Libertarianism in the U.S. *could* be progressive

[JimmyJazz]

Yes, I'm serious.

As despicable as I find right-wing libertarianism's apologetics for continued business class/first world accumulation to be, people like Ron Paul seem to be genuinely against foreign intervention by the United States. They are also in favor of free trade with all nations, including socialist ones, like Cuba.

The poor in the U.S. aren't doing too badly in global terms. Their situation cannot be realistically compared to that of the poor in the global South. And if it were the case that we were settling for infinitesimal gains for the U.S. poor and working class (by voting Democrat) at the expense of sustaining U.S. imperialism, then surely any true internationalist would agree this is a very poor prioritization of political battles?

And I think that's exactly what we are doing. Anyone who would vote for the Democrats either (1) doesn't appreciate the true scope of U.S. imperialism and military interventionism to prevent pro-democratic/pro-socialist developments in the third world, (2) doesn't appreciate the truly bipartisan nature of this imperialism or (3) values the life and welfare of Americans much more than foreigners. Regarding points 1 & 2, I'd be happy to recommend some books if anyone is curious but unconvinced.

To be a progressive means constantly re-evaluating the political scene and all the available political options. You have to think clearly about what direction is, in fact, "forward". And at times, supporting things which intuitively look like a move away from the end goal can be necessary.

For a precedent in this kind of thinking, check out Marx's speech, "On the Question of Free Trade". It's available on marxists.org.

I strongly suggest reading the whole speech, but if you just don't have the patience then skip to the last paragraph for the (perhaps) surprise ending: Marx was in favor of free trade.

I hope that no one thinks I'm laying out a counterintuitive strategy just to be really revolutionary and different and cool. Occasionally a counterintuitive strategy really is the best way forward. And we might be approaching one of those times. Maybe.

I'm not suggesting that progressives run out and vote libertarian. I don't want to give greater exposure or legitimacy to their simplistic economic dogmas. But I am saying that if the Libertarians were ever poised to topple the 2-party system, I'd probably be rooting for them. An end to U.S. imperialist interventionism would be such a worldwide victory for progressive politics that no havoc they might wreak on the U.S. economy would even compare to it. And a socialist state like Cuba would be allowed, for the first time in its history, to trade with its largest neighbor and to develop normally without the artificial hindrance of a U.S. embargo. It would either sink or swim, and I am personally confident that it would swim.

While I favor a socialist economy, I'm not about to force one on a people who doesn't want it. Let each nation decide for itself without outside pressure. Given the military power that backs up global (U.S.-led) capitalism, an end to the role of military intervention in the shaping of nations' economies can only be a good thing for the economic left. It would allow each nation, for the first time, to genuinely pursue its own internal economic agenda. And the Libertarian Party promises to bring about such an end.

Anyway, that's why I think a Ron Paul-style Libertarian government would be preferable, from a leftist perspective, to the Republicrat status quo. Thoughts?


P.S. - Of course, ending U.S. imperialism by a Green victory would be far preferable. This whole thing was written with the idea in mind that the LPUSA *might* be the only third party which could challenge the 2-party status quo. If that turns out to be false, then obviously you should forget everything I've written here.

[Winter]

"But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade. "

Sounds pretty plausible, but at the same time I'm surprised not a whole lot of people really see capitalism for what it really is in this current age. I guess this is due to the American people being "sold out" as a Lin Biaoist/Third Worldist/MIMite would put it. The government gives us as little as it takes to make sure we don't revolt. As long as people have their digital cable, internet access, and sports, there's no reason for a revolt, life is dandy! :-P

Anyway, I have often thought that the Libertarian system can benefit us. Like you said, it would end imperialism and trade with "evil communist" countries. Plus, it would bring our government to a blank slate. That would be a perfect opportunity for a revolt of the working class. Of course, plans must be made now to organize before this libertarian society would come about. If we didn't, the wealthy elites would just reform and create something far worse than what we already have.

I agree with you and wish more leftists would see the not so blatant benefits a libertarian system would offer us.

[Glenn Beck]

I'm really skeptical (to put it mildly) of the idea that free trade has anything even remotely resembling a progressive role in today's world, but I think your point about the progressive possibilities of the Libertarians (or any non-interventionist political force) in the imperialist countries is a very good one. The primary contradiction today is between imperialist hegemony and the developing world. I don't see how we can hope to have a successful and lasting socialist revolution without a multipolar world system where a budding socialist coalition would have breathing room and possibly even allies of convenience among capitalist countries following nationalist development policies that are against the free trade "consensus". The leftist governments in Latin America spearheaded by Chávez seem to be following this strategy.

