Libertarianism

[Spasiba]

Ok, IDK if this belongs here, but it's my THEORY so fuck it, I'm running with this.

To me it seems that libertarianism; as in Ron Paul, anarcho-capitalism, all that shit- is gaining popularity today in western first-world nations. I'm not sure if it's just an internet phenomenon but it really seems to be picking up popularity, and since everyone loves teh internets I can only see it growing. Many different people, sites, etc seem to take a libertarian-biased view of the world. Sites demonize the government as being a great evil that sucks people dry of their hard-earned money, Ron Paul has created a large fan base that worships the individual and free-market, laissez-faire capitalism, and it seems to be of the general opinion that people see the government as being the problem today. The solution of course is to get rid of it or minimalize it so that everyone can be rich and happy.
Now this is all fucking bullshit, but it sounds so damn good cuz everyone wants money and think they can hit it big if it weren't for that darned government, and big-businesses love it too since laws inhibit their desire to break the backs of their workers that could be generating more dough. That's a problem. People with money are the ones with power and can spread this little theory like wild-fire, and Ron Paultards continue this. It sounds great and thats the problem, if people realized we tried this before and we call it the 19th century maybe they'd change their minds. The whole working your hands to the bone had a more realistic meaning then. But no. Money money god-damned-fucking money is all people want and regulations stop that. So what do libertarians do? They just get down on their knees and blow the living fuck out of the idea of the individual until its bone-dry, roll over and fuck the brains out of capitalist theory, then take another slice of the aphrodisiac Ron Paul and repeat. And the people eat it up like money shredded into sprinkles on top of gold-flavored ice cream.
It's this theory, this peculiar first-world, western phenomenom that I think is going to gain steam and become a dominant force in the 21st century. It is being sold to the masses and will continue to be done as it will be funded by the elite and people with tons of posts on forums, as well as chain-mail letters detailing how the government wants your brains. Now, don't get me wrong, the government sucks, obviously, thats why I'm here, and its the result of its bad ruling that this thing is growing, but it were effectively run, a la leftist-theory, we wouldn't have this *****ing.
So yeah, thats my theory, libertarianism will grow this century, unfortunately, but on the bright side, but take this darkly, it will bring capitalism back to its worst days, creating an even smaller, richer elite, with the masses of workers being alienated from it all as a few people are uninhibated in their goals to achieve more wealth, and I hope that will brew revolution. The problem though is that if they keep selling it and dumbing us down, the people will still believe they can 'make it big time' and perpetuate the fucked up system. Imperialism will be done not with guns but with smiling faces, a.k.a. Wal-Mart going out getting Asians and Africans jobs. Yay! They have jobs! Go capitalism! Of course they're paid shit, as they are now, but who's stopping them? And the 1st world masses will continue consuming this crap, as they have been, and believe that the charities will solve it all. That American Idol hosted events and Wal-Mart's good will missions will bring all the people of the world food and shelter. Bullshit, but thats what they make it out to be. They will only give a few scraps of food people have donated via a few pennies a day, but will spend more money advertising how nice they are and padding their pockets some more as business soars since people will flock to these people-friendly businesses. Same thing with the environment really. We will find ourselves, humans, running ourselves into the ground as we exploit this world for all its worth, and we'll do it with shining faces and full-stomachs, and we wouldn't have it any other way, and there will be nothing there to stop the businesses from caring it on.
Ok, yeah, apocolyptic-ish, but I hope you get my point.
Countering it with increasing class-consciousness and that this system can not work any miracles may help, but idk how to go about doing that.

Your thoughts?

:lol:-> thats for you if you actually read this. A shameless rant, and I apologize, but I feel it needed to be said.

[Os Cangaceiros]

This probably belongs in Opposing Ideologies, as it concerns the non-leftist philosophy of American capitalist libertarianism.

[RHIZOMES]

Most capitalist economists think absolutely no intervention in the economy is idiotic too. What would stop oil companies colluding with each other to raise the price of gas to a ridiculous amount, or a company doing other anti-competitive things, if there was no government regulation? Ayn Randites and Paultards are morons who are taken in by internet viral marketing campaigns.

[Luís Henrique]

This probably belongs in Opposing Ideologies, as it concerns the non-leftist philosophy of American capitalist libertarianism.

I am keeping it here, because I believe it is time that we have a serious discussion about "libertarianism".

Which means, I am proposing that we do not discuss here whether "libertarianism" is wrong, or why. Instead, it would be useful for us to discuss:

1. how really strong it is, and where;
2. can it get really strong, to the point of winning elections or directing coups;
3. why it is, or isn't strong;
4. why it poses, or does not pose, a real threat to us;
5. what kind of interests does it represent;
6. what kind of relations should the left have with them.

Luís Henrique

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Liberalism is extremely strong universally, I would assume. At least in the West as a whole. All North American politicians who achieve any kind of success are forced to make rhetorical concessions to the ideology, even though they all betray it in some way or another. Those who are stupid, ignorant, and politically unexperienced enough to demand strict liberal policies from the government and to believe that it's possible in today's world do have some electoral power. The evidence being that all US candidates and politicians, like I said, claim to support a "small" government, lower taxes, limited interference in local and international politics, etc.
It poses mainly an ideological threat to us. It represents bourgeois interests and is supported by those who identify with bourgeois values. Our role should involve pointing out its many inconsistencies with democracy and workers' interests and also it's incompatibility with XXI century realpolitik.

[abbielives!]

