American "libertarians" are fake Anarchists!

[Karl Renegade]

American "Libertarians" are fake Anarchists!
here's proof:

the word libertarian has been used by anarchists for far longer than the pro-free market right have been using it. In fact, anarchists have been using it as a synonym for anarchist for over 150 years, since 1858. In comparison, widespread use of the term by the so-called "libertarian" right dates from the 1970s in America (with, from the 1940s onwards, limited use by a few individuals). Indeed, outside of North America libertarian is still essentially used as an equivalent of anarchist and as a shortened version of libertarian socialist. As Noam Chomsky notes: "Let me just say regarding the terminology, since we happen to be in the United States, we have to be rather careful. Libertarian in the United States has a meaning which is almost the opposite of what it has in the rest of the world traditionally. Here, libertarian means ultra right-wing capitalist. In the European tradition, libertarian meant socialist. So, anarchism was sometimes called libertarian socialism, a large wing of anarchism, so we have to be a little careful about terminology."

I copy/pasted this from the website Anarchism.pageabode.com. pls. don't sue me.

[Mackenzie_Blanc]

American "Libertarians" are just confused "radicals" who rightly question modern society, but falsely attribute it entirely to government, and not to corporate domination. That is not even mentioning the absurdity of theories such as that of Rand, Rothbard, and Mises, who consider the worker as a parasite and the boss as naturally superior. And believe that if the govment' would shrink and reduce the burden off the businessman, prosperity would arise. :glare:

[Winkers Fons]

I know a few people that call themselves "anarchists" but oppose all forms of collectivism and oppose democracy for its supposed "tyranny of the majority". It's so obvious that their ideology does nothing but attempt to justify existing class structures that it's not even funny. Even worse, they constantly quote actual anarchists without even understanding that those people equally opposed the state, AND capitalism.

[tuwix]

Well, there are right-wing libertarians and left-wing libertarians. The left-wing ones are true libertarians and they are anarchists.
The false right-wing libertarians are the libertarians meant by the Western propaganda. But they are not libertarians at all. The word libertarian has its origin in 'liberty' – freedom. But right-wing 'libertarians' want to enslave a society into paid slavery and give a freedom only to bourgeoisie.

IMHO it is not freedom at all.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I mean, who cares about the ownership of the word libertarian? Really, what we should be doing is finding ways to twist it to our advantage. Hell, let's appropriate their terms?

For example, I consider myself a free-market libertarian. BY WHICH I MEAN, A COMMUNIST.

ANYWAY:

AMERICAN LIBERTARIANS SAY THEY'RE HIGH ON POT, BUT IF THEY'RE HIGH ON POT HOW COME THEY'RE NOT LIKE KEITH MORRIS? RUNNING WILD IN THE STREETS (RUNNING, RUNNING) WILD IN THE STREETS (RUNNING, RUNNING) . . . FUCKING POSERS!

[MP5]

Yes they are fake Libertarians and not even really libertarians as they think nothing of involving the state when things don't go their own way. Ron Paul being a good example of this. It is American Libertarianism and besides in America and Canada Libertarianism is a left wing ideology not a right wing one.

Most so called Libertarians in America are just people who somehow have this notion that Capitalism without government would be a good thing. Essentially they are conservatives who believe that the government should stay out of business affairs.

[Narcissus]

To be fair, it's not the use of libertarian that is wrong - the way in which it is used in America corresponds perfectly with the traditional American definition of freedom - freedom for slaveowners.

It is the inappropriate use of the word 'freedom' in America that causes the trouble. They are brainwashed. We must wake them up, and if they refuse to wake we must slit their throats.

[Orange Juche]

If there's one thing that really drives me nucking futs it's "anarcho-capitalists", particularly the ones that act holier-than-thou and as if based on my understanding of anarchism, I need to be "educated", because all communism or socialism (even if anarchist) is "inherently authoritarian, and anarcho-communism can't exist".

[Let's Get Free]

The term "libertarian" has a special meaning in the US. What's called libertarianism here is pretty much unrestrained capitalism. That's always been opposed to the libertarian tradition elsewhere, as in Europe, where every libertarian is an anarchist who has been a socialist. Because the point is if you have unrestrained capitalism you have plenty of authority. You have extreme authority. If the means of production are privately controlled people will be forced to rent themselves in order to survive. The American "libertarians" say "they rent themselves freely, it's a free contract," but that's a joke. If you're only choices are "do what I say or starve," there's nothing free about that. In fact, that's slavery of a different kind- wage slavery.

The american version of libertarianism is an aberration. But I don't think too many people actually take it seriously. The only reason people pretend to take it seriously is because it can be used as a weapon. Like when someone comes out in favor of a tax you can say "No, I'm a libertarian, I oppose that tax, but of course, I'm still in favor of the government having roads, schools, and killing Afghans and that sort of stuff.

[ckaihatsu]

The term "libertarian" has a special meaning in the US. What's called libertarianism here is pretty much unrestrained capitalism.


Because of libertarians' dependence on the markets, and thus the state, they have no 'independent' politics, the way they like to pretend so much -- really their line has always smacked of pure nostalgia, like a Shangri-la that may be harkened-to and referenced solely for the sake of a club identity.

To rail against a "corporatism" that, somehow -- accidentally, presumably -- trumped purist agrarian wholesome living, is really to reveal the underlying capitalist factional schism between their fundamental *rentier* economic interests that date back to frontier land speculation, and that of relatively-more-progressive equity-capital investment interests.

