Class analysis of libertarianism

[Dimentio]

Do you not believe it could be possible that libertarianism is a theory winning support of the petty-bourgeoisie, i.e "middle class" people who are often self-employed and constantly threatened to fall down into the proletariat again? It is basically the same people who risk to fall for fascism.

Libertarianism is a growing ideology in the US and in the Anglo-Saxon world, and therefore, I think that a social analysis of it is necessary in order to being able to combat it.

[Enragé]

you're talking of right-wing libertarianism i hope?

[Luís Henrique]

Yes, it definitely looks like the American equivalent of feudal socialism; the feudal socialism of a society that never experimented feudalism, and to which the word "socialism" is anathema.

Luís Henrique

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 04:37 pm
you're talking of right-wing libertarianism i hope?
Yes, of course.

[Robespierre2.0]

It's a fad ideology espoused by yuppies and elderly college professors. Unfortunately, a lot of potential socialists are turned onto it because of above yuppies and college professors.

The problem is, a lot of young proletarians in America have no idea about economics, but dislike stuff like censorship and the drug war, so they end up associating Republicans and Democrats with oppression. They like the idea of communism, but American propaganda tells them that it is utopian and unattainable.

Then they meet a libertarian, who tells them that government has always been the source of every problem, and that if there were as little government as possible, everyone would have the chance to get rich if they worked hard enough. They say, "Oh, this is exactly what the founding fathers would have wanted"- and the proletarian, disgusted by the current state of American politics, begins to associate everything good with the constitution and the rich white men that wrote it.

From then on, the seed of libertarianism grows, turning the potentially left-wing youth into a randroid.

Luckily, sometimes getting a job, and experiencing exploitation firsthand can destroy the libertarian illusions, as it did in me, but I'm sure some still cling to it, hoping that eventually they'll eventually become a CEO if they work hard bagging groceries.

[Axel1917]

I would not worry about libertarianism, given the fact that it is an internet only phenomenon. Very few are active in the real world, and no one will ever listen to them, even the bourgeoisie. I have noticed that the most ardent supporters of capitalism are often the ones that know the least about it, and libertarians are definitely proof of this.

The petty-bourgeoisie is also not nearly as big as it was in the earlier part of the 20th Century, so the social basis for fascism has been eroded away by the development of capitalism, i.e. in this case an aspect being fewer and fewer big corporations dominating the scene, wiping out the petty-bourgeois shops that get in their way.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by Marxosaurus [email protected] 24, 2007 12:19 pm
It's a fad ideology espoused by yuppies and elderly college professors. Unfortunately, a lot of potential socialists are turned onto it because of above yuppies and college professors.

The problem is, a lot of young proletarians in America have no idea about economics, but dislike stuff like censorship and the drug war, so they end up associating Republicans and Democrats with oppression. They like the idea of communism, but American propaganda tells them that it is utopian and unattainable.

Then they meet a libertarian, who tells them that government has always been the source of every problem, and that if there were as little government as possible, everyone would have the chance to get rich if they worked hard enough. They say, "Oh, this is exactly what the founding fathers would have wanted"- and the proletarian, disgusted by the current state of American politics, begins to associate everything good with the constitution and the rich white men that wrote it.

From then on, the seed of libertarianism grows, turning the potentially left-wing youth into a randroid.

Luckily, sometimes getting a job, and experiencing exploitation firsthand can destroy the libertarian illusions, as it did in me, but I'm sure some still cling to it, hoping that eventually they'll eventually become a CEO if they work hard bagging groceries.
Unfortunately, what happens in American society is proletarians end up brainwashed into believing that someday class relations will change and eventually they will "work their way to the bourgeoisie" that doesn't happen. Proletarians are led to believe that the shitty wages and exploitation will diminish, but it never does--- though somehow Libertarianism provides this illusion-- that someday it will change. But the conditions they live under don't change, they just become blind sheep, following the leader-- believing that libertarianism is different from the bourgeois lies the democrats and republicans throw at the entire working-class. And since in American society communism is represented to be some kind of unattainable fantasy and surreal perspective, libertarianism become the alternative to the democrat/republican parties. the exploitation doesn't diminish, but their satisfaction lies with the idea the libertarians choose to throw at them- lies about communism, this, that-- it leads the proletariat to follow along with some kind of false conception that someday all the exploitation in capitalist society will somehow disappear-- but it doesn't, libertarians just come up with excuses for it.

it's just like the bullshit that is being thrown around right now about hillary clinton being a Leninist--- :rolleyes: that's how the bourgeois parties throw mud at each other to convince their blind sheep to follow their lead-- line up in a row behind them and believe it will change-- but in the end it is all the same bourgeois bullshit, all lies, none of them different from the other-- but yet they see it to be different-- that's what's wrong with American society.