I am keeping it here, because I believe it is time that we have a serious discussion about "libertarianism".



I agree. will come back to this later.

[mikelepore]

Luís Henrique -


1. how really strong it is, and where;

They have hundreds of thousands of members in the U.S. I encounter two primary types of members: (1) self-employed computer consultants who are under the mistaken impression that all workers have the option of earning their income only through short term contracts, that there isn't a single person who is dependent on a wage but didn't choose that life; (2) college age people who have never had jobs before and believe in such myths as "If I had a job, I could get a promotion and a raise at any time merely by reminding my employer how valuable I am", etc.


2. can it get really strong, to the point of winning elections or directing coups;

Politically, they are unsuccessful because as soon as they start saying their stupidest things (like how the streets should be privately owned, and someone who wants to walk down the street should have to negotiate with the owner over the price) most people realize instantly that the speaker is a total crackpot.

The Libertarian Party members I have known have tended to be sympathetic to the right-wing militia movement, the kind of people who blew up the federal office building in Oklahoma City. They are too extreme for the public to take them seriously.


3. why it is, or isn't strong;

It will never be strong because there is no segment of the population whose interests they represent. Neither workers nor capitalists want early 19th century style laissez faire capitalism.


4. why it poses, or does not pose, a real threat to us;

The main damage they do is the confusion they generate by calling wage slavery "liberty." Socialists need to be very loud about the fact that the word "libertarian" literally means "advocate of liberty", and therefore socialists are the true libertarians.


5. what kind of interests does it represent;

People with an idealist conception of freedom, for example, the belief that every lesser-evil choice is a completely free choice, or the belief that people have the power to do things even if it requires enabling means that they don't possess. The kind of person who would walk up to a homeless pauper and, in all seriousness, ask, "Why don't you just decide at once to become wealthy by starting a global corporation, like that person on the cover of Fortune magazine?"


6. what kind of relations should the left have with them.

If civil liberties coalitions are feasible, we might be able to cooperate with them in some instances to oppose censorship, defend privacy rights, oppose the imprisonment of people for victimless crimes.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I'm skeptical about the popularity, and solidarity, of right-libertarianism. Libertarianism is called the "Marxism of the right" for a reason: it's viewed as totally unrealistic naysaying done on part of young idealists. Objectivists and anarcho-capitalists squabble more often than not over trivial matters pertaining to whether Ayn Rand should be read or worshipped. I personally object to being compared to people who would rather see 80% of the world go to hell if it meant less taxes, but the impression Americans are left with after hearing such a colorful phrase suffices.

Our resident anarcho-capitalist DejaVu leaves quite an interesting impression. Permit me to commit a logical fallacy: it's interesting to watch someone who denotes his philosophy anarchism also claims to be a Neo-Confederate.

I view the Ron Paul (un)revolution as an expression of frustration. A lot of Paulties I've met didn't realize he was a fierce opponent of gay marriage and abortion rights. :rolleyes:

[abbielives!]

I am proposing that we do not discuss here whether "libertarianism" is wrong, or why. Instead, it would be useful for us to discuss:

1. how really strong it is, and where;
2. can it get really strong, to the point of winning elections or directing coups;
3. why it is, or isn't strong;
4. why it poses, or does not pose, a real threat to us;
5. what kind of interests does it represent;
6. what kind of relations should the left have with them.

Luís Henrique

It is not really very strong, very few of it's adherents would be willing to make sacrifices, we do need to build an ideolgical defense against it, particlarly it's historical revisionism. It will vanish with worsing material conditions(either due to economic or ecological causes) that doesn't mean they can't cause considerable inconviniace though. It's own non-agression principle prevents it from taking any serious action without violating there own philosphy. capitalist know which side their bread is buttered on so they won't back any serious 'libertarian' push. but like I said they do make interesting attacks and we do ned to be able to speak coherently when debating them (it is embrassing how many leftists break down stammering when debating them, most leftwing liturature does not deal with them) many have been indoctrinated within our educational system though economics classes (read: capitalist apologetics)

[lombas]

I'm interested in the thought of Rothbard and quite some earlier classical liberal thinkers and anarcho-capitalists (Bastiat, de Molinari, &c.). I find it is food for thought and also helps to better understand the idea of anarchy among a broad specter of persons.

However, I ám shocked sometimes by the people who call themselves libertarian. The clichés are real, I can assure you, I've been active in the libertarian movement of my area (Flanders-Netherlands) for over two years now.

It's not a really strong movement, but it is quite well organized, has a few international contacts, and some academic significance.

They respect me, as an anarchist with sympathies for quite left-wing interpretations of anarchy but also with left-libertarian (and Rothbardian) ideas, and are internally not as small minded as they appear to the outside world.

But again, the kind of people you meet may put you off.

[Rosa Provokateur]

The only good I see in the libertarian movement is that it could possibly become a starting point for getting people interested in anarchism. One example would be the Libertarian Party's stance against a border wall and its view that the state should have no say concerning abortion.

[Pro-Bami]

When libertarianism hits it big time, I guess capitalism will bring itself down. When wrong is being done to people they are more willing to do something about it than when it's all about debating in politics. I think there may be a socialist revolution when capitalism has created a small elite of extremely rich people who boss the 'normal' people around. People may realize that without an all controlling government we can easily live our lives and if we just boycot the huge companies that make us exploit ourselves we can have a more social society. The idea of social anarchism is something we will hear a lot from by that time. People will see that there is much more to life than working. I think this will work better than a socialist party that is trying to make this nation socialist in this democratic way.

