How can we make more Ex-Libertarians?

[Red_Dialectics]

As far as I can tell libertarians are a significant, and militant "tendency" in the US. They are "radical" reactionaries, and seem to have a lot of firearms. They are certainly as distrustful of mainstream media as we are, which is an advantage. I've noticed many on the revolutionary left were Libertarians at some point (including myself, long ago). How can we convert more of these people? Their ideology is inherently flawed, obviously, but they could end up bringing much needed numbers and firepower to the left, should they join us. Are most of them too far-right to reason with? Or can they be turned into allies? I can tell you that many of them are just as ready to revolt as we are!

Some side notes: Many libertarians are "New World Order" conspiracy theorists, is this a potential factor?

[gla22]

1. Distrust in corporations
2. Immorality of capitalism.
3. Capitalism is welfare for the lazy (currency traders who contribute nothing to society make millions)

[Red_Dialectics]

Good start, any other comrades have ideas?

[JimmyJazz]

I have talked to many libertarians, I have two friends who are libs, and I was one ~6 years ago. I was influenced by their free market economic ideas much more recently than that.

They are a varied group. Some of them, mostly the new ones who got into it through Ron Paul, are sincerely anti-war and got into it for that reason. Often these people know very little about the economics, they're mainly interested in getting out of Iraq and legalizing weed. Among the people who have been in it a little longer and are seriously into the economics of it, there are basically two groups: egalitarians who are genuinely fooled into thinking free markets provide for people better than the alternatives (this was me), and anti-egalitarians/authoritarians who simply don't think that equality is any kind of important human goal. Some of the most authoritarian people I have ever met were self-described "libertarians" of the latter kind.

Basically, here's the strategy I would take: for the antiwar Ron Paul people, school them in proletarian internationalism. Show them that it goes back all the way to Marx. Also, if you are able, try to show how capitalism underlies imperialism and intervention, thus making the market more free would just result in more wars and interventions, regardless of if Ron Paul or whoever else was in power. (I personally can't do this yet, but I know enough to be pretty sure that it's true and I'm trying to educate myself about it).

For the egalitarians who are fooled by free market economics, introduce them to the concept of class. They're going to think it's oversimplified nonsense at first, so don't be too dogmatic/insistent about it or you might turn them off. Grant them that class lines are somewhat blurred today in the West, but point out to them that (1) the lines are not at all blurred in sweatshops in Indonesia, and (2) the lines were not at all blurred in the U.S. prior to the Depression-New Deal-WWII changes. To prove the second point, give them a book about labor history, such as Subterranean Fire (http://www.amazon.com/The-Working-Class/lm/R1XCGT9U8ZNW1N/ref=cm_lm_byauthor_title_full). Remember that it's much easier to prove the existence of a the proletariat--a group of propertyless wage-earners who must sell their labor power to survive--than it is to prove the existence of a bourgeoisie or "ruling class".

For the types who are just plain anti-egalitarian, fuck 'em. They won't ever come around. Deep down, they are not only authoritarian, but also collectivist: they want people to form a collective pyramid so they can try to climb on top of it. Don't lump anyone in this group prematurely, but also don't waste your time if you actually are talking to one of these.

I agree with you that they may be a good group to recruit from--and not just because I once was one. Most liberals have an allegiance to centrism, pragmatism and the status quo before anything else. Egalitarianism and justice come in a distant second. Libertarians, on the other hand, are often at least capable of looking at the bigger picture and realizing there are problems bigger than any Republicrat Party politician is addressing. It's just that they've found the wrong solution.

[The Feral Underclass]

In what way are libertarians "radical"?

[JimmyJazz]

In what way are libertarians "radical"?

They attempt to go to the root of social problems.


rad·i·cal http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png –adjective
1. of or going to the root or origin; fundamental: a radical difference.
3.favoring drastic political, economic, or social reforms

The fact that they utterly fail in this attempt doesn't mean they aren't at least trying to be radical. Many of them also favor pretty drastic political-economic-social reforms.

fixed by Holden...

[The Feral Underclass]

My response to your post is: Libertarians attempt this [get to the root of social problems] by freeing the market completely, which maintains class division. That is ultimately reactionary and does not in any way get to the root of social problems. Indeed, it reinforces them.

[freakazoid]

Like JimmyJazz said, there are different kinds of libertarians who are in it for different reasons, very nice post by the way, :). I also was a libertarian before I became an anarchist. During that time I believed that while it would be nice to live in an anarchist society it just wouldn't be possible because of how people where. Also I didn't have an opinion on economics, for me it was about being as free as possible, and getting back to how the US originally was seemed like the best idea.

[GPDP]

As has been stated, don't bother with the elitist Mises fannies and Randroids. They are libertarians precisely because they want to be as free as possible to get on top of everyone else. They are reactionary to the core.