And of course I don't think we need to worry about the Libertarians "winning" and creating their silly laissez-faire paradise. If that kind of system is what the ruling classes really wanted/needed we would have had it a long time ago.

[JimmyJazz]

Thanks for the replies.


That would be a perfect opportunity for a revolt of the [U.S.] working class.

I had definitely thought of that aspect as well, but I wanted to keep my post focused, so I just left it out.

Also, advocating Libertarianism on the grounds that its policies will radicalize workers is an inherently minority position. If a majority believed this to be a good reason to vote Libertarian, then a majority would already have a revolutionary consciousness, making the whole Libertarian voting strategy unnecessary.

But I do think that a lot of people are sincere internationalists, even people who have very little knowledge of or hatred for capitalism as of yet. I mean, even a lot of religious people are, in principle if not in their actions, bothered by the obvious immorality of the global wealth gap. It's just that we--leftists and non-leftists alike--are constantly bombarded by a nationalist perspective from all sides. By pointing out the discrepancy between their internationalist/humanitarian values and their actual political allegiances, I think we can make a significant number of people see how incredibly nationalist they are in practice. Possibly, anyway.

That's why I chose to focus on the no-foreign-intervention aspect rather than on the potential it might create for domestic revolutionary change.


Of course, plans must be made now to organize before this libertarian society would come about. If we didn't, the wealthy elites would just reform and create something far worse than what we already have.

Definitely. I'm interested in your ideas on what form this organizing should take (I'm a pretty new leftist), but that's another thread.


I'm really skeptical (to put it mildly) of the idea that free trade has anything even remotely resembling a progressive role in today's world.

It's odd, but there seems to be relatively little resistance or anger generated by blatant Western militarism. I think it's just too easy to pull some ridiculous stunt like kidnapping a world leader in a helicopter (Aristide) and have it not even make headlines--not even in third world newspapers.

Purely economic exploitation, without military force, may be less objectionable on its face but it is also not possible to cover up in the same way. And the results would be impossible to deny because they're so large scale. For that reason, I actually think there's a good chance that purely market-based exploitation might be more capable of generating a strong third world-solidarity movement than military imperialism has been.

[mykittyhasaboner]

JimmyJazz, nice original post, seems like you put some good thought into it.



It's odd, but there seems to be relatively little resistance or anger generated by blatant Western militarism. I think it's just too easy to pull some ridiculous stunt like kidnapping a world leader in a helicopter (Aristide) and have it not even make headlines--not even in third world newspapers.well of course the US population isnt going to be up in arms for the kidnapping of Aristide. this is because the majority of the population just doesn't care too much. to them its just another 'bad guy' taken care of. which could explain why there really is not enough anger generated in the US for their imperialist undertakings. it seems as if the whole world has become overly accustomed to the US just toppling governments like dominoes, its distrubing to say the least.


Purely economic exploitation, without military force, may be less objectionable on its face but it is also not possible to cover up in the same way. And the results would be impossible to deny because they're so large scale. For that reason, I actually think there's a good chance that purely market-based exploitation might be more capable of generating a strong third world-solidarity movement than military imperialism has been.this is an interesting proposal. its kind of a what if? if the vast military empire the US has so blatanly set up around the entire world, was subject to a foreign policy change, it could severly weaken the influence that imperialist Western countries have on the world.

although a dominant economic "empire" would still remain, the might and intimidation of the US would decline. it could allow for progressive socialist groups to gain strength and build conciousness more effectifely. thus revolutionary organizations wouldnt be subject to such overwhleming odds. like FARC for example.

[trivas7]

IMO Ron Paul would have been a disaster. Even the Republicans could not have backed his reactionary agenda of going back to the gold standard, reversing all the gains of the New Deal, pulling out of the UN, etc. In an era of globalization these are impossible to implement.

Insofar as radical libertarians recognize the right of private property as the only legitimate human right, anything they propose is antithetical to socialist sensibilities. The radical libertarian proposes that his very own person is private property owned by someone (himself). Such is the height of the mentality of commodification.

[JimmyJazz]

Insofar as radical libertarians recognize the right of private property as the only legitimate human right, anything they propose is antithetical to socialist sensibilities.

No doubt what you say is true: libertarians are private property fanatics. But I did acknowledge that this would be a counterintuitive strategy. Also, my real point was that ending the imperialist Republicrat (<--why doesn't spellchecker recognize this? :lol:) duopoly has to be the #1 priority for international socialists. The libs are not the ideal alternative, but they are preferable to our current bipartisan imperialism. And they might someday prove to be the only feasible alternative.

I would not advocate the libs merely on the grounds that they would push U.S. working class to the brink and spur a revolution here. That would be to deny the reality, which is that Western working class people are fairly satisfied with Keynsianism. Without the imperialism issue I would not be touting the libertarians.

