Communist resistance to libertarian ideals.

[TheGhostOfTomJoad]

On RevLeft in particular, I seem to see quite a bit of anti-libertarian sentiment. My question is, why? It seems that libertarian ideology is something that communists/anarchists could relate to, that being an ultra-minimalist approach to government. (eg. a "stateless, classless society"). The idea of "do whatever the hell you want, as long as it doesn't interfere with other people's rights" seem to fit perfectly into the anti-authoritarian feelings of the communist/anarchist theories, along with a large emphasis put on civil liberties. I'd appreciate it if someone could explain this to me.

[JazzRemington]

Because 1) libertarians still want a state, just a minimal one that doesn't interfere with the market, 2) libertarians are violently pro-free market capitalism, and 3) libertarians are psychos and their "philosophy" doesn't make sense.

[TheGhostOfTomJoad]

Because 1) libertarians still want a state, just a minimal one that doesn't interfere with the market, 2) libertarians are violently pro-free market capitalism,

alright.


and 3) libertarians are psychos and their "philosophy" doesn't make sense.

not actually an argument.


Then how are the philosophies of communism and libertarianism integrated? I've seen a few libertarian-communists on here, the libcom.us website, and read the wikipedia page on the subject, but it just seem to be your average, generic marxism. What's the difference?

[JazzRemington]

and 3) libertarians are psychos and their "philosophy" doesn't make sense.

not actually an argument.

I didn't intend it to be. Libertarian philosophy is just fucking stupid.


Then how are the philosophies of communism and libertarianism integrated?

In the past, libertarian was basically synonymous with anarchism. The French anarchists in the 19th century called themselves "libertarians" because of the governmental ban on using the word "anarchism" or anything the like. The word survives in its original meaning up until the 1960s, when in the US Capitalists took hold of the word and turned it into basically a minimal Stat, free market ideology. The joke is that while many Right Libertarians (as they are called) admit that they get the word from anarchists, what they refuse to acknowledge is that the word was used by an anarchist-communist in a letter to Proudhon in the mid 1800s.

But most of the world outside the US understand "libertarian" as "anarchist." Thus, when someone says they are a "libertarian communist," they can just as well say "anarchist communist."

[An archist]

Most libertarians want just the essence of a state, they want a police force, a justice system and a fireforce.
But since they are opposed to taxes, they say that the people who need those services should pay for them out of their own pocket. It's not really hard to see the faults in such a system.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

The libertarian word has two styles. The ones on the right [think Libertarian Party of America] are vehemently pro-capitalist and are more utopian than any communist that I know of. That, or they're comfortable enough to not care what happens to everyone else. Adam Smith would roll over in his grave if he heard their wants.

The libertarians on the left are, I would say, represented fairly on RevLeft. Most socialists, anarchists, Marxists, communists, mutualists, and so on wish to achieve local communities functioning to the best of their abilities at the lowest level. We don't want the State telling us what to do with our free time and body.

I find libertarian capitalism an example of quasi-irony. The most anti-libertarian unit that exists today is a global corporation.

[Demogorgon]

I don't think there is much to reconcile our point of view with that of capitalism's most enthusiastic defenders.

[TheGhostOfTomJoad]

Excellent, thanks for these great replies. I had no idea that the word libertarian was derived from anarchists. My final question on this topic would have to be, 'what is the difference between a communist and a libertarian-communist'. As I said, what I've read on the top so far just sounds like unadulterated marxism. Thanks all for your time.

[LSD]

Libertarianism is a house of cards, but it's a very neatly organized house of cards which, if you accept its premises, actually makes a lot of sense.

Like with primitivism, you have to attack the practical results that enacting their theory would produce.

Actually, libertarianism shares a lot with primitivism. In fact it's actually kind of half-hearted primitivism, an attempt to undo 7000 years of civilization without actually giving up all the stuff we've gotten out of it. It's a hypocritical and deeply confused ideology and one with absolutely no shot of ever manifesting in a real sense ...but it does read well.

