Libertarianism: What it is and how to combat it.

[Aussie Trotskyist]

Seriously, I desperately need help disagreeing with the concept of Laissez-faire Capitalism and Libertarianism.

Could I have a few points to press against Libertarianism, and could I also have evidence against the following points:

-A worker will be paid the equivalent of his work.
-Everyone will be able to work for themselves, for their own benefit.

[Thirsty Crow]

Seriously, I desperately need help disagreeing with the concept of Laissez-faire Capitalism and Libertarianism.

Could I have a few points to press against Libertarianism, and could I also have evidence against the following points:

-A worker will be paid the equivalent of his work.Absolute horseshit.

First of all, capitalist production is impossible if the worker receives the full value of her product since then, which is obvious, no extra value - surplus value - would remain for reinvestment and subsequent expansion.

Seriously, is this so hard to understand? What is it so seductive about unsubstantiated remarks which are based on a clear lack of understanding of the dynamics of capitalism?



-Everyone will be able to work for themselves, for their own benefit. And another absurdity. The whole of social production, nowadays dependent on a developed division of labour, organized into hundreds of millions of small enterprises. Yeah, that sounds just right and viable. Nevermind the grinding wheels of competition making it virtually impossible for these heroic entrpreneurs to at least cover their costs of production.

[p0is0n]

If workers were paid for the full value of their labor there would be no profits to be made.

[Aussie Trotskyist]

Absolute horseshit.

First of all, capitalist production is impossible if the worker receives the full value of her product since then, which is obvious, no extra value - surplus value - would remain for reinvestment and subsequent expansion.

Seriously, is this so hard to understand? What is it so seductive about unsubstantiated remarks which are based on a clear lack of understanding of the dynamics of capitalism?

It has been claimed that profit comes from 'investment', however, the guy i mostly talk to refuses to answer the question, 'where does profit come from?' And steers the conversation in a different direction.

Its obvious, however, that if profit did come form plain investment (used by money passes down through the ages), that capital creates itself, and thus basic inflation comes into play.


But still, I'd like some more points to press him on. I know there are inherant flaws in Libertarianism and unregulated capital, but I'm having trouble debating it.

I feel really stupid.

[Thirsty Crow]

It has been claimed that profit comes from 'investment', however, the guy i mostly talk to refuses to answer the question, 'where does profit come from?' And steers the conversation in a different direction.So what's the point? There can be no debate if one side refuses to engage a relevant point made by the other.

And as you say, money magically creating more money - inflating our assess to oblivion - makes no sense at all.



But still, I'd like some more points to press him on. I know there are inherant flaws in Libertarianism and unregulated capital, but I'm having trouble debating it.

I feel really stupid.You feel stupid? Because of what, her/his refusal to engage your points? C'mon. You're having trouble debating it since it is an absurd set of premises followed by disingenuous debating tactics.

[Aussie Trotskyist]

You feel stupid? Because of what, her/his refusal to engage your points? C'mon. You're having trouble debating it since it is an absurd set of premises followed by disingenuous debating tactics.

I'll quote him. Most of his point I just don;t know how to address:


Economics is almost entirely dedicated to examining people's desires. It shows what people work for and how they'll work to produce and use it.


Money is a means. People don't make rational goals to become rich in itself, but for other goals.


Why can't everybody just work to benefit themselves? Why the need to enslave people to others? (Yeah, I've tried to denounce this, but to no avail).


The reason I was feeling a bit stupid was because I'm having trouble arguing with him. I know it is flawed, but I don't know how. He isn't giving me any chance to attack his points.

[Thirsty Crow]

The reason I was feeling a bit stupid was because I'm having trouble arguing with him. I know it is flawed, but I don't know how. He isn't giving me any chance to attack his points.
He's making unconnected, abstract and banal claims.

Factually wrong: economics does not investigate people's desires as this is part of the field of psychology.

Banal: money is a means indeed. You can't eat it. And whether certain people rationally decide that their goal is to get rich, or whether this is a side effect of a different goal - who the fuck cares actually. How is it relevant and what does it demonstrate?