[Comrade Krell]

Libertarianism is simply a political outgrowth of bourgeois property, nothing more.

[Spasiba]

1. how really strong it is, and where;
Well here on the interets it seems strong, but beyond that I can't say, but hopefully not too big.
2. can it get really strong, to the point of winning elections or directing coups;
This is what I fear, since I sense that since the online community is actually quite large, and its arguments dipped in sugar, that people will just eat it up and it will grow to that poing.
3. why it is, or isn't strong;
It has relatively simple answers to everything. Problem? Da Gubmit! And since we're in hard times... ok harderer times its attractive.
4. why it poses, or does not pose, a real threat to us;
It poses some threat as it is essentially anarcho-capitalist and against left ideaology, but some things, like the government getting out of social affairs and breaking down borders (at least to the extent of benefiting the rich) show at least a glimmer of what we want and could use.
5. what kind of interests does it represent;
The interests of the propertied elite. It maintains the image that everyone can go be an entreprenuer and make big money, but only if things are run on a libertarian line. And people love money.
6. what kind of relations should the left have with them.
They're annoying but not as directly violent as other reactionaries seem to be. For example, I don't see us marching down a street at each other. But if the tide shifts to their favor and this starts appealing to many people, then our way of thinking will be ridiculed even more than it is as we will be the ones 'hampering everyone becoming filthy stinkin rich"

Luís Henrique

Bump.

[AGITprop]

Free markets lead to monopolies.

The 'free' market is the stone age of capitalism.

Even if on Paul ever accomplishes any of his goals, it will not change the bankruptcy of capitalism.

Unions will still organize and the proletariat who is subject to the tyranny of the resulting monopolies will just have to overthrow it.

I've discussed with a libertarian before. He claimed to be for democracy. I convinced him that he would not be opposed to a majority of people being for a planned economy. He didn't really have many arguments against Marxism except "it can't work".

[Psy]

1. how really strong it is, and where;

It is not very strong, every on-line video of libertarian lectures are laughably small.



2. can it get really strong, to the point of winning elections or directing coups;
Doubt it, even the fascists have far more power then the libertarians.



3. why it is, or isn't strong;
The focus on the individual and vilifying collectives, it means even if they got many followers they would be so divided they couldn't really do anything.



4. why it poses, or does not pose, a real threat to us;
See above.



5. what kind of interests does it represent;
It is the childish idea that the world should revolve around them, they like 12 year olds throwing a temper tantrum because their mom is a meanie saying saying no to them.



6. what kind of relations should the left have with them.
Pretend they don't exist and hope they go away.

[Thíazì]

I'm interested in the thought of Rothbard and quite some earlier classical liberal thinkers and anarcho-capitalists (Bastiat, de Molinari, &c.). I find it is food for thought and also helps to better understand the idea of anarchy among a broad specter of persons.

However, I ám shocked sometimes by the people who call themselves libertarian. The clichés are real, I can assure you, I've been active in the libertarian movement of my area (Flanders-Netherlands) for over two years now.

It's not a really strong movement, but it is quite well organized, has a few international contacts, and some academic significance.

They respect me, as an anarchist with sympathies for quite left-wing interpretations of anarchy but also with left-libertarian (and Rothbardian) ideas, and are internally not as small minded as they appear to the outside world.

But again, the kind of people you meet may put you off.

This is sort of what I said in a thread in the "politics" section, then I just got attacked since the Libertarians aren't socialists. I said that they'd be best in reducing the actual size and scope of government, and if they had more electoral power it could further interest people in anarchism. The thread was about which political party could "save" the US, and although no party really could, I was just responding to the question as if it were: "If you HAD to chose...".

I'm glad that the Libertarians at least have the balls to advocate drug legalisation and open borders, though obviously there's internal debate in that party as to whether they should present themselves as liberal or conservative on issues like abortion. Some are for abortion rights and others are against, though the main platform is pro-abortion (I hate the labels pro-life and pro-choice; people who use these terms just seem to be dancing around the issue).

I guess what I'm saying is that they aren't all bad, and they're certainly not a threat as of now.

[Comrade Krell]

Libertarianism = propertied ideology. Enough said.

[ckaihatsu]

[...]Libertarian Party's stance against a border wall[...]


I'm very surprised to hear this -- my understanding is that libertarians are nationalists, and so they are opposed to NAFTA on the grounds that it usurps the sovereignty of the nation-state.... Can anyone clarify this?


---


I've been active for the past year or so around a local 9/11 Truth group in Chicago, which is primarily libertarian-based. I argue if the opportunity presents itself, which it did as someone got into it with me just recently, all in the month of May -- please see the list at the following link, and my bona fides are here:


post-9/11 anti-capitalist strategy

http://9-11.meetup.com/340/messages/2779152/


I noticed that in the wake of my argumentation with this libertarian the group released a list of quasi-positions, one of which is *very* interesting (the email itself is reproduced below):



* Lone Lantern is not pro or anti Capitalism.


In general they have a pack mentality -- even more than some liberal-left groups I've been around (!) <grin> -- in lieu of principled politics they see power as person-centric, so they act like nodes and play hand-off, irrespective of whatever political environments they're filtering through -- very Fight Club in composition....

They're not well-grounded within nationalist parameters -- they tend to follow the pendulum of nationalist politics, so, I agree, their arguments are *very* weak since their ideological base is always shifting.