So it really comes down to whether or not you believe this:


The primary contradiction today is between imperialist hegemony and the developing world.

and frankly, I'm not sure how anyone could not.

Remember, I am not saying it would be awesome if libertarians took power everywhere. I am talking about what would happen if they took power in the U.S. alone. I'm saying that if they screwed the American working class, but stopped impeding all progress everywhere else, that would be on balance a victory for socialism.

And you can't forget the fact that the U.S. working class is not helpless. Our entire economy is literally in their hands. If the New Deal started to be undone, then maybe unions would start to rebuild themselves, and American workers would start fighting for their own rights rather than resting on the benefits handed to them by a previous generation of fighters.

[ComradeOm]

Purely economic exploitation, without military force, may be less objectionable on its face but it is also not possible to cover up in the same way. And the results would be impossible to deny because they're so large scale. For that reason, I actually think there's a good chance that purely market-based exploitation might be more capable of generating a strong third world-solidarity movement than military imperialism has been.What do you think the US has been doing since WWII? The US has not employed its military might by choice but has been forced to do so on occasions when its financial/economic power has proved insignificant.

Crucially however history dismisses your argument. Those examples of US military muscle have invariably proven far more controversial and decisive than 'globalisation' tendencies. On the whole the latter are often welcomed by the local Third World bourgeoisie as a ready source of capital and opportunities to amass personal wealth. How is "third world-solidarity" after almost a century of US exploitation? And how would a Ron Paul victory impede Nike's (for example) opportunities in SE Asia or the tentacles of Western finance capital?

[JimmyJazz]

What do you think the US has been doing since WWII? The US has not employed its military might by choice but has been forced to do so on occasions when its financial/economic power has proved insignificant.

Crucially however history dismisses your argument. Those examples of US military muscle have invariably proven far more controversial and decisive than 'globalisation' tendencies.

Yes, because these have drawn attention away from the economic exploitation. Because they are more scandalous.

But I do see your point. When there were Pinkertons violently breaking up strikes, the theory of class exploitation had a lot more sway in the U.S. Whether and to what extent this was a causal relationship is tough to say.

You can't make a slam dunk case for your perspective or mine. And that's what this thread was: a perspective. Still a plausible one, I think.


How is "third world-solidarity" after almost a century of US exploitation? And how would a Ron Paul victory impede Nike's (for example) opportunities in SE Asia or the tentacles of Western finance capital?

You're making two different points here: (1) that third world solidarity is not high now, so it will probably never be, and (2) that seeking and planning for revolutionary conditions on an international scale would not do anything to immediately curb global exploitation (hence would be pointless?).

Regarding point 1, global wealth disparity is worse now than ever before (I don't have a link for that, but it's a claim I've read--backed up by statistics--several times). Hence, the potential for solidarity should be higher than ever. HALF the world lives on less than two dollars a day. There have recently been riots in tons of countries over food prices--because much of the world exists on a precipice beyond which is starvation. Things have to reach a breaking point eventually. Exploitation cannot continue indefinitely, right? That's not just Marxist dogma, it's common sense, imo.

Regarding point 2, this seems like a liberal argument rather than a radical one. I'm not saying that's grounds for rejecting it. However, it does seem like something we wouldn't have to deal with on this site (and I say this in all humbleness as a brand spanking newbie here), since we post here with the assumption of certain theoretical common ground as a starting point.

If you reject totally the potential for immiseration to produce revolutionary desperation on a global scale (and it seems like you do), what do you suggest? Simple sweatshop activism? I just don't see how this is by any measure a socialist or radical position to take. It's a course of action that is totally dependent on the more empathetic elements of the first world taking up the cause of the global south, rather than material conditions prompting the people of the global south to wake up to fighting for their own shared interests.

There's a global class war happening, and the ruling classes of both the rich and poor countries are going to continue passing expanded free trade agreements to shaft the masses on both sides. But the support of the Western working classes is simply too easy to buy off by bombarding them with a nationalist perspective that compares their condition to that of the world's other working classes. They aren't revolutionary and aren't going to be revolutionary any time soon (you only have to live in one of these countries for this much to be obvious). So, out of the (roughly) four classes involved--Western bourgeois, Western WC, 3rd World bourgeois, 3rd World--only one is potentially revolutionary, and that is the 3rd World WC, which has to either act by itself or through a temporary alliance with the 3rd World bourgeoisie. That's my starting analysis in a nutshell, and I can hardly claim it as unique to me. It was put forward by Guevara, and to a certain extent also by Marx (e.g. in the speech I posted earlier). Probably also by many others.