[Marsella]

The petty-bourgeoisie is also not nearly as big as it was in the earlier part of the 20th Century, so the social basis for fascism has been eroded away by the development of capitalism, i.e. in this case an aspect being fewer and fewer big corporations dominating the scene, wiping out the petty-bourgeois shops that get in their way.

Axel1917, do you have any statistics which show the level of the petty-bourgeoisie shrinking as a result of capitalist monopolies. I would appreciate it.

As for the class analysis of libertarianism, it is pretty clear whom it serves.

'Keep the government out of our lives and pockets.'

They fundamentally stand for lower taxes.

Some liberation.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 05:44 pm

The petty-bourgeoisie is also not nearly as big as it was in the earlier part of the 20th Century, so the social basis for fascism has been eroded away by the development of capitalism, i.e. in this case an aspect being fewer and fewer big corporations dominating the scene, wiping out the petty-bourgeois shops that get in their way.

Axel1917, do you have any statistics which show the level of the petty-bourgeoisie shrinking as a result of capitalist monopolies. I would appreciate it.

As for the class analysis of libertarianism, it is pretty clear whom it serves.

'Keep the government out of our lives and pockets.'

They fundamentally stand for lower taxes.

Some liberation.
Not at the moment, but it is common knowledge that multinationals and other such huge corporations are increasing in size while all kinds of petty-bourgeois shops are not as common as they used to be. It is very common for petty-bourgeois ideologists to complain about how Wal Mart is squashing all of the "Mom and Pop" shops, for instance.

The MIA Encyclopedia of Marxism even states this:


Petty-bourgeois

1) The class of small proprietors (for example, owners of small stores), and general handicrafts people of various types.

This group has been disappearing since the industrial revolution, as large factories or retail outlets can produce and distribute commodities faster, better, and for a cheaper price than the small proprietors. While this class is most abundant in the least industrialized regions of the world, only dwindling remnants remain in more industrialized areas.

These people are the foundation of the capitalist dream (aka “the American dream”): to start a small buisness and expand it into an empire. Much of capitalist growth and development comes from these people, while at the same time capitalism stamps out these people more and more with bigger and better industries that no small proprieter can compete against. Thus for the past few decades in the U.S., petty-bourgeois are given an enourmous variety of incentives, tax breaks, grants, loans, and ways to escape unscathed from a failed business.

2) Also refers to the growing group of workers whose function is management of the bourgeois apparatus. These workers do not produce commodities, but instead manage the production, distribution, and/or exchange of commodities and/or services owned by their bourgeois employers.

While these workers are a part of the working class because they receive a wage and their livelihood is dependent on that wage, they are separated from working class consciousness because they have day-to-day control, but not ownership, over the means of production, distribution, and exchange.

[blackstone]

If it's common knowledge then surely there must be some statistics. You just can't brush something off as "common knowledge" when trying to perform a critical analysis of the makeup of current society.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 12:48 pm
Not at the moment, but it is common knowledge that multinationals and other such huge corporations are increasing in size while all kinds of petty-bourgeois shops are not as common as they used to be. It is very common for petty-bourgeois ideologists to complain about how Wal Mart is squashing all of the "Mom and Pop" shops, for instance.
yes, because they fail to see a larger picture and come to the realization that the problem exists because of the bourgeois controlled state apparatus and the ruling class's control of industry and the modes of production.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 24, 2007 09:43 am
Yes, it definitely looks like the American equivalent of feudal socialism; the feudal socialism of a society that never experimented feudalism, and to which the word "socialism" is anathema.

Luís Henrique
In what ways, specifically? :huh:

I don't see how right-wing libertarianism can curb Big Business influence and restore the "paradise" of small businesses everywhere. Not much is said about community values, either.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by Hammer+October 24, 2007 06:43 pm--> (Hammer @ October 24, 2007 06:43 pm)
Luís [email protected] 24, 2007 09:43 am
Yes, it definitely looks like the American equivalent of feudal socialism; the feudal socialism of a society that never experimented feudalism, and to which the word "socialism" is anathema.