So from this we can easily strip away the fresh-country-air facade to find the *most* conservative interests at their core -- those based on sheer land values and the type of state violence that would ensure them.





[W]hen someone comes out in favor of a tax [they] can say "No, I'm a libertarian, I oppose that tax, but of course, I'm still in favor of the government having roads, schools, and killing Afghans and that sort of stuff.


We can see *another* schism of interests within the empire between the 'minarchist' rentier set and that of the beltway military-industrial complex -- as I recall the libertarians split the difference between the U.S. attacking Iraq and its invasion of Afghanistan, with the former becoming a logistical mistake, while the latter was somehow justifiable.

This demonstrates the libertarian dependence on the existing military to a degree, while retaining a slight margin of critical independence.

With a politics that extends as far as the property line I don't think you're going to find *any* concessions to any sense of the 'public good', as for public roads or public schools.

[tuwix]

The term "libertarian" has a special meaning in the US. What's called libertarianism here is pretty much unrestrained capitalism. That's always been opposed to the libertarian tradition elsewhere, as in Europe, where every libertarian is an anarchist who has been a socialist.

I'm afraid it is not true. In Poland, we have them too. There is a link: https://libertarianizm.net. If you use a free translator (for example google translate built in Chrome) you can convince yourself they are not anarchists at all.

[Winkers Fons]

If there's one thing that really drives me nucking futs it's "anarcho-capitalists", particularly the ones that act holier-than-thou and as if based on my understanding of anarchism, I need to be "educated", because all communism or socialism (even if anarchist) is "inherently authoritarian, and anarcho-communism can't exist".

Yes, they are the worst. Point out the flaws with capitalism and they will say you are talking about "corporatism" or "statism". I like how they say we have never had true capitalism, as if capitalism was a theory that had never reached its full potential. If they knew anything about history, they would know that the word capitalism has always been used to describe the current system, state and all. It's a part of a trend among right-libertarians in general to appropriate leftist terminology and rhetoric for the purpose of supporting capitalism.

Whenever I find myself in a debate with an ancap, I will normally point out that it is not the state being used to restrain capitalism, but rather the capitalist class using the tools of the state to restrain the working class. Without the existence of the state, the capitalists would simply use other tools such as the private security agencies that ancaps love so much. The fact that they don't see that the state is not the source of oppression, but simply a tool of the oppressors is mind-boggling to me.

[ckaihatsu]

Yes, they are the worst. Point out the flaws with capitalism and they will say you are talking about "corporatism" or "statism". I like how they say we have never had true capitalism, as if capitalism was a theory that had never reached its full potential. If they knew anything about history, they would know that the word capitalism has always been used to describe the current system, state and all. It's a part of a trend among right-libertarians in general to appropriate leftist terminology and rhetoric for the purpose of supporting capitalism.


True.





Whenever I find myself in a debate with an ancap, I will normally point out that it is not the state being used to restrain capitalism, but rather the capitalist class using the tools of the state to restrain the working class. Without the existence of the state, the capitalists would simply use other tools such as the private security agencies that ancaps love so much. The fact that they don't see that the state is not the source of oppression, but simply a tool of the oppressors is mind-boggling to me.


I'll submit to you that -- strictly as a point of fact -- these two statements are contradictory:





[T]he state [is not] being used to restrain capitalism,




Without the existence of the state, the capitalists would simply use other tools such as the private security agencies that ancaps love so much.


We know that plenty would take the "free market" faith to logical extremes, if they were allowed to, and as you're acknowledging.

While the state is certainly superfluous and needs to be retired by the international proletariat, it happens to exert a *slightly* mitigating force against worse predation by capital, especially during the times when the state can enjoy political gains from incidental good economic growth.


Ideologies & Operations -- Left Centrifugalism

http://s6.postimage.org/zc8b2rb3h/110211_Ideologies_Operations_Left_Centrifug.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/zc8b2rb3h/)

[Willin']

get used to it everything that is American is spoiled or fake

[hatzel]

get used to it everything that is American is spoiled or fake

Yes indeed, this certainly strikes me as a reasoned political insight...

[Owl]

Whenever I find myself in a debate with an ancap, I will normally point out that it is not the state being used to restrain capitalism, but rather the capitalist class using the tools of the state to restrain the working class. Without the existence of the state, the capitalists would simply use other tools such as the private security agencies that ancaps love so much. The fact that they don't see that the state is not the source of oppression, but simply a tool of the oppressors is mind-boggling to me.

I generally just consider them selective libertarians. Anarchist Capitalism is a contradiction in itself, no? ;)

[Nachthexen]

As much as I happen to despise right-libertarian rhetoric and theory, your choice of evidence is incredibly suspect. Firstly, words change meaning over time: pointing to the etymology of a word to determine the intelligibility of its current usage is pretty weird.

Libertarianism in the US context does not usually mean libsoc ideals or even anarchism -- it's been successfully appropriated to mean some sort of native fundamentalist spin on right-liberal ideas. This is exactly what Noam is getting at, this is why you have to be careful with the term.

Is it tasteless? Yeah, obviously. Is it fake? Right now, in the US, you'd have a hard time convincing anyone the usage is actually perverse. It's an unfortunate fact but something we have to get over, because it's a waste of time trying to discredit it.