Another banality: yes people work to benefit themselves (and other people). Yet the unintended consequence is exploitation and oppression - it's how things work in capitalism, as social relations of production which are the cause of these are reproduced from generation to generation.

I get what you find icky about this. It's totally unconnected, on the verge of rambling.

[Aussie Trotskyist]

He's making unconnected, abstract and banal claims.

Factually wrong: economics does not investigate people's desires as this is part of the field of psychology.

Banal: money is a means indeed. You can't eat it. And whether certain people rationally decide that their goal is to get rich, or whether this is a side effect of a different goal - who the fuck cares actually. How is it relevant and what does it demonstrate?

Another banality: yes people work to benefit themselves (and other people). Yet the unintended consequence is exploitation and oppression - it's how things work in capitalism, as social relations of production which are the cause of these are reproduced from generation to generation.

I get what you find icky about this. It's totally unconnected, on the verge of rambling.

Cheers. I really wanted to try and respect his ideologies as having some logical framework (simply to try and respect it, and understand it, so as to oppose it), but it seems I can't, and it is simply nonsense ramblings.

[Eleutheromaniac]

Economics is almost entirely dedicated to examining people's desires. It shows what people work for and how they'll work to produce and use it.Desires are one thing, but needs are another. Besides, if people aren't receiving the full fruits of their labor, this definition of economics cannot legitimize capitalism.



Money is a means. People don't make rational goals to become rich in itself, but for other goals.Then why can we deny a sufficient living wage for some at the behest of others? What does he consider a rational goal? I bet it's being able to support and feed one and one's family. Why can the capitalist "rationally" make the goal of acquiring unnecessary amounts of wealth and said goal not be consistent with the goal of being rich?


Why can't everybody just work to benefit themselves? Why the need to enslave people to others? (Yeah, I've tried to denounce this, but to no avail). This argument can be turned on its head. Why do you need a CEO? Why do you need a board of directors? If the workers control the means of production, wouldn't this being "just working to benefit themselves"? Capitalism is an enslaving system.

[Let's Get Free]

Libertarians should be smart enough to see that their idea of the political effect of everyone owning their own small business is a fantasy. Both in practice and in theory, it does not lead to a utopia of small business owners freely competing and trading. Because private ownership channels wealth to those who already have wealth, it is politically destabilizing. Whoever owns the means of production will use it to get more money, more land, and more political power, leading as sure as water running downhill to a system where one giant multi-tentacled concentration of wealth/power commands almost all the land and all the people.

[Decolonize The Left]

I've had many a debate with libertarians in the past and I find it's best to use the following approach:

1. Establish what they actually mean by libertarianism. Usually they will agree on two points: free market capitalism and individual liberty. That is to say that a libertarian first and foremost wants to preserve an individual's liberty. They will then follow this claim with the claim that free market capitalism is the only and best economy to do so.

2. Agree with the first claim: preserving individual liberty. We leftists want this as well.

3. Go straight for the argument for free-market capitalism. Your best bet is not to argue the ills of capitalism because they will write them off as a product of big government, subsidies, restricted markets, etc... The arguments about the ills and dangers of capitalism are best used against liberals, not libertarians.

The argument which they can't stop is: free market capitalism necessarily curtails individual liberty and hence libertarianism is a self-contradictory ideology. This is so because free market capitalism establishes economic leverage; i.e. people who 'succeed' get more capital to leverage against future incursions in their market. In other words, free market capitalism necessitates monopolization of markets. Monopolization of markets creates barriers to entry (in economic jargon: wide moats) which in turn limits the individual's ability to enter into the market. In short, their personal liberty is rapidly curtailed by material economic circumstance.

Hence libertarianism is self-contradictory. Hope that helps.

[ckaihatsu]

It has been claimed that profit comes from 'investment', however, the guy i mostly talk to refuses to answer the question, 'where does profit come from?' And steers the conversation in a different direction.


[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

http://s6.postimage.org/ybfu7d5nx/2158197550046342459s_Nahhy_fs.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/ybfu7d5nx/)










Economics is almost entirely dedicated to examining people's desires. It shows what people work for and how they'll work to produce and use it.


This is actually valid, but only at the most *generic*, sociological, level of a definition -- it barely scratches the surface, and is like saying "Politics is about how government is managed."