And, in the end, that's what libertarianism's really got going for it, brilliant marketing. Its theoretical vapidity is masked by the emotional chord that it so carefully strikes.

Rightists are "religious gaybashing warmongers", leftists are "big government treehuggers", libertarians are ...neither.

We've all gotten so used to thinking in caricatures that any model which defies them, even superficially, comes across as iconoclastic. But libertarianism doesn't smash any idols, it just lines them up differently so you don't notice nothing's changed.

So the way to discredit it isn't to attack the words it uses -- that kind of terminological battle can only take you so far. You have to reveal the ideology for the sham that it is.

And, again, the best way to do that is to reveal the absurdities that would occur should libertarianism ever manifest, the simpler the better.

And when it comes to "freedom", just remind people that they don't want absolute freedom. Absolute freedom would leave the friendly rapist down the street free to molest and strangle them in their sleep.

Most people intuitively realize that the government (as bad as it is) is not responsible for all their woes and that letting rich people do whatever they want it not a particularly good idea.

All you've got to do is wipe away all the gloss and the glaring impracticality of the ideology speaks for itself.


My final question on this topic would have to be, 'what is the difference between a communist and a libertarian-communist'

The difference between libertarian strains of communism and more self-described "Marxist" ones is one of method, not ideology.

Both developed out of Marx's analysis of capitalism and economics and so both aim to create a state-less classless society, the disagreement is in how best to attain it.

Classical communists (Marxists, Marxist-Leninists, Trotskyists, Maoists) believe that in order to achieve a communist society, a transitional "socialist" state is required first. This state will serve as an intermediate period durring which the society can transition to a more communal way of working, thinking, and operating.

Theoretically, this state is supposed to operate on the principle of the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", meaning that, ideally, all workers, and eventually all people will participate in decision making in the transitional state. Unfortunately, every time this has been attempted this transitional state has been run by authoritarian party establishments that largely ignore the wishes of the general population.

Anarchism, by contrast, contends that a classless, stateless society can be created immediately following the revolution without the need for a transitional state. Anarchists do not claim that this change will be instantaneous but that while some adjustment time will no doubt be needed, our intention from the begining must the elimination of all coercive state and class institutions, not, as classical communists would propose, to use them for our purpose.

Anarchists believe that the institution of the state, ultimately, is reactionary in and of itself and cannot be used to further progressive means. It must, rather, be destroyed alltogether at the earliest possible time.

Within Anarchism are subsets such as Anarcho-Syndicalism and Anarcho-Collectivism which generally agree on the final goal but disagree as to the best method of achieving it. Personally, I'm an Anarcho-Syndicalist, but many on this board are Anarcho-Communists.

There are also various non-Marxist and even non-class-war strains of Anarchism, but those are aberrations and not a significant part of the mainstream Anarchist movement.

Generally Anarchists tend to agree with each other on all but minor issues and almost universally work with one another for common goals.

Marxism, and especialy Leninism, meanwhile has a much greater history of division, fractionalization, and even intersectional violence.

That's not to say that Anarachists can't be violent, but Leninism has far more blood on its hand. Again, that's largely because as a fundamentally statist ideology, it nescessitates the centralization of power and the crushing of dissent.

So while, at its core, the ideological difference between Anarchism and Marxism (Leninism) is one of method, the practical manifestation of that difference can be incredibly significant.

There's a reason, after all, that Mao and Stalin and Pol Pot all emerged from the Leninist school of Marxism. The fundamental danger of any centralizing power is that it rellies on the good intentions of those in the centre.

Anarchists aren't that trusting.

[Floyce White]

The word "libertarian" is bait. It conveys no meaning. The idea is that its supposed advocate is accusing someone else of being a "totalitarian."

There is no such thing as a movement for "totalitarian communism" with advocates who call themselves "totalitarian communists." No socio-economic system exists by that name. No one ever wrote a theory called "totalitarian communism." Therefore, its alternative is as phoney as the booger man it is supposed to replace.