The softer libertarians, I agree, should be approached. I am embarrassed to admit that at one point, I almost joined their ranks. The only thing that kept me was that I wasn't quite ready to trust the complete deregulation of big business. But perhaps, I thought, Adam Smith's vision of perfect equality through a perfectly free market would come to fruition. That was until I read Marx, however, and subsequently read Friedman, who turned me off capitalism forever. :)

[Plagueround]

Libertarian philosophy is very popular with the online crowd because it appeals to rebellious attitude by decrying the actions of government intervention in one's life, while still upholding the capitalist "American Dream" that the "elite" and "intelligent" will get rich solely on their abilities and gifts, and anyone who doesn't is lazy or unworthy, fit only to know their role in society as the underlings of the "enlightened and prosperous Randian individual". It paints a picture that many people who have delusions of getting "filthy rich" find attractive without having to give up their stance on personal freedom issues (which, for most of them only seems to extend to smoking pot, since they care little for other social issues). I see this all the time in the IT crowd...these people flock to these ideas like moths to a flame. :rolleyes:

Its no small coincidence that Ron Paul's popularity on the internet made it seem like he was THE presidential candidate, while the rest of the population hardly knew who the fuck he was. American Libertarianism seems to be nothing more than a fad (even though most of them will try to tell you its the left who is fading) bolstered by its popularity online.

As JimmyJazz said (much more eloquently than I did), the softcore ones that are more into the antiwar movement and personal freedom will usually come around once you inform them what else they're actually supporting.

[JimmyJazz]

I see this all the time in the IT crowd...these people flock to these ideas like moths to a flame. :rolleyes:

Lol, seriously...wtf it up with that? I can only assume that they all dream of developing some revolutionary new computer program that makes them rich. And I do have to agree that software is the sector of our economy where getting rich off of innovation is most likely to be possible, since the capital required to make the innovation is practically nil (just a laptop, basically).

[Os Cangaceiros]

Debunking the notion of the "capitalist free market", which is a contradiction of terms.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I don't think it's a coincidence that the libertarian movement adopted punk slogans for the Ron Paul campaign. Hearing pro-capitalists use the words "revolution, brother-in-arms, slavery, and theft" regularly made me think it was mostly a bunch of disgruntled teenagers and twenty year olds. I was pleasantly surprised to find that I was right. :)

I confront all libertarians with the question about land ownership. Why should people make wealth from non-labor activities?

There is a problem with putting libertarians in a giant straight jacket. Some are quite fucking wrong on almost everything. White supremacists flocked for Ron Paul. Friedmonian anarcho-capitalists literally believe "might is right." Right-Rothbardians have some warped illusion that a state-esque system will allow panarchist (only so far as "capitalism lite" or "capitalism dark") to occur. And Ayn Rand devotees literally pride themselves on being reactionaries. I once was an ardent minarchist, although I knew about left-libertarianism enough to ignore the constitutionalism crowd.

I would take the critical thinkers seriously, and pass off the rest. Especially anarcho-capitalists. Or leave them with the tidbit about private property and the state being interlocked concepts of arbitrary exclusion.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Oh, you can also say the internet is a hive for communist associations. That gets them. :laugh:

[Sendo]

Facts. They have a distorted view of history. Give them some Chomsky, like when he says that the great "free market" inventions we know (like the internet) were made by the govt. The cost was socialized and the profits were given to big, private corporations. Talk about how IN PRACTICE corporations are totalitarian.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Many rightwing libertarians are young people (such as GeneCosta already mentioned). Many times young people have been of radical mindsets, as history shows us...they know the world needs to be fixed, probably because they have more time to think about such matters than, say, someone who works a 9 to 5 (which isn't necessarily a bad thing). And, contrary to what some here seem to think, they are politically conscious; if they weren't, they'd fall into the same old "liberal vs. conservative" void. The vast majority of them share at least some progressive values with us, including anti-imperialism and homosexual rights.

I think the problem is that most of them feel that socialism has failed, and that's why we've seen the growth of this peculiar breed of libertarianism.

[FreeFocus]

They can be easily made into anarchists by showing that libertarian socialism maximizes collective and individual freedom, that government is inherently authoritarian, and that capitalism is oppressive. Another thing is showing that humans are not naturally murderous or conniving sociopaths, which would instantly strike down their argument that some "limited government" is necessary as a guarantor of rights and security. In a nutshell, dismantle their myths.

[Red Phalanx]

The very idea that you are going to turn Libertarians toward our side is laughable!

The only good one is a dead one.

And FUCK Ron Fascist Paul!

[Red_Dialectics]

The very idea that you are going to turn Libertarians toward our side is laughable!

The only good one is a dead one.

Isn't that counter-productive? I mean if the internet is any indication (which it probably isn't...) there are many young people converted to their ideology, and those are people who, at least in some cases, genuinely want to help people and change things. That they are becoming libertarians is obviously misguided, but don't you think they should be shown the truth about capitalism before they are lost to the bourgeois side? We need all the help we can get, and as many in this thread have remarked, I think certain types are easier to win than mainstream liberals.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The very idea that you are going to turn Libertarians toward our side is laughable!

The only good one is a dead one.

And FUCK Ron Fascist Paul!

You're being silly.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

The very idea that you are going to turn Libertarians toward our side is laughable!

The only good one is a dead one.

And FUCK Ron Fascist Paul!