I'll suggest pulling the guy / person out of a status-quo context (which is boring anyway), and get them talking about what they *want* politically. Then you can hone in on the contradictions contained within, to show how their vision is actually not feasible, by its own internal logic.





Money is a means. People don't make rational goals to become rich in itself, but for other goals.


This is a blatant put-on, and is a deft sneering condescending line thrown your way, like a bone for a dog. It's the signature technique of libertarians, to mouth rhetoric that they think will (or does) appeal to liberals by mimicking the liberal line.

(*Of course* people make rational goals to become rich for its own sake -- if they didn't there wouldn't be capitalism, which depends on a zealous, mindless acquisitive mindset. The reason why this line may seem appealing at first is because the *average (working) person* does not make money itself a goal, and instead uses money as a means for tangible personal material goals. The libertarian is attempting to win a pass by saying things that may be personally *subjectively* true, but which are *not* reflective of the capitalist system as a whole.)





Why can't everybody just work to benefit themselves? Why the need to enslave people to others? (Yeah, I've tried to denounce this, but to no avail).


And this is soft-pedaling -- again, wearing the liberal cloak: Who would *possibly* defend outright slavery as an economic system -- ?

By juxtaposing the "rational" market system against that of slavery, the libertarian looks downright normal and even humanitarian.

Remind them that every *minute* of wage-labor is indeed economic slavery since exploitation is a given therein and there is no alternative for accessing the world's productivity except through the capitalist money system.

[Lord Hargreaves]

Market activity necessarily leads on to winners and losers: people who accumulate and expand and people who have to sell up and move out of the market. If this means that the most efficient and wealth-creating businesses succeed, and the poorly organised making shoddy goods fail, then that is obviously no bad thing in itself.

But there are two objections:

1) it ignores historical development; that after a certain period of time the conditions of fair competition break down, and some companies will continue with great advantages over others despite their no longer "deserving" it. There will always be efficiency gains to be made from economies of scale, but we can equally argue that there are numerous economic disadvantages to the build up of monopoly and unfair competition. Anyone who takes an undergraduate course in microeconomics could build up the arguments from here.

Thus, my ability to freely choose my form of work of employment will be severely curtailed if I am born a significant amount of time after the market has been instituted. There is no sense in which I choose my life conditions either, so this is clearly not free, at least for me.

2) There is no reason why economics and market pressures should dictate how a society is run. Libertarians conceive liberty in terms of one's ability to be an effective market player, thus liberty is increased the more the market dominates social life. But any liberal (libertarians are not ultimately liberals in my opinion, but something else) could see that a truly free and fulfilling society is a plural society, where economic imperatives are just one weave in the fabric of life and are not the whole of it.

The idea that one should have full claim on one's labour is not a communist one, but a libertarian one. A society based around the full compensation for work would be a capitalist society, even as capitalism in reality always fails to live up to its ideal. Indeed, a society where the strong, healthy and most capable take the most when they work the most, and the old, weak and sick take less because they cannot work, is a perfectly vile and disgusting society. That is why we say "...to each according to need", because the fulfilment of need is key to a happy and flourishing - and free - society.

You should ask your libertarian friend if he really wants a meritocracy, or whether he can now see it for the dystopian nightmare it would turn out to be.

[robbo203]

I've had many a debate with libertarians in the past and I find it's best to use the following approach:

1. Establish what they actually mean by libertarianism. Usually they will agree on two points: free market capitalism and individual liberty. That is to say that a libertarian first and foremost wants to preserve an individual's liberty. They will then follow this claim with the claim that free market capitalism is the only and best economy to do so.

2. Agree with the first claim: preserving individual liberty. We leftists want this as well.

3. Go straight for the argument for free-market capitalism. Your best bet is not to argue the ills of capitalism because they will write them off as a product of big government, subsidies, restricted markets, etc... The arguments about the ills and dangers of capitalism are best used against liberals, not libertarians.