Luís Henrique
In what ways, specifically? :huh:

I don't see how right-wing libertarianism can curb Big Business influence and restore the "paradise" of small businesses everywhere. Not much is said about community values, either. [/b]
libertarians do a lot of talking but there is little relation to what they speak of and practice, and of course what actually is even relevant in the least way.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 10:35 am
The petty-bourgeoisie is also not nearly as big as it was in the earlier part of the 20th Century, so the social basis for fascism has been eroded away by the development of capitalism, i.e. in this case an aspect being fewer and fewer big corporations dominating the scene, wiping out the petty-bourgeois shops that get in their way.
Um, I must contest your statement here: the number of small businesses is actually increasing (just as Lenin acknowledged the possibility of such) within the overall hourglass (the phenomenon of "the shrinking middle"), and then there are the managers, as the site you quoted mentioned.

My definition of "small business" is expanded from mere mom-and-pop shops to small corporations (which may or may not be publicly traded). There are also credit unions, which aren't "mom-and-pop" operations.

[Marsella]

Um, I must contest your statement here: the number of small businesses is actually increasing (just as Lenin acknowledged the possibility of such) within the overall hourglass (the phenomenon of "the shrinking middle"), and then there are the managers, as the site you quoted mentioned.

Exactly why I asked for statistics to prove such.

[RGacky3]

Of coarse, you could always, take Libertarianism, and take the message of "keep the Government out of our lives" and mix it with "Keep the Capitalists out too".

[syndicat]

the class of small business owners is only about 6% of the population in the USA, according to economist Howard Sherman. this includes small farmers who were a huge proportion of the population in the 1800s but very small today.

the class of managers and top professionals who shape corporate and state policy and carry out supervision of workers are a different class altogether since their class position isn't based on ownership of a business. their power derives from relative monopolization of decision-making authority and other key forms of expertise in the running of corporations and the state. this class is from 2 to 3 times the size of the petit bourgeoisie.

[Spasiba]

It's my thought that Libertarianism cannot exist in this or any capitalist society because power will just stay with those who have it and grow, just making the elite more so, and putting us proletarians further down on the ladder of power. It sounds cool to people because they hear about there being less government and to them that can't go wrong, but they don't realize that losing any government interference in the market just takes power away from the common man and give more power to corporations. Meaning, we lose money, the elite gains more than it already is.
I heard it put best as "Libertarianism is just Anarchy for rich people"

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 04:55 am
the class of small business owners is only about 6% of the population in the USA, according to economist Howard Sherman. this includes small farmers who were a huge proportion of the population in the 1800s but very small today.

the class of managers and top professionals who shape corporate and state policy and carry out supervision of workers are a different class altogether since their class position isn't based on ownership of a business. their power derives from relative monopolization of decision-making authority and other key forms of expertise in the running of corporations and the state. this class is from 2 to 3 times the size of the petit bourgeoisie.
And 6% is obviously much smaller than the petty-bourgeoisie were when Trotsky made his analysis when Fascism was arising. And do you really think that MIA made that fact up about the shrinking petty-bourgeoisie?

I am currently having a hard time finding statistics at the moment, as the internet is extremely unreliable and most results are just tips for small businesses.

[Dimentio]

Libertarianism is popular within a class of young "nerds" (a growing segment of a generally shrinking petty-bourgeoisie) who are often self-employed and therefore does not earn on the corporate benefits given to the big companies. Therefore, they want a redistribution of wealth to themselves.

[MarxSchmarx]

Libertarianism is popular within a class of young "nerds" (a growing segment of a generally shrinking petty-bourgeoisie) who are often self-employed and therefore does not earn on the corporate benefits given to the big companies. Therefore, they want a redistribution of wealth to themselves.

I doubt it's that simple. Indeed, I don't think being in small business is the cause of these people being "libertarian" (is it too pc to insist this be in quotation marks?).

Instead, I think they have been socialized through a complex chain of causation and influences to believe:
(1) I'm better than everyone else,
(2) Inspite of my awesome privilege, I worked my ass of to be where I'm at, and
(3) I have contempt for the sheep in traditional institutions such as the church.