Here's the sum of what I'm trying to add to that: that progressive change literally is not possible in the face of a vastly superior military which is opposed to it (that would be the U.S. military), whereas economic exploitation in the absence of military force is more or less voluntary and depends upon the consent of the exploited. In fact (although this is not absolutely crucial to what I'm saying), freer economic exploitation should actually lead to a faster awakening to the fact that exploitation exists in North-South economic interactions. The fact is that nothing--not military intervention or economic exploitation--has so far produced a really revolutionary awakening in the third world. But should such an awakening occur, military interventionism could serve to block revolutionary consciousness from turning into revolutionary action and revolutionary results. Simple economic exploitation could not do this, and if anything, might speed up the revolutionary consciousness being achieved. Thus ending military intervention is paramount.

[ComradeOm]

Regarding point 1, global wealth disparity is worse now than ever before (I don't have a link for that, but it's a claim I've read--backed up by statistics--several times). Hence, the potential for solidarity should be higher than ever. HALF the world lives on less than two dollars a day. There have recently been riots in tons of countries over food prices--because much of the world exists on a precipice beyond which is starvation. Things have to reach a breaking point eventually. Exploitation cannot continue indefinitely, right? That's not just Marxist dogma, it's common sense, imoThat would be true if nations were monolithic entities with no class divisions of their own. As it is we live in a world where capitalism is truly global and even third world nations possess a local bourgeoisie. This ruling class have profited nicely from their collaboration with the West and in exchange for facilitating the economic exploitation of their markets and resources they enjoy a significant degree of protection from Washington and Brussels (in the form of funds, military aid, and direct intervention where required). Someday that system will break down (it may be doing so as we speak) as capitalism finally fails

As it is these local regimes are the first target of discontent (for example, the Islamist backlash against Arab Nationalism) but there has been little sign of third world solidarity - ie various disparate nations or significant movements coming together - outside of temporary blocs in trade discussion summits. And where anger has become violently directed at the tools of Western imperialism themselves, it has typically, in this day and age, taken the form of an incoherent rage at the 'Great Satan' or similar unproductive outlets

Now I'm a firm believer that the period of US hegemony has ended and that capitalism is entering a period of decay and decline. Whether this will manifest itself in the industrialised West or newly emerging economies is something I'm not too concerned about. However that's a discussion that has little to do with Ron Paul

Incidentally, the high point of 'third world solidarity' probably came with the Non-Aligned Movement of the Cold War


...that seeking and planning for revolutionary conditions on an international scale would not do anything to immediately curb global exploitation (hence would be pointless?).Except that this is not what you proposed. Electing Ron Paul is not a 'progressive' measure and it is certainly not 'revolutionary'


If you reject totally the potential for immiseration to produce revolutionary desperation on a global scale (and it seems like you do), what do you suggest? Simple sweatshop activism? I just don't see how this is by any measure a socialist or radical position to takeMisery alone is not enough to spark revolutionary conciousness. If it were then it would be the peasantry, and not the proletariat, that possesses the most revolutionary potential. Clearly, if only from the third world today, that is not the case

As for what do I suggest... well that is the big question. Just what do communists do in a clearly non-revolutionary scenario? I've yet to see a convincing and productive answer to that. For the moment yes, simple activism is all that we can do. Even if its not going to make headlines


That's my starting analysis in a nutshell, and I can hardly claim it as unique to me. It was put forward by Guevara, and to a certain extent also by Marx (e.g. in the speech I posted earlier). Probably also by many others.I'm aware of, if not convinced by, the thesis. Lenin summed it up best with his dictum that "a chain is only a strong as its weakest link"

Of course today, with the West's financial networks in open meltdown, that does not seem to ring true


The fact is that nothing--not military intervention or economic exploitation--has so far produced a really revolutionary awakening in the third worldExactly. Here we are at the peak of capitalism's development, or so we'd hope, and the third world has failed to stir itself as some expect(ed). Why? Because capitalism is incomparably more complex a system than some persist in painting it as


But should such an awakening occur, military interventionism could serve to block revolutionary consciousness from turning into revolutionary action and revolutionary results. Simple economic exploitation could not do this, and if anything, might speed up the revolutionary consciousness being achieved. Thus ending military intervention is paramount.All of which is an extremely roundabout and tenuous reason for supporting a candidate who stands for unfettered corporate banditry

Here's the reality - the US intervened in Russia, in Cuba, in Vietnam, throughout S America and Africa. It maintains military bases in the Middle East and Central Asia. Should a revolution occur anywhere in the world you can be certain the the West will, even if only a covert level, intervene in an attempt to quash it. This is regardless of current military deployments (which actually sap this ability to interfere globally) or who the President is

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I think to some extent libertarians are correct in criticizing the state's involvement - the economy does hurt when the republocrats stick their hand in the cookie jar. I would much rather have the market just do its thing. Libertarians can also be right on social policies, but I've met quite a few opposed to reproductive rights, marriage equality, and for some reason racists/sexists love the ideology. Right-libertarians clearly don't read numbers correctly when they harp on welfare for the poor and middle-class, though. There is quite a group of vocal sensationalists trying to protect the rich. Apparently a state run by rich politicians, with rich lobbyists, and rich donations, is interested in stealing from the rich.