(As a reference, please see):

Ideologies & Operations
http://tinyurl.com/yqotq9


Chris




--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u








From: Rich
Sent on: Thursday, May 8 at 12:41 AM
Folks,

I apologize for the delay on these minutes!

We had about 10 people in attendance at the Fixx coffee bar. The crowdedness of this place on Saturday nights is becoming a concern, and we may have to find another place to meet for our next meeting.

These were the topics that were discussed:

1. For our '11th of Every Month' street action for 9/11 Truth this month, we will be meeting in front of the Art Institute on Michigan Avenue from 1pm-3pm-ish this Sunday, May 11th. We will be distributing our Triple Threat dvds (9/11 Mysteries, America: Freedom to Fascism, One Nation Under Seige), as well as our flyers for the upcoming Richard Gage event this May 30th.

***Please print and bring as many of the Richard Gage flyers as you possibly can! They can be found at www.meetup.lonelantern.org ***

2. Green Festival updates: Lone Lantern will have their own booth, and it will be all things 9/11 TRUTH. Saturday, May 17th, 10am-8pm; Sunday, May 18th, 11am-6pm. We have 20 one-day passes available for the group, and there may be some spots available to volunteer to work the booth.

Email Beth Srigley if you are interested in a one-day pass or possibly volunteering to work the booth either day: [address removed]. Visit: http://www.greenfestivals.org/content/view/230/200/ for all the details about the event.

3. Richard Gage event updates: Any ideas for radio interview?? Please email Rich: [address removed].
Richard Gage likes to do radio interviews the week before a speaker event.

Can you think of any public figure (i.e. Margaret Cho, Ed Asner, Charlie Sheen type people..) who may be in town and willing to make an appearance at the Richard Gage event? Email Rich: [address removed].

4. Rev March - July 12th, Washington D.C. Please email Jessica: [address removed] for all the details and if you are interested in attending and/or organizing this event.

5. May 26th - We may be holding another 9/11 Truth street action in conjunction with various other 9/11 Truth street actions throughout the country. We are tentatively planning on holding this one at Barack Obama's office downtown Chicago. This would be another great place to distribute our Richard Gage flyers.


A couple side notes:

* Lone Lantern is supportive of any politician who has been or is seriously willing to deal with issues such as 9/11 Truth, the NAU, preserving our Constitution, preserving our civil liberties, and repealing the Bush program.

* Lone Lantern does not support any particular candidate or politician in general.

* Lone Lantern is non-partisan as a whole.

* Lone Lantern is not pro or anti Capitalism.

* Lone Lantern is not limited to the issue of 9/11 Truth.

* Lone Lantern will continue to take advantage of any event, regardless of what party it may be affiliated with, to further it's agenda of public awareness of issues including but not limited to 9/11 Truth.

* Being civil and respectful to one another is important during discussions with each other, and if that line is crossed, we ask you to then respect the requests of the organizers.


We hope to see you all this Sunday!

All the best.

-Rich

http://9-11.meetup.com/340/messages/2841490/

[Os Cangaceiros]

I'm very surprised to hear this -- my understanding is that libertarians are nationalists, and so they are opposed to NAFTA on the grounds that it usurps the sovereignty of the nation-state.... Can anyone clarify this?

No, I'd say that that would be more of a protectionist paleoconservative train of thought. They're usually the ones who are most vocal about "protecting American jobs". Most of the libertarians I've met are very much for free trade.

[Dimentio]

To create libertarianism in a developed capitalist economy would require repression. ;)

[ckaihatsu]

No, I'd say that that would be more of a protectionist paleoconservative train of thought. They're usually the ones who are most vocal about "protecting American jobs". Most of the libertarians I've met are very much for free trade.


Okay, thanks -- it's too bad that many labor unionists get sucked into that protectionist crap, too.... And the 'free trade' stuff is only because it benefits U.S. hegemony -- if it weren't for the continuing dominance of the U.S. economy, especially in North and South America, *and* the government bailouts of the financial sector, you wouldn't hear that mantra at all.... If one only goes by the libertarian p.r. stuff you'd think they never ever turned to the business section of a newspaper...!



To create libertarianism in a developed capitalist economy would require repression. ;)


Yeah, to hypothetically 'turn back the clock' to pre-corporation days would require the state to knock down mid- and large-sized businesses, which it would have no base of support to do. I keep trying to tell these libertarian types that the lobby industry is very powerful, and dominated by corporate / business interests, but they don't fucking listen. They act as if there's a steel wall between economics and politics, and there sure ain't....

So maybe that's their boogeyman -- they fear the police apparatus of the state because deep down they'd like to see it used to repress large-scale corporations in favor of small-scale businesses, but they know it's impossible, so they act like Chicken Littles, saying that the state is about to get them ("America Freedom to Fascism"), when that's *very* far from the truth. I mentioned that Pakistan JUST HAD martial law only a few months ago, and that the U.S. is nowhere near there, but do they fucking listen? -- nooooooooooo....

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I'm worried about the fact that several comrades in this topic seem to think that libertarianism is not a threat just because it is far from achieving any kind of political power. Well, fascists are also far from gaining political power anywhere, but does that mean they are not a threat, or that we should ignore them and hope they go away?