"Libertarian communism" versus "totalitarian communism" is a false dilemma. Use it, and you will arrive at false conclusions.

[Janus]

Libertarianism (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65849&hl=libertarian*)
libertarianism (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=60886&hl=libertarian*)
libertarianism (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=68386&hl=libertarian*)
anarcho-capitalism (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=58398&hl=libertarianism)
anarcho-capitalism (http://http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=63540&hl=anarcho-capitalism)


what is the difference between a communist and a libertarian-communist
That depends on what exactly you mean by "communist". Assuming that you're referring to Marxists, then the main differences arise out of different conceptions/views on the state and various aspects of organization.

See these threads for more discussion:
Marxism vs. anarchism (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=47662&hl=+Marxism++anarchism)
Anarchist/Marxist distinction (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=69364&hl=+Marxism++anarchism)
differences (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=67013&hl=+Marxism++anarchism)
anarchism vs. communism (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=47668&hl=+Marxism++anarchism)
anarchism vs. communism (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=60669&hl=+Marxism++anarchism)

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by Floyce [email protected] 16, 2007 01:21 am
The word "libertarian" is bait. It conveys no meaning. The idea is that its supposed advocate is accusing someone else of being a "totalitarian."

There is no such thing as a movement for "totalitarian communism" with advocates who call themselves "totalitarian communists." No socio-economic system exists by that name. No one ever wrote a theory called "totalitarian communism." Therefore, its alternative is as phoney as the booger man it is supposed to replace.

"Libertarian communism" versus "totalitarian communism" is a false dilemma. Use it, and you will arrive at false conclusions.
true but generally people who call themselves libertarian Communists believe that Leninist type Communism was totalitarian and are thus against that, not that Leninists think that they are totalitarian.

[manic expression]

Libertarians want the world to revolve around private property.

We want to abolish it.

(I assume we're not talking about libertarian socialists)

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

"Libertarian" Capitalists do not stand for liberty at all.

They only go half way- they acknowledge the abuses and hierarchies of the state, but they deny that capitalism commits just as many abuses and is just as authoritarian a system.

Under their system, it would be liberty for a very small number of people and servitude for everyone else.

[syndicat]

The word "libertarian" was originally a euphemism or vaguer way of referring to a section of the anti-capitalist Left which was opposed to viewing the state as a means to the liberation of the working class i.e. to attain a society without class oppression. after the defeat of the most important libertarian Left mass movement in Spain in the '30s, the libertarian Left greatly diminished and lost visibility. in the '50s and '60s advocates of unrestricted laissez faire capitalism decided, opportunistically, to move in and capture the word "libertarian" for their own view.

"libertarian" literally means "an advocate of liberty." so one way to understand the difference is to ask, Whose liberty are they concerned with? the right "libertarians" are concerned with maximum liberty for capitalists, property owners, bosses, landlords. The libertarian Left is concerned with the liberty of the working class and the oppressed in general.

in the ideology of the "libertarian" Right, for example, workers are free under capitalism because you have the legal right to quit your job and seek some other. This is a completely poverty-stricken concept of liberty. By this definition, people in Russia and Germany in the '30s were "free" as long as they could emigrate to some other country.

The libertarian Left, on the other hand, tends to think of liberty in terms of self-management, of actually controlling your life. Actions to prevent discrimination by employers enhance the liberty of those discriminated against, but the "libertarian" Right are opposed because they are a restriction on the liberty of employers, or, as they would say, a restriction on "free contract". By "free contract" they mean that employers should be able to use the maximum advantage their ownership of the means of production gives them to force workers to accept whatever they say.

from the point of view of the libertarian Left capitalism is a system of oppression that denies to the majority control over our lives. to the "libertarian" right capitalism is a wonderful thing.

[Djehuti]

This i like THE most fitting discription of libertarians ever:
http://www.electrical.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=28979 :D