...Right.

And their belief about private ownership over natural resources and land is absolutely ridiculous. "Mix labor with the soil." I urinate in dirt all the time. When do I get to call it my own?

[More Fire for the People]

The poor in the U.S. aren't doing too badly in global terms. Their situation cannot be realistically compared to that of the poor in the global South. And if it were the case that we were settling for infinitesimal gains for the U.S. poor and working class (by voting Democrat) at the expense of sustaining U.S. imperialism, then surely any true internationalist would agree this is a very poor prioritization of political battles?

Oh fuck you. You should walk outside your suburb and see the neighboorhood were folks like me live.

[JimmyJazz]

Here's the reality - the US intervened in Russia, in Cuba, in Vietnam, throughout S America and Africa. It maintains military bases in the Middle East and Central Asia. Should a revolution occur anywhere in the world you can be certain the the West will, even if only a covert level, intervene in an attempt to quash it. This is regardless of current military deployments (which actually sap this ability to interfere globally) or who the President is.

This I agree with. The Libs' commitment to anti-militarism is only superficial. It's merely another vision of how exactly the ruling class should rule. And when push came to shove, the West would intervene militarily to save the global capitalist system and their dominance within it, regardless of who was in charge. They would not simply allow capitalism to crumble. I don't want you to think that I'm saying anything else.

However, if I believed that they were serious enough about their anti-militarism that they would delay action until it was too late to save global capitalism, then I'd find them preferable to either the Democrats or the Republicans--both of whom are very careful not to let things get even slightly out of hand, to let contradictions intensify even a little bit.

I see where you're coming from. What I still don't see is how you believe this theory of "immiseration" of the third world to be anything other than plain old orthodox Marxism, applied to classes of nations rather than classes of individuals. And as further evidence that it is just that, I'm still not sure how you think my own perspective on global economy differs from that of Marx himself, in the speech I mention in the OP. Did you read it?

You and I both hate 'corporate banditry', as you call it. But so do liberals. And yet liberals choose to ameliorate the effects of capitalism rather than aiming to end it once and for all. You and I agree that this is fairly short-sighted on a national level, so I'm not sure why you don't agree that an analogous course of action on the international level would be equally short-sighted. Will immiseration actual produce a revolution? It is always a gamble. I don't take this strategic choice lightly; I don't enjoy human suffering. But nonetheless that is the choice we're faced with, right? Rapid immiseration to produce a revolution or ameliorated-but-sustained suffering under a reformist scheme? If there's a third way, I'm missing it.

[ckaihatsu]

Libertarianism is a simplistic answer to a complex world. It is as bad as religion is to the questions one may have about life.

- QUESTION:
Why are we here?

- RELIGION:
Because God willed it.

- FOLLOW-UP QUESTION:
Why is God here?

- RELIGION:
[No answer.]


---


- QUESTION:
How do we end war?

- LIBERTARIAN:
Minimize the state.

- FOLLOW-UP QUESTION:
Who controls the state?

- LIBERTARIAN:
It's controlled democratically.

- FOLLOW-UP QUESTION:
Then how do you prevent the influence of money in that democracy?

- LIBERTARIAN:
[No answer.]


Libertarianism pretends that the economic and political spheres can somehow be separate, which is impossible. Libertarianism is as bad as any agricultural-utopian idea, because both ignore that we live in a highly mechanized, industrialized, energized, militarized, globalized world. Dismantling all of the complexity for the pursuit of simple solutions is *not* worth it, nor is it feasible anyway.

The point is how do we get the *producers* of all of this productivity and wealth to control it? It's *their* (our) labor, after all -- shouldn't the ones working be in control, instead of an unelected elite of global managers?


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

[JimmyJazz]

I don't think you read the OP, Chris.


Libertarianism pretends that the economic and political spheres can somehow be separate, which is impossible.

I don't think you even read my sig! :lol:

[Spartacist]

Libertarianism progressive?

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[trivas7]

Libertarianism is a simplistic answer to a complex world. It is as bad as religion is to the questions one may have about life.

Yes, indeed. It has all the pretensions of fundamentalism without the traditions of conservatism.