Libertarianism is very dangerous and must be fought relentlessly at every opportunity. It poses two separate threats to the working class, even when it is far from power:

1. Libertarianism provides the bulk of pro-capitalist propaganda. Nearly every single pro-capitalist argument is fundamentally a libertarian argument. We must remember that libertarianism is merely an extreme form of market liberalism, rather than a separate ideology as such. Libertarians may be far from power, but many of them cooperate with, and write propaganda for, the neoliberal establishment. Libertarian think tanks such as the Ludwig von Mises Institute or the Heritage Foundation provide large quantities of propaganda in favour of eroding the historic gains of the working class and giving more power to corporations. We must argue against libertarianism in order to argue against capitalism.

2. Like fascism, libertarianism can be populist, distracting the working class from the class struggle by providing workers with a fictional enemy to fight. In the case of libertarianism, that fictional enemy is the welfare state, and sometimes immigrants and leftist groups - indeed, libertarianism can slide very easily into fascism once libertarians decide that repressive measures are needed against evil leftists who promote "big government." Many libertarians try to persuade workers that they would be better off in a world of small businesses and minimal government. I call this particular trend "market populism." Market populism isn't usually terribly convincing to workers, but it can easily win over the petty-bourgeoisie - the same group that provided the social basis for fascism. And this kind of market populism can also attract many quasi-leftist activists who really should know better. Witness the attraction of the Ron Paul madness, for example. We must fight libertarianism because it can be a vehicle for fascism and, in its market populist form, it can subvert the class struggle.

[ckaihatsu]

Your point is well-taken, Edric O -- if it weren't for the 9-11 issue itself, I'd be running the fuck away from that political segment. I find it politically important to have a left presence around 9-11.

[Psy]

I'm worried about the fact that several comrades in this topic seem to think that libertarianism is not a threat just because it is far from achieving any kind of political power. Well, fascists are also far from gaining political power anywhere, but does that mean they are not a threat, or that we should ignore them and hope they go away?

Libertarianism is very dangerous and must be fought relentlessly at every opportunity. It poses two separate threats to the working class, even when it is far from power:

1. Libertarianism provides the bulk of pro-capitalist propaganda. Nearly every single pro-capitalist argument is fundamentally a libertarian argument. We must remember that libertarianism is merely an extreme form of market liberalism, rather than a separate ideology as such. Libertarians may be far from power, but many of them cooperate with, and write propaganda for, the neoliberal establishment. Libertarian think tanks such as the Ludwig von Mises Institute or the Heritage Foundation provide large quantities of propaganda in favour of eroding the historic gains of the working class and giving more power to corporations. We must argue against libertarianism in order to argue against capitalism.

2. Like fascism, libertarianism can be populist, distracting the working class from the class struggle by providing workers with a fictional enemy to fight. In the case of libertarianism, that fictional enemy is the welfare state, and sometimes immigrants and leftist groups - indeed, libertarianism can slide very easily into fascism once libertarians decide that repressive measures are needed against evil leftists who promote "big government." Many libertarians try to persuade workers that they would be better off in a world of small businesses and minimal government. I call this particular trend "market populism." Market populism isn't usually terribly convincing to workers, but it can easily win over the petty-bourgeoisie - the same group that provided the social basis for fascism. And this kind of market populism can also attract many quasi-leftist activists who really should know better. Witness the attraction of the Ron Paul madness, for example. We must fight libertarianism because it can be a vehicle for fascism and, in its market populist form, it can subvert the class struggle.

Libertarian propaganda is mostly counter-productive for industrial workers. They not only alienate the proletariat but blame the proletariat for the melt down in the finical sector. They are a joke, with the only sad point is there are stupid students that buy their shit.

[Dean]

Libertarianism is an offensive internet ideology which is only relevent as it mirrors the horrifying rise in machine-worship.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I would like to think libertarians are just people born to the wrong century, but Dejavu-types continuously pervert Smith and Locke into creatures of their own imaginations. I would say libertarianism is irrelevant at the moment due to logic - most people worth their weight in salt realize that market-oriented economies are stunning failures when put up against welfare states - but they are a threat. Chopping "down the state" translates into reversing all the labor concessions and none of the exploitation.

Unregulated markets can be summed up by comparing prostitution in legal brothels and in the streets. In the latter case you have abuse, impractical protection methods, and petty payments. In the former, the woman is treated with respect (well, as much as possible) and the regulation methods ensure a safe, (non)-productive establishment.

[Psy]

I would like to think libertarians are just people born to the wrong century, but Dejavu-types continuously pervert Smith and Locke into creatures of their own imaginations. I would say libertarianism is irrelevant at the moment due to logic - most people worth their weight in salt realize that market-oriented economies are stunning failures when put up against welfare states - but they are a threat. Chopping "down the state" translates into reversing all the labor concessions and none of the exploitation.

Unregulated markets can be summed up by comparing prostitution in legal brothels and in the streets. In the latter case you have abuse, impractical protection methods, and petty payments. In the former, the woman is treated with respect (well, as much as possible) and the regulation methods ensure a safe, (non)-productive establishment.

The bourgeoisie also understand that capitalism can't afford libertarianism, they know they will have a crisis in the rate of profit on top of workers revolting against them, oh lets not forget the military revolting as libertarians would have broken the glue of altruisms that keeps troops in line.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Libertarian propaganda is mostly counter-productive for industrial workers. They not only alienate the proletariat but blame the proletariat for the melt down in the finical sector. They are a joke, with the only sad point is there are stupid students that buy their shit.
I don't know - some well-aimed libertarian propaganda can be quite attractive to workers, or at least persuade workers that socialism is a bad idea. The problem is that the left is weak at the moment and many people are willing to listen to anything that presents itself as an alternative to the status quo.