The argument which they can't stop is: free market capitalism necessarily curtails individual liberty and hence libertarianism is a self-contradictory ideology. This is so because free market capitalism establishes economic leverage; i.e. people who 'succeed' get more capital to leverage against future incursions in their market. In other words, free market capitalism necessitates monopolization of markets. Monopolization of markets creates barriers to entry (in economic jargon: wide moats) which in turn limits the individual's ability to enter into the market. In short, their personal liberty is rapidly curtailed by material economic circumstance.

Hence libertarianism is self-contradictory. Hope that helps.

Or perhaps another approach is to not concede to the free market advocates, the description of "libertarian". They are not libertarian because capitalism, whatever guise it takes, is based on wage slavery which is incompatible with a tenable concept of freedom

I should also point out that there are people who call themselves libertarian communists and who would look askance at the suggestion that "libertarianism is self-contradictory". They would prefer to say libertarianism is only realisable within the framework of a communist society.

[ckaihatsu]

I should also point out that there are people who call themselves libertarian communists and who would look askance at the suggestion that "libertarianism is self-contradictory". They would prefer to say libertarianism is only realisable within the framework of a communist society.


This is the first I've heard of the moniker 'libertarian communist', and I'd appreciate anything resembling a position statement for that, if anyone can point me in that direction.

The term itself is problematic because, as of the present, a strictly mass-individualist approach to revolutionary politics -- 'libertarianism' -- will *not* be a sufficient force to face-down and overthrow the existing empire and all of capitalist relations. One would do better to focus on the super-historical worldwide proletarian organization required for this task -- one cohesive enough to definitively suppress the activities of the bourgeoisie.

And, if the term is meant for the afterwards, then it is merely *redundant*, since no coercive means would be available to anyone or any entity to force work for the necessities of life when virtually all labor would be discretionary anyway, in terms of socially necessary production.

[Decolonize The Left]

Or perhaps another approach is to not concede to the free market advocates, the description of "libertarian". They are not libertarian because capitalism, whatever guise it takes, is based on wage slavery which is incompatible with a tenable concept of freedom

That would seem a difficult task. After all, the self-proclaimed libertarians are already organized; they even have a US political representation. I agree that one could nitpick it out of them but I find it's more reasonable to grant them the title and then explain why their theory is self-contradictory.


I should also point out that there are people who call themselves libertarian communists and who would look askance at the suggestion that "libertarianism is self-contradictory". They would prefer to say libertarianism is only realisable within the framework of a communist society.

True, but what does that really mean? I am somewhat familiar with that moniker and it seems to be just a distorted perspective on anarcho-communism; but perhaps I'm mistaken?

[Ostrinski]

Man, I thought libertarians were scarce outside of the US. Sucks for y'all.

[robbo203]

This is the first I've heard of the moniker 'libertarian communist', and I'd appreciate anything resembling a position statement for that, if anyone can point me in that direction.


Well, "libertarian communist" or "Libertarian communism" is not exactly unheard of in radical circles! There is, for example the largish Libcom site which is quite an impressive resource for revolutionaries http://libcom.org/forums. You must surely have come across this at some point, no? There are also journals or publications around like this one - the Libertarian Communist discussion Bulletin which describes itself thus: In Opposition to the Rule of Capital in all its forms and for Anti State, Non Market Communism. The latest issue has just come out and can be accessed here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/119664514/The-Libertarian-Communist-No-21-Winter-2013 . There are also libertarian communist groups I know

Actually, if you google "Libertarian communism", it comes up with quite a number of interesting entries....





And, if the term is meant for the afterwards, then it is merely *redundant*, since no coercive means would be available to anyone or any entity to force work for the necessities of life when virtually all labor would be discretionary anyway, in terms of socially necessary production.


The term "libertarian communism" might actually be useful precisely to emphasise or highlight this point and so counter the prevailing stereotype in the minds of so many that "communism" entails some kind of authoritarian power structure etc

[ckaihatsu]

Well, "libertarian communist" or "Libertarian communism" is not exactly unheard of in radical circles! There is, for example the largish Libcom site which is quite an impressive resource for revolutionaries http://libcom.org/forums. You must surely have come across this at some point, no?


Yeah....