[dogwoodlover]

Yes, I'm serious.

As despicable as I find right-wing libertarianism's apologetics for continued business class/first world accumulation to be, people like Ron Paul seem to be genuinely against foreign intervention by the United States. They are also in favor of free trade with all nations, including socialist ones, like Cuba.

The poor in the U.S. aren't doing too badly in global terms. Their situation cannot be realistically compared to that of the poor in the global South. And if it were the case that we were settling for infinitesimal gains for the U.S. poor and working class (by voting Democrat) at the expense of sustaining U.S. imperialism, then surely any true internationalist would agree this is a very poor prioritization of political battles?

And I think that's exactly what we are doing. Anyone who would vote for the Democrats either (1) doesn't appreciate the true scope of U.S. imperialism and military interventionism to prevent pro-democratic/pro-socialist developments in the third world, (2) doesn't appreciate the truly bipartisan nature of this imperialism or (3) values the life and welfare of Americans much more than foreigners. Regarding points 1 & 2, I'd be happy to recommend some books if anyone is curious but unconvinced.

To be a progressive means constantly re-evaluating the political scene and all the available political options. You have to think clearly about what direction is, in fact, "forward". And at times, supporting things which intuitively look like a move away from the end goal can be necessary.

For a precedent in this kind of thinking, check out Marx's speech, "On the Question of Free Trade". It's available on marxists.org.

I strongly suggest reading the whole speech, but if you just don't have the patience then skip to the last paragraph for the (perhaps) surprise ending: Marx was in favor of free trade.

I hope that no one thinks I'm laying out a counterintuitive strategy just to be really revolutionary and different and cool. Occasionally a counterintuitive strategy really is the best way forward. And we might be approaching one of those times. Maybe.

I'm not suggesting that progressives run out and vote libertarian. I don't want to give greater exposure or legitimacy to their simplistic economic dogmas. But I am saying that if the Libertarians were ever poised to topple the 2-party system, I'd probably be rooting for them. An end to U.S. imperialist interventionism would be such a worldwide victory for progressive politics that no havoc they might wreak on the U.S. economy would even compare to it. And a socialist state like Cuba would be allowed, for the first time in its history, to trade with its largest neighbor and to develop normally without the artificial hindrance of a U.S. embargo. It would either sink or swim, and I am personally confident that it would swim.

While I favor a socialist economy, I'm not about to force one on a people who doesn't want it. Let each nation decide for itself without outside pressure. Given the military power that backs up global (U.S.-led) capitalism, an end to the role of military intervention in the shaping of nations' economies can only be a good thing for the economic left. It would allow each nation, for the first time, to genuinely pursue its own internal economic agenda. And the Libertarian Party promises to bring about such an end.

Anyway, that's why I think a Ron Paul-style Libertarian government would be preferable, from a leftist perspective, to the Republicrat status quo. Thoughts?


P.S. - Of course, ending U.S. imperialism by a Green victory would be far preferable. This whole thing was written with the idea in mind that the LPUSA *might* be the only third party which could challenge the 2-party status quo. If that turns out to be false, then obviously you should forget everything I've written here.

I apologize in advance if I'm being redundant--I didn't read the other posts.

The most obvious mistake you seem to be making is that you are assuming that what Ron Paul says is what Ron Paul will do. A quick glance at the history of representative democracies will quickly show this to be farce.

The reality is, at least it would seem so to me, that a victory in American politics by the "Libertarian Party" would quite simply result in a more heavily business-dominated society than the US already is. Regardless of Ron Paul's "Iraq Policy", the Libertarians fundamentally believe in dismantling government regulations and encouraging (perhaps that isn't the right word) a "free market" economy in which big business is truly allowed free reign without government interference. If you read in between the lines, they effectively are saying that they want democracy OUT of the economy, and that private tyranny should not have to answer to the public.

In short, I think many of the problems in the US are business-driven, and the widespread election of "Libertarians" would only exacerbate them.

[ckaihatsu]

The capitalist establishment would *never* take libertarianism seriously because it cuts against their established interests. Downsizing the government infrastructure is *not* in the interests of the bourgeoisie -- nor is it in the interests of the working class, for that matter -- *that's* why libertarianism is so Looney-Tunes.

I was talking to a self-professed libertarian at a backyard party not too long ago and this guy actually said that he would allow the current financial failures >>> to take place <<< !!!

Now, of course I would rather see actual *homeowners* bailed out with taxpayer money -- hell, I'd rather see free housing, food, education, health care, gasoline, etc. -- but I don't think it would be in *anyone*'s interests for the entire financial infrastructure to disintegrate.... That's just inviting Third World gangsterism to take over...! Downsizing the government of our civilization -- as it is -- is the same as downsizing our civilization. The *last* thing we need is to bring on Mad Max-like conditions...!