[Psy]

I don't know - some well-aimed libertarian propaganda can be quite attractive to workers, or at least persuade workers that socialism is a bad idea. The problem is that the left is weak at the moment and many people are willing to listen to anything that presents itself as an alternative to the status quo.

You mean like:

- Unemployed people are just lazy

- We should get rid the minimal wage as some workers are over paid

- Workers and employers are on the same team and share the same self-interest

- Down with public education, if you can't afford education you don't deserve it.

- Safety is in every capitalists self-interests

Even bourgeois labor unions are able to quickly counter these arguments, not they have to do much since most workers can see the libertarian are full of shit.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Even bourgeois labor unions are able to quickly counter these arguments
No, they are not, at least not in my experience. What actually happens is that unions (and leftist groups) simply dismiss libertarian arguments out of hand without bothering to refute them, because they consider those arguments too absurd to bother with. This results in an environment where libertarians can spread their propaganda with impunity, and few people rise up to criticize them. That is what makes them so dangerous - the fact that no one is making any effort to fight them!

You are making the same mistake. Libertarians are successfully using the "Big Lie" strategy - if you tell a big enough lie, those who can refute you will consider you insane and ignore you, leaving others vulnerable to your propaganda.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I'm worried about the fact that several comrades in this topic seem to think that libertarianism is not a threat just because it is far from achieving any kind of political power. Well, fascists are also far from gaining political power anywhere, but does that mean they are not a threat, or that we should ignore them and hope they go away?

Libertarianism is very dangerous and must be fought relentlessly at every opportunity. It poses two separate threats to the working class, even when it is far from power:

1. Libertarianism provides the bulk of pro-capitalist propaganda. Nearly every single pro-capitalist argument is fundamentally a libertarian argument. We must remember that libertarianism is merely an extreme form of market liberalism, rather than a separate ideology as such. Libertarians may be far from power, but many of them cooperate with, and write propaganda for, the neoliberal establishment. Libertarian think tanks such as the Ludwig von Mises Institute or the Heritage Foundation provide large quantities of propaganda in favour of eroding the historic gains of the working class and giving more power to corporations. We must argue against libertarianism in order to argue against capitalism.

2. Like fascism, libertarianism can be populist, distracting the working class from the class struggle by providing workers with a fictional enemy to fight. In the case of libertarianism, that fictional enemy is the welfare state, and sometimes immigrants and leftist groups - indeed, libertarianism can slide very easily into fascism once libertarians decide that repressive measures are needed against evil leftists who promote "big government." Many libertarians try to persuade workers that they would be better off in a world of small businesses and minimal government. I call this particular trend "market populism." Market populism isn't usually terribly convincing to workers, but it can easily win over the petty-bourgeoisie - the same group that provided the social basis for fascism. And this kind of market populism can also attract many quasi-leftist activists who really should know better. Witness the attraction of the Ron Paul madness, for example. We must fight libertarianism because it can be a vehicle for fascism and, in its market populist form, it can subvert the class struggle.

I think you're overstating the influence that it has as an ideology.

The fact of the matter is that ninety percent of Americans don't know who the hell Ludwig Von Mises is, nor do they care. Nor do they especially care about the Federal Reserve or the Gold Standard. What they DO care about is their benefits, and what they themselves receive from the body they pay taxes to. If libertarianism is to make any gains, it's going to have to fight a tremendous uphill battle.

With the abject failure of the neo-conservative movement they currently have a stronger hand, but still...they've got a long way to go before they can be considered a major force in American politics.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Of course they are not a major force, but like I said, an ideology or political group can be influential or dangerous even if they are not a major political force. We fight fascists because they might grow more influential, even if they aren't currently. We should fight libertarians for the same reason.

[Psy]

Of course they are not a major force, but like I said, an ideology or political group can be influential or dangerous even if they are not a major political force. We fight fascists because they might grow more influential, even if they aren't currently. We should fight libertarians for the same reason.

Fascists were a political power within the USA as late as the early 1980's, the US fascists turned to terrorism and then they robbed a bank shipment and the FBI responded by brutally crushing the US fascists movement and they still haven't fully recovered from the ass whopping the FBI gave them when they crossed the line and stole from the ruling class. The US fascists have been trying to rebuild their power since then.

The libertarians are far less of a threat then fascism.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Compare Ron Paul's popularity with the popularity of any fascist leader. Libertarians are far more powerful than fascists, and unlike fascists at the moment they have the sympathy of some members of the ruling class.

Also, just because libertarianism is against the interests of the bourgeoisie doesn't mean that no bourgeois is a libertarian. Quite the contrary. Not every person sees his class interests clearly. Libertarianism is in the interests of no class, but obviously libertarians still exist.

[Psy]

Compare Ron Paul's popularity with the popularity of any fascist leader. Libertarians are far more powerful than fascists, and unlike fascists at the moment they have the sympathy of some members of the ruling class.

Also, just because libertarianism is against the interests of the bourgeoisie doesn't mean that no bourgeois is a libertarian. Quite the contrary. Not every person sees his class interests clearly. Libertarianism is in the interests of no class, but obviously libertarians still exist.

While Ron Paul subscribes to the Austrian school of economics (that is something we Marxist have to constantly debunk), he only says he will download responsibilities from the federal government to state governments, so he is not against public services like libertarians and just thinks state governments should pay for them. Ron Paul also promised to raise tariffs and excise taxes to make up for getting rid of sales and income tax, meaning Ron Paul is not going to get rid of taxes like libertarians want.