There are also journals or publications around like this one - the Libertarian Communist discussion Bulletin which describes itself thus: In Opposition to the Rule of Capital in all its forms and for Anti State, Non Market Communism. The latest issue has just come out and can be accessed here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/119664514/The-Libertarian-Communist-No-21-Winter-2013 . There are also libertarian communist groups I know

Actually, if you google "Libertarian communism", it comes up with quite a number of interesting entries....


Okay, yeah, thanks.





The term "libertarian communism" might actually be useful precisely to emphasise or highlight this point and so counter the prevailing stereotype in the minds of so many that "communism" entails some kind of authoritarian power structure etc


Yeah, good point, got it.

[Ocean Seal]

Go for the Galt my dear friend. Engage him on his hubris. Libertarians love that. Tell him that you see him as an entrepreneur in the future living in a libertarian paradise. Of course with his great abilities he outmaneuvers his competitors and begins to make a living. With intelligence and ambition he rises to the top. However, someone charitable like him makes sure to give back to society and other ambitious entrepreneurs. However, what is to stop the others who wish to cartelize and keep down the little businessman. Its in their direct interest, in their companies direct interest to keep others from profiting. As is keeping wages down. As is breaking unions. Keeping everyone weak and disorganized is the best way to win in a pure meritocracy. And while the best and brightest rise to the top (remember that no one is equal) why not make a state to protect their interests. That sounds a bit like what we have now...

[Blake's Baby]

Desires are one thing, but needs are another. Besides, if people aren't receiving the full fruits of their labor, this definition of economics cannot legitimize capitalism...

Actually, the 'libertarians' (and I totally agree with Robbo here, 'The Organisational Platform of the General Union of Anarchists' is also published under the title 'Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists', LibCom (the Libertarian Communist forum) and the post-68 groups around communisation theory all reference 'Libertarianism'... I only found out about the Right appropriating the term fairly recently, I still think it's as weird as them calling themselves 'anarcho-capitalist) that I've argued with (there was one on RevLeft who was called Night Ripper or something classy like that) claim that 'needs' are just desires... our 'need' to breathe or eat or be warm is really just a 'desire' to do so, because they don't care if we live or die. So, no concept of 'need'.

As for legitimizing capitalism, they think we don't have 'capitalism', they think we have 'corporatism' for the most part. In other words, 'corporations and big government'. So if workers don't get their due, it's because of the state taking taxes. What they usually want is everyone to have a homestead, a small fleet of cows, and a gun. They don't see profit as deriving from exploitation - they think that workers make things, then the workers sell the things to the boss for 'wages' (a worker spends 8 hours making 100 widgets and hour that s/he sells to the boss for 80 dollars) and then the boss gets a better price on the market, making a profit (he sells the widgets for 50 cents each, making 400 dollars, from which he pays the wages and the bills and takes a profit). This of course is easy to attack - ask them if it's OK for the worker to take what s/he made and sell it on the market themself rather than selling it to the boss for 'wages'. But essentially they regard all contracts (even those made under 'corpratism') as 'fair' because they fundamentally don't accept that workers shouldn't starve.

In no economic system ever has there been 'people receiving the full fruits of their labour', and in communist society it won't happen either. There are always those who cannot work and unless you think the sick, children and the old and anyone who is in any way incapacitated should die, there is some element of social wealth being shared among those who did not produce it. Seems to me that the whole notion of 'libertarianism' fails to come to terms with the essential point that we are a social species and that our organisation should start from this realisation. Any system predicated on a lone atomised individual is bound to fail to cope with reality, as that's not what we are.

[Zulu]

Libertarianism is a self-contradictory lunacy.

Libertarians hate the present day corporate/state capitalism, yet they advocate a return to the laissez-faire capitalism, which was exactly what gave rise to the corporate/state capitalism and exactly through the process which the libertarians worship the most, namely, elimination by competition. So, even if their wishes are granted, they are bound to go in circles unless they institute some state that would somehow strictly uphold the ideal free market, and thus put them in the good old Catch-22 situation. Basically, same thing as the paradoxes of tolerance and anarchy.

[Popular Front of Judea]

You cannot understand the popularity of "libertarianism" without referencing the the money flowing into it from foundations financed by wealthy men like the Koch brothers. An ideology that is all about cutting subsidies is itself not viable without subsidy.