I guess I *do* have to entertain the notion that, hypothetically, if the bourgeoisie actually dozed off for awhile and started downsizing government -- like the dumb-ass move that California Governor Schwarzenegger is making -- the bourgeoisie's loss of a buffer between monied interests and the country's working class could quickly turn out in favor of revolutionary forces.

Keep in mind that it's only the state's repressive apparatus that prevents revolutionary consciousness from spreading like wildfire and the swamping of Wall Street by the proletariat. As conditions worsen there are more chances that bone-headed moves by politicians will backfire, allowing the rank-and-file to expose the system's political bankruptcy without a doubt.

[BobKKKindle$]

...people like Ron Paul seem to be genuinely against foreign intervention by the United States...[etc]

This if a flawed analysis because it locates imperialism as the result of individual leaders and the ideology of an administration, whereas Marxists recognize that imperialism exists regardless of which party is in power, because imperialism is the result of the dynamics of the capitalist system, especially the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, which drives firms to gain access to overseas destinations for the export of capital, because the domestic market is not sufficiently profitable and is burdened with a surplus of investment capital. Historically there have been several leaders who have claimed to represent the principles of non-interventionism but have been forced to intervene overseas during the term of office by factors beyond the control of the individual - for example, Woodrow Wilson was able to gain the support of the electorate by claiming that he would not enter WW1 and America would remain at peace, but still declared war in 1917 to preserve American loans (which represented a major potential source of foreign income, and would have been cancelled if Germany had defeated Britain) and used an extensive program of propaganda to present the war as a struggle to defend democracy and so win the consent of the American people, despite his previous promise to avoid war. This shows that your conception of imperialism is flawed and inconsistent with the Marxist approach.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

P.S. - Of course, ending U.S. imperialism by a Green victory would be far preferable. This whole thing was written with the idea in mind that the LPUSA *might* be the only third party which could challenge the 2-party status quo. If that turns out to be false, then obviously you should forget everything I've written here.
There is absolutely no way that ANY third party could challenge the 2-party status quo in the United States. It's been going on without interruption for 150 years for God's sake - since the Civil War, since the days when Karl Marx was still alive. It survived two world wars, the great depression, and the third-party challenge of the Progressive Party in the early 20th century, which was much bigger and much more serious than the LPUSA.

It would take some major, world-shattering event to end the 2-party status quo. It would have to be something with a greater impact on American society than the great depression or the world wars. It would have to be something like, say, the global end of capitalism, or a working class revolution within the US.

For that reason, it is a waste of time and effort to put your faith in any party - let alone an extremely right-wing reactionary party like the LPUSA - as a possible vehicle for ending the 2-party status quo. It won't happen. The Democrats and the Republicans will dominate the United States until the end of capitalism or until the end of the United States (whichever comes first).

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Furthermore, it's important to understand the role played by libertarianism in capitalist society. It's not a real political movement - it doesn't serve the interests of any class, rich or poor, and it has no chance of ever getting real political power.

Because libertarians will never get into power, it doesn't matter what they promise to do. It doesn't matter that they are opposed to militarism or imperialism (though many of them are not, and in fact some of them are fanatical militarists). The only kind of influence libertarians will ever have is the influence of their propaganda, the influence of their theory and ideas. It doesn't matter what they might do in government, because they'll never get a chance to do it. The only thing that matters is what ideas they promote.

And they promote extremely reactionary, ultra-capitalist and anti-socialist ideas. They are a right-wing propaganda machine, and for that reason they must be fought relentlessly.

[JimmyJazz]

I apologize in advance if I'm being redundant--I didn't read the other posts.

The most obvious mistake you seem to be making is that you are assuming that what Ron Paul says is what Ron Paul will do. A quick glance at the history of representative democracies will quickly show this to be farce.

Yes, this was addressed by ComradeOm. I replied:


The Libs' commitment to anti-militarism is only superficial. It's merely another vision of how exactly the ruling class should rule. And when push came to shove, the West would intervene militarily to save the global capitalist system and their dominance within it, regardless of who was in charge. They would not simply allow capitalism to crumble. I don't want you to think that I'm saying anything else.

However, if I believed that they were serious enough about their anti-militarism that they would delay action until it was too late to save global capitalism, then I'd find them preferable to either the Democrats or the Republicans--both of whom are very careful not to let things get even slightly out of hand, to let contradictions intensify even a little bit.

