randists beating up communists on the streets?
^This deserves repeating.

As others have also said, there's a difference between bad ideas and practice. In terms of political ideas, Fascism has always been a hodge-podge and the ideas themselves in isolation are no worse than the mix of reactionary old monarchist or religious or just plain right-wing ideas that are generally cobbled together from. Hell fascists have a strong history of incorporating left-wing terminology and even demands: there are National Socialists, of course, also Itialian fascism was National Syndicalism, but there's also National Bolshevism and National Anarchism - there are "Green" fascists and I'd say the LaRouche Party in the US might be proto-fascists and the national "golden age" that they want to return to is FDR New-Dealism.

What separates fascists from regular ol' right-wingers is in their function and practice. Libertarians have an ideological problem with unions but they generally want to use the law and politicians to crush labor - and the police to do the head-cracking. Fascists have an ideological problem with unions but they always want to do the head-cracking because they don't believe that the capitalist state, it's laws, it's repressive apparatus are either enough or can be relied on. In power they want to institutionalize vigilantism and terrorism against the population - particularly any force capable of creating an opposition and especially any working class organization.

What Libertarians and Fascism do have in common is an appeal to the confused interests of the petty-bourgeois. This doesn't mean that only this layer in society become fascist or libertarians, just that it reflects some of the general desires or fears of people in this position. These ideas take hold particularly for fascism when there is a rise in both working class opposition and attacks by the ruling class that also impact this in-between class in society (the state isn't doing what they want it to do, but the workers are threatening capitalist stability and their livelihood, so many conclude that they will have to take direct action against "social-disorder" themselves). Libertarianism expresses both a dislike of the system as it currently exists, and a total dependance on capitalism which becomes a desire for a kind of "pure" capitalism.

Because fascists take their ideas from all over the place in order to draw in whatever scraps of reactionary social forces and ideologies to its cause, if there was an increase in working class struggle I wouldn't be surprised if there was some fascists in the US who incorporated elements of Libertarian economic ideas. Upright citizens who show that you don't need a state police force to keep order in society, people can take personal responsibility and pull themselves up by their own jackboots. But as it is libertarians are not fascists and comparing the two as social phenomena is sort of like apples and oranges because one is a relatively coherent but stupid set of ideas about the world and the other is more like a social movement aimed at reinforcing "order" in society.

[graffic]

And how are you defining "tolerance" and "apathy"? Ultimately, whatever words we use to describe it, in my opinion there's nothing "nihilist and sinister" about arguing that gays, transexuals, blacks, and other minorities, should be permitted to live their lives free from aggression, and should be held equal under the law, etc. It's frankly alien to me that anybody could see this attitude as being worse than the frenzied bigotry and hatred spewed by most fascists. You think they don't "divide the working class"? Maybe you're defining "working class" such that it doesn't include socialists, immigrants, or people with different ethnic ancestry. Again, not a definition I'd agree with.

I think Libertarians would want blacks, transgender, gays and other minorities to be "free from aggression" so that the end is result is freedom from restrictions rather than material equality and they can exploit them more. I think this is sinister, nihilist and disturbing. As has already been said, fascists think their bigotry is in societys best interest, even though it isn't.

[Jason]

Libertarians view "freedom" and "racial equality" as abstract ideas apart from the real world. For instance, in the USA, black resentment is mostly economic, so how can simply "advocating equality" without demanding socialism change things? In regards to "freedom", the worker is a slave to his boss, his only alternative is starvation (Quote: the late RedStar2000).

Libertarians don't understand real human nature (and the "Real World"), which ironically is a charge layed against Marxists from time to time.

[Let's Get Free]

Fascism- You're starved for freedom.
Libertarianism- You're free to starve.

[LeftLibertarian]

The original Libertarians were left wing. They were a part of First International for crying out loud. Americans simply don't understand what libertarianism is a misuse the name.

Any non-propertarian, any anti-statist, any Marxist who rejects State socialism, Socialism in one country and proletariat dictatorship (as if such a thing could even exist) is a Libertarian.