[tuwix]

Seriously, I desperately need help disagreeing with the concept of Laissez-faire Capitalism and Libertarianism.

Could I have a few points to press against Libertarianism, and could I also have evidence against the following points:

-A worker will be paid the equivalent of his work.
-Everyone will be able to work for themselves, for their own benefit.


I think you should attack base of their ideology which is free market. Use a definition that confirm that market is regulated by nothing (from dictionary.reference.com or wikipedia ). And then show that its is just impossible to be a market that is regulated by nothing. If there is a state or not, there always is someone who interferes with freedom of market through taxes or rackets or whatever.

You can also deny their freedom showing that wage labor is a paid slavery and slavery has nothing to do with freedom.

I can assure you the will hate you for that.

[redblood_blackflag]

Seriously, I desperately need help disagreeing with the concept of Laissez-faire Capitalism and Libertarianism.

Could I have a few points to press against Libertarianism, and could I also have evidence against the following points:

-A worker will be paid the equivalent of his work.
-Everyone will be able to work for themselves, for their own benefit.


If you "need help disagreeing" with something, I'd say you're going about the "learning" thing all wrong, if that's what you're trying to do.
In my opinion, it might be helpful to look into their arguments and position directly, instead of asking for things which already disagree with something you basically imply you disagree with, while simultaneously implying you don't even understand it (since you can't argue against it well).

[Jimmie Higgins]

If you "need help disagreeing" with something, I'd say you're going about the "learning" thing all wrong, if that's what you're trying to do.
In my opinion, it might be helpful to look into their arguments and position directly, instead of asking for things which already disagree with something you basically imply you disagree with, while simultaneously implying you don't even understand it (since you can't argue against it well).

Sure it's good to go into everything with an open mind, but here the poster is asking for effective arguments about something they disagree with. For example, I don't need to understand alchemy in great detail to believe it is useless - the premise and my limited understanding of modern science is enough to convince me. But if the Koch brothers and FOX and AM radio and "alcehmist-intellectuals" and an Alchemy party were as organized and supported as right-libertarians have been since the 1970s, then these ideas would probably begin to make some inroads (just as ideas like "the power of prayer to heal" have) and I would likely want some advice about how to counter more complex or at least common alchemy arguments.

[Oswy]

Seriously, I desperately need help disagreeing with the concept of Laissez-faire Capitalism and Libertarianism.

Could I have a few points to press against Libertarianism, and could I also have evidence against the following points:

-A worker will be paid the equivalent of his work.
-Everyone will be able to work for themselves, for their own benefit.

Libertarianism (as the term has been appropriated by anarcho-capitalists and the like) promotes the freedom of the rich to advance on their monopolies and the freedom of the poor to starve. It constitutes the radical defence of capitalism freed from any state 'interference' (save the need for a state to defend the monopolisation of the earth and its resources by the owning classes). Workers, under libertarianism, are paid whatever the market will bear which in simple terms means that if there's more workers than work the individuals who are prepared to suffer the most wretched of conditions get work and the rest starve. Do you want to live in a world where you have to give your boss a blowjob every morning to keep your job? That's where libertarianism will take you.

[Mackenzie_Blanc]

Mention to libertarians that since a purely capitalist system relies on increasing efficiency, full automation will likely arise. Needless to say, a system based on exchange between A and B can't work if B is broke.

[MP5]

Well i think small pockets of what could be called right wing Libertarianism already exist. The drug cartels in Mexico and the US as well as the shithole known as Somalia could be cited as examples of right wing aka American Libertarianism. And look how well those experiments are doing :grin: .In Capitalist society whoever has the most power is the ruler but the state does provide some support for the people. Take the state out of the equation and the Capitalists would eat each other. Most idiots i have known to call themselves Libertarians also cling onto a Nazi like policy that whoever is poor obviously deserves it and thus deserves no compassion at all from society. I have actually heard libertarians say that poor people should be allowed to starve and freeze to death instead of leeching off the rich :cursing: . So that gives you a idea as to what caliber of idiot you are arguing with here.

Personally i don't think they are even worth arguing with.