The bolded part (which I just added bolding to now) is the key. When capitalism has fallen, or come close, hasn't it always been because the ruling class was reckless, pushed things too far in their favor, and let things spiral out of their control? Isn't that actually the real essence of Marx's contradiction-based theories about capitalism? Right now, the U.S. ruling class adheres to a fairly stable, centrist, bipartisan strategy. But if they ever did buy into the more reckless Libertarian strategy--which would allow them to push their profit margins up much further, but would also create a lot of resistance, potentially an amount sufficient to topple capitalism--then that might be preferable to the more stable strategy they currently hold to.

I'm not totally sold on my own strategy as a realistic course of action, btw, even under the exact right conditions. The places where capitalism has fallen have not been advanced industrial countries. The ruling classes which have pushed things beyond what they were able to control were usually feudal/monarchical powers (like the Tsar), not modern bourgeoisies. Depressingly, it seems that the bourgeoisie may be much better and more responsible about maintaining its rule than any small ruling clique ever has been.


In short, I think many of the problems in the US are business-driven, and the widespread election of "Libertarians" would only exacerbate them.

This is a problem, but hopefully a short-term one.


The capitalist establishment would *never* take libertarianism seriously because it cuts against their established interests.

This is definitely true for the foreseeable future. To me it seems likely to be true for much longer. But I can still dream about hypothetical revolutionary scenarios right? :lol:


I was talking to a self-professed libertarian at a backyard party not too long ago and this guy actually said that he would allow the current financial failures >>> to take place <<< !!!

I've talked to a lot of right-wing libs and this is pretty standard. Since they really do believe the market is magical, they don't think there is a need for government interference on the side of either the consumers/producers OR the stockholders. They usually want to get rid of anti-trust laws, since "monoplies don't happen in a truly free market". But CEOs know from firsthand experience that exactly none of this is the case, which is why you're probably right that Libertarianism would never take power (not in any extreme form). The heads of the established companies realize that free markets, far from magical, are merely a handy way of accumulating profit rapidly in times of peace. In times of crisis they'll run to the government like a kid on Christmas. But again, my op scenario was just supposed to be a hypothetical.

[JimmyJazz]

Bobkindles and Kwisatz, thanks. You both give replies worth chewing on.

Bob's post, particularly, is stuff I had never thought about. My exposure to Marxism has been the political side (theory of WC revolution, the Manifesto) and I haven't delved into the philosophical or economic parts much yet. Eventually I do plan to read some kind of intro book on Marxist economics, then Capital or some summary of it, then Lenin's Imperialism and Luxemburg's Accumulation.

Your point about Woodrow Wilson is well taken too.

[ckaihatsu]

As Bobkindles has noted, you're giving far too much agency to the bourgeoisie itself. The system of capitalism, and of class society through the millennia in general, goes through definite stages because of the relations of production, *not* because of the intelligence or missteps of any particular leaders. Certainly nationalist leaders play decisive roles in the details of how these large-scale dynamics unfold, but as we're seeing in the current situation, macro events like economics and (the decline of the efficacy of) militarism far overshadow the leverage and maneuverings of whoever happens to be in office right now.



Since they really do believe the market is magical, they don't think there is a need for government interference on the side of either the consumers/producers OR the stockholders.


You've listed *three* different parties here, not two.

- Consumers are synonymous with the 'market', and only those who can afford it are part of the market / are consumers. As Bobkindles explained, new consumers can only be found by employing the nation-state's military in imperialist conquest of new territory and the markets / consumers that come with it. Government interference is almost never on the side of the consumer -- that would be demand-side economics, which is anathema to capital -- even though it works, by enlarging the base of consumers through government spending.

- Government interference is *never* on the side of the producers -- that would be the ruling class handing victory, however slight, to their class enemy, the proletariat.

- Government interference is *always* supply-side, meaning that its fixed policy is the practice of providing taxpayer money to increase liquidity -- that is, to lower the cost of available investment capital so as to make the cost of doing new business cheaper, thus stimulating growth -- whether it's in real manufacturing, service, or the growth of fictitious capital goods. The problem with this approach is that it leads to oversupply, while at the same time it does nothing to increase the ability of workers to actually *afford* to purchase this increase of stuff -- that would require an increase in wages, which, as I noted above, *doesn't* happen.

Since labor is at the heart of supply, wages tend to stay in a fixed ratio to prices, since wages are a cost that is passed through to the consumer. So even if oversupply kicks in and stuff gets cheaper, that happens at the same time that labor is getting cheaper, meaning that wages are stagnating or decreasing, thereby decreasing workers' purchasing power in line with the decrease in prices of stuff.

I recently did up a simple diagram to make this fundamental divide in economics more understandable. Please feel free to have a look:


Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends
http://tinyurl.com/6bs6va