This shows the weakness of libertarians in that their leader is not much of a libertarian.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Whether the leader of a movement actually shares the beliefs of that movement should matter to his supporters; it should not matter to his opponents. Capitalists quite rightly don't give a damn whether Stalin or Khruschev or Mao or whoever were really Marxists. We should not give a damn whether Ron Paul is really a libertarian. The point is that he leads the libertarian movement and he is influential. If he is in fact a closet fascist (which is quite likely - see his views on black people published in the early 90s), then that makes libertarians all the more dangerous because they are serving as the unwitting shock troops of a fascist.

[BobKKKindle$]

There are some issues on which libertarians and socialists may find that they are in agreement - for example, on social issues, where libertarians generally place emphasis on the importance of individual freedom, and so are opposed to state legislation which denies people the ability to make their own choices. Would it be possible or beneficial to cooperate with libertarians on these issues?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I think it would be a mistake to provide any credibility to their movement, especially since right-libertarians are still perplexed over how far to go with their concept of "freedom." For example, there is an active voice even within the Libertarian Party to ban abortion and allow the states say over gay marriage - whereas socialists defend woman from State rape and think the marriage institution in itself should be (ironically) "privatized" (perhaps socialized would be a better term).

There are also some libertarians who paradoxically place freedom above liberty - the very foundation of the word! I remember frequenting a right-libertarian forum once and being called a statist for saying I don't want to hear my neighbor's music in my house at 3 o-clock in the morning.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

You mean like:

- Unemployed people are just lazy

- We should get rid the minimal wage as some workers are over paid

- Workers and employers are on the same team and share the same self-interest

- Down with public education, if you can't afford education you don't deserve it.

- Safety is in every capitalists self-interests

Even bourgeois labor unions are able to quickly counter these arguments, not they have to do much since most workers can see the libertarian are full of shit.

I find the more "libertarian" a capitalist ideologue is, the less sense he makes - as a rule. Alex Jones nutters think that the GI Bill was horrendous and that public libraries constitute theft. :laugh:

[Psy]

I think it would be a mistake to provide any credibility to their movement, especially since right-libertarians are still perplexed over how far to go with their concept of "freedom." For example, there is an active voice even within the Libertarian Party to ban abortion and allow the states say over gay marriage - whereas socialists defend woman from State rape and think the marriage institution in itself should be (ironically) "privatized" (perhaps socialized would be a better term).

There are also some libertarians who paradoxically place freedom above liberty - the very foundation of the word! I remember frequenting a right-libertarian forum once and being called a statist for saying I don't want to hear my neighbor's music in my house at 3 o-clock in the morning.


Right, it is best to look at the heart of not only their movement but other free-market movements which is the Austrian school of economics. When you look at the groups that revolve around Austrian school of economics they feed the free-market movements (including libertarians) with economic theory.

[Psy]

I find the more "libertarian" a capitalist ideologue is, the less sense he makes - as a rule. Alex Jones nutters think that the GI Bill was horrendous and that public libraries constitute theft. :laugh:
Yaron from the Ayn Rand Institute did one better making the statement that airlines only send up unsafe planes because the FAA forces them to, and if the FAA didn't exist airlines would be free to ground unsafe planes.

[PRC-UTE]

I think the problem here is that we're taking their rhetoric and incoherent ideas at face value. The problem is not that their political and social ideas are full of contradictions and massive leaps in logic (how does a libertarian regime with a constitution work? :rolleyes:) which are easy enough to refute. the problem is more the fact that they are a movement aimed at rolling back the gains made by workers that seems to have some support (look at Ron Paul's campaign). they also seem to have some people in power who subscribe to their ideas. Since there is an economic meltdown on, and the masses are not leaning towards the Left, does this present these hard Rightists with the opportunity they need to take power or could it at least put them on the road to doing so?

[Don't Change Your Name]

I have done some research on libertarianism, which is inexistant here as a political force and seems to be mostly an "American" phenomenon (just like young earth creationism). This means libertarians have good and bad sides: on the good side they can be quite rational sometimes (notice how many criticisms of Ayn Rand are done by libertarians themselves, for instance) and they are concerned about such ideas as freedom. On the bad side, they are hypocrites. I suppose this is because of cultural aspects of the US, where people see themselves as "freedom lovers" and such ideas as "rugged individualism" "make sense". Anyway, libertarianism is actually a fringe political group (even if it could exist in other countries besides the US), and, like creationism, it looks bigger on the internet than it actually is (ironically, the internet wouldn't exist without the government, but let's leave that aside for a while).

Libertarianism should be addressed because it could grow in popularity and because in some cases it might be necessary for revolutionaries to work with them.

I personally find them to be hypocrites who fall in undeniable contradictions: they use the internet (read above) to spread their views and they aren't getting paid for it (which contradicts their views concerning how people behave in their self-interest), they claim taxation is theft but they don't figure out that the different between their property and possession is coercion by the state, they claim they defend the "rights to life, liberty and property" but don't mind living in land which was taken by force from indigenous population that also got killed because of that, they complain about the "welfare state" but rarely mention when the government helps corporations, they claim there's no such thing as "society" and only individuals, except for families and those same corporations, that is; they claim to be for "freedom" but would legalize slavery, they count the hits and ignore the misses when it comes to cases of capitalism "working", and so on.