This outlook causes them to be "libertarians" AND causes them to be nerdy small business owners. Both are effects, neither is the cause of the other.

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by Serpent+October 24, 2007 04:51 pm--> (Serpent @ October 24, 2007 04:51 pm)
[email protected] 24, 2007 04:37 pm
you're talking of right-wing libertarianism i hope?
Yes, of course. [/b]
It shouldn't be of course. Anarchists invented that word we used it long before these people and still do as do libertarian Marxists, we should not surrender it to these people.

I impeach you and everyone here to always put rightwing or American style before it.

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 10:05 pm

And 6% is obviously much smaller than the petty-bourgeoisie were when Trotsky made his analysis when Fascism was arising. And do you really think that MIA made that fact up about the shrinking petty-bourgeoisie?

I am currently having a hard time finding statistics at the moment, as the internet is extremely unreliable and most results are just tips for small businesses.
Looking at Germany I think what was called the Neue Mittelstand, made up of tradespeople, artisans, shop assistants, lower levels of civil service, small farmers and clerks, was about 40-45% of the population.

That figure may actually outnumber the proletariat.

[Dimentio]

The prpblems with libertarianism is that it is a growing movement on the web. Since the importance of the web is increasing, there is a risk for a potential breakthrough in the mainstream as well.

Just like islamism was scoffed at 30 years ago by the left...

[lvleph]

Originally posted by Marxosaurus [email protected] 24, 2007 05:19 pm
It's a fad ideology espoused by yuppies and elderly college professors. Unfortunately, a lot of potential socialists are turned onto it because of above yuppies and college professors.

The problem is, a lot of young proletarians in America have no idea about economics, but dislike stuff like censorship and the drug war, so they end up associating Republicans and Democrats with oppression. They like the idea of communism, but American propaganda tells them that it is utopian and unattainable.

Then they meet a libertarian, who tells them that government has always been the source of every problem, and that if there were as little government as possible, everyone would have the chance to get rich if they worked hard enough. They say, "Oh, this is exactly what the founding fathers would have wanted"- and the proletarian, disgusted by the current state of American politics, begins to associate everything good with the constitution and the rich white men that wrote it.

From then on, the seed of libertarianism grows, turning the potentially left-wing youth into a randroid.

Luckily, sometimes getting a job, and experiencing exploitation firsthand can destroy the libertarian illusions, as it did in me, but I'm sure some still cling to it, hoping that eventually they'll eventually become a CEO if they work hard bagging groceries.
When I was at University, a libertarian had me take one of their political compass quizzes. At the end they graded it and said, "hey it looks like you are a libertarian." I quickly replied and said, "no, I am an anarchist." They replied, "they are closely related." I of course went off about how they were truly nothing alike and that libertarians were full of it.

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 12:43 pm
When I was at University, a libertarian had me take one of their political compass quizzes. At the end they graded it and said, "hey it looks like you are a libertarian." I quickly replied and said, "no, I am an anarchist." They replied, "they are closely related." I of course went off about how they were truly nothing alike and that libertarians were full of it.
Anarchism and libertarianism are the same thing. These people just don't know what libertarianism is and are trying to steal our word.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

this includes small farmers who were a huge proportion of the population in the 1800s but very small today.

Very small, but also very important. A revolution won't last too long without food.


the class of managers and top professionals who shape corporate and state policy and carry out supervision of workers are a different class altogether since their class position isn't based on ownership of a business. their power derives from relative monopolization of decision-making authority and other key forms of expertise in the running of corporations and the state. this class is from 2 to 3 times the size of the petit bourgeoisie.

I don't know why you insist on promoting this falsehood. Managers are petty-bourgeoisie. Just because they don't own small shops doesn't mean they don't belong to the petty-bourgeoisie. In fact, the growth of these managers while the number of shop owners continues to shrink is exactly what Marx predicted would happen with this class:

"In countries where modern civilisation has become fully developed, a new class of petty bourgeois has been formed, fluctuating between proletariat and bourgeoisie, and ever renewing itself as a supplementary part of bourgeois society. The individual members of this class, however, are being constantly hurled down into the proletariat by the action of competition, and, as modern industry develops, they even see the moment approaching when they will completely disappear as an independent section of modern society, to be replaced in manufactures, agriculture and commerce, by overlookers, bailiffs and shopmen." - The Communist Manifesto