Because they can't make their ideas fit in with reality, they have to resort to supremacist ideas: every problem is always each individual's fault because they are lazy or inferior (Ayn Rand called those indians I mentioned above "savages"). They complain the government taxes them to help "parasites", ignoring that, for example, unemployment is not every individual's fault. They are also essentially extremists, and rarely mention a case of positive government intervention (surely they must have been an exception?).

Overall, they start from flawed premises about private property, well humanity and its history. If you really want to "defeat" them you will have to show that to them. But you have to make a honest assessment of their "strength", and in spite of the fact that they see themselves as having the "absolute truth", they are actually a small group.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

There are some issues on which libertarians and socialists may find that they are in agreement - for example, on social issues, where libertarians generally place emphasis on the importance of individual freedom, and so are opposed to state legislation which denies people the ability to make their own choices. Would it be possible or beneficial to cooperate with libertarians on these issues?
Absolutely not, just like we would not cooperate with fascists when they make reformist demands.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Wouldn't you work with libertarians to stop fascism?

[Os Cangaceiros]

A few of the libertarian values are worthy. Specifically, I'm thinking of their vehement opposition to foreign wars of aggression.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Wouldn't you work with libertarians to stop fascism?
Only if there is absolutely no other choice - in other words, only in a situation similar to January 1933 in Germany where the fascists are on the brink of victory. Then I would be willing to work with anyone to stop them, obviously.

But I think libertarians would gladly side with fascism if given the chance, so I doubt they would be interested in an alliance with us. That's the reason I am so vehemently anti-libertarian: Because they are so vehemently anti-socialist. Libertarians consider us to be their worst enemies. It is therefore foolish to have any sympathy for them.


A few of the libertarian values are worthy. Specifically, I'm thinking of their vehement opposition to foreign wars of aggression.
That is by no means a libertarian value. Some libertarians, such as those of the Ayn Rand Institute, have called for genocide against Muslims (http://www.revleft.com/vb/ayn-rand-followers-t75589/index.html).

[Os Cangaceiros]

That is by no means a libertarian value. Some libertarians, such as those of the Ayn Rand Institute, have called for genocide against Muslims (http://www.revleft.com/vb/ayn-rand-followers-t75589/index.html).

It is a libertarian value in that it's a value that libertarians commonly hold.

It was libertarians more than either liberals or conservatives who opposed the war in Iraq, even before it started. In fact, in more than one libertarian publication in the direct aftermath of Sept. 11th, the concept of "blowback" was mentioned.

I don't know if you remember the political atmosphere in the aftermath of the attack, but I do. It was one where even mentioning that the US might have had a tiny, tiny bit of responsibility in the attack was a lynching offense.

Ayn Rand and the Objectivists aren't libertarians, at least not in the commonly accepted definition of the term. Most educated libertarians rail against her, and "neolibertarianism" isn't popular amongst mainstream libertarians, mostly because they want "small government", and realize the absurdity of having that with a "big government" robust military that is constantly being the world's policeman.

[Demogorgon]

Libertarianism can sadly provide a lot of appeal to the working class because of the way it frames particular arguments. It is essentially an extreme form of Conservative Populism. They claim for instance that you are exploited, but not by your employer, but rather through your taxes and particularly by the unemployed, who they claim your taxes are going towards.

Now the actual truth is that that is a load of crap. And we all know it, but it can make an appealing argument. Throw the "lazy unemployed" onto the streets and you won't have to pay any tax anymore. A lot of people buy into that.

[Psy]

Libertarianism can sadly provide a lot of appeal to the working class because of the way it frames particular arguments. It is essentially an extreme form of Conservative Populism. They claim for instance that you are exploited, but not by your employer, but rather through your taxes and particularly by the unemployed, who they claim your taxes are going towards.

Now the actual truth is that that is a load of crap. And we all know it, but it can make an appealing argument. Throw the "lazy unemployed" onto the streets and you won't have to pay any tax anymore. A lot of people buy into that.

Except for people that have been unemployed, I noticed graduates coming into the workforce all of a sudden see a job was not waiting for them and then come to the realization that there are more qualified workers then skilled positions. This is probably why libertarianism is still only a student movement, most of their memebers grow out of libertarianism when they enter the job market.

[Demogorgon]

Except for people that have been unemployed, I noticed graduates coming into the workforce all of a sudden see a job was not waiting for them and then come to the realization that there are more qualified workers then skilled positions. This is probably why libertarianism is still only a student movement, most of their memebers grow out of libertarianism when they enter the job market.
Yes, but a lot of adults buy into the fact that "benefit cheats" are the reason they pay so much in the way of taxes. That is the route of much of the voting base for Conservative parties. Libertarian parties may not be direct beneficiaries, but their arguments certainly win through.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Wouldn't you work with libertarians to stop fascism?

I would work with almost any social ideologue to prevent fascism. Luckily the theocratic right does not subscribe to class evaluation and trips over itself every time the word "science" is uttered. However, I am alarmed by the fact recent mistakes and blunders haven't marginalized the neo-conservativism movement.


Yes, but a lot of adults buy into the fact that "benefit cheats" are the reason they pay so much in the way of taxes. That is the route of much of the voting base for Conservative parties. Libertarian parties may not be direct beneficiaries, but their arguments certainly win through.

It is our job as socialists to point out the absurd way people divorce economics from politics. As you said, libertarianism is very attractive to workers, but there are many contradictions (the libertarian community can't agree on how to approach corporations - a quasi-government agency) and over time people tend to gravitate away towards something else.

Unfortunately, the same has been said about Leftism.