:rolleyes:

[JimmyJazz]

We could point out to them that every day this week our government (erm sorry, The Collective) bailed out a different group of professional usurers (er, bold, risk-taking Individuals).

But you know, the fact that you can ridicule libertarian views so concisely just goes to show that they do--unlike most conservatives and liberals--have many of the political economy concepts that are necessary in order to defeat their silly ideas about political economy. So it's less work for you, at least assuming that they aren't dogmatic assholes.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

Generally speaking, Libertarians base their positions on two false or unreflective assumptions. If one can undermine these two assumptions then most intellectually honest libertarians will admit that their theory must be abandoned.

First and easiest is the "free market." The federal reserve along with numerous European banks are intervening every month, day, week, and hour. Furthermore fiat currency ONLY EXISTS ON THE CONDITION OF STATE INTERVENTION. Additionally, limited liability corporations and the easy capital they generate ONLY EXIST ON THE CONDITION OF STATE INTERVENTION.

The second argument of libertarianism is that private property is sovereign. Usually this depends on the Lockean notion that by mixing one's labor with nature (working) you gain right to some good. Furthermore, all goods must be justly acquired. This is why they view taxes, jury duty, and a military draft as plunder and slavery. They claim no one should have the right to goods but its owner or people engaged in voluntary trade.

If you steal a brick of gold it isn't justly acquired. If someone gives you a stolen brick of gold it isn't justly acquired. If you use a stolen shovel to dig for a brick of gold it is not justly acquired.

Because we live in a world with history, ALL GOODS WITHOUT EXCEPTION ARE HISTORICALLY UNJUSTLY ACQUIRED. Unless there is a just redistribution of good (reparations, a huge socialist state engaging in massive just redistribution) then no true libertarianism can be enacted. If a libertarian claims we should "start from now" then they are essentially advocating for "unjustly acquired goods" which essentially makes no different from socialist, except that they're socialist.

From this point, an honest libertarian will realize that they must either become a liberal or an anarchist. Most would opt for anarchism. Please let me know if you have any questions about this argument.

[freakazoid]

The federal reserve along with numerous European banks are intervening every month, day, week, and hour. Furthermore fiat currency ONLY EXISTS ON THE CONDITION OF STATE INTERVENTION. Additionally, limited liability corporations and the easy capital they generate ONLY EXIST ON THE CONDITION OF STATE INTERVENTION.


They are against the Federal Reserve intervening, and the system itself. And they are against the idea of fiat currency.


The second argument of libertarianism is that private property is sovereign. Usually this depends on the Lockean notion that by mixing one's labor with nature (working) you gain right to some good. Furthermore, all goods must be justly acquired. This is why they view taxes, jury duty, and a military draft as plunder and slavery. They claim no one should have the right to goods but its owner or people engaged in voluntary trade.

How does this counter what we believe?

[Reclaimed Dasein]

They are against the Federal Reserve intervening, and the system itself. And they are against the idea of fiat currency.

Perhaps I should have been more clear on this point. The upshot of this argument is that libertarians are as utopian if not more utopian then almost any marxist,anarchist, or socialist. In which case, nothing is gained from believing in "free markets" especially given that one has no justly acquired goods.




How does this counter what we believe?

Widely speaking, most marxists and socialist don't view taxes or state control as some inherent violation. Most view certain state actions as violation (death squads, etc) some can be beneficial (universal health care). Moreover, most marxists, socialist, and anarchist fall within the democratic tradition in that the demos (people) should be sovereign and not property. If you feel that private property is inviolable then I'm wondering what sort of leftist you are since that doesn't sound familiar to me as a leftist idea.

The main point of that paragraph is to show the premises of theoretical libertarianism so that I may later show that they are not commensurate with world history.

[JimmyJazz]

Another thing that I think is crucial with RW libertarians is not to let them frame the debate. They're going to want to focus on the benefits of exchange in a free market; they're obsessed with it, because it's their strongest point. You could sit and argue with them about things like information costs, but this isn't going to lead anyone to socialism. What you have to do is point out to them that by the time you get to exchange on a free market, you've already been through most of the entire economic process:

-extraction of raw materials
-designing of goods
-production of goods (the labor process)
-exchange on a free/"free" market (under capitalism, done for profit)
-consumption

That outline could be filled out even more. The point is that economics is, in a real sense, the bulk and basis of human social life*. It's better not to waste too much time arguing about whether the free market is as perfect and beautiful a tool for exchange as they say it is, rather than to simply point out what a tiny part exchange itself is in the entire economic chain from extraction of raw materials to consumption of finished goods.

Radicals take the "production of goods" step to be the most important. Environmentalists probably consider the first and last steps the most important ones. Feminists might consider a step betwen free market exchange and consumption--a "household labor" or "preparation/maintenance" stage--to be extremely important. But I don't think it's even necessary to convince anyone that any particular step is more important. If your goal is to defeat a stupid ideology like libertarianism, then all you really need to do is show that the "exchange on a free market" step is not particularly important and that their ideology gives it a vastly inflated importance.


*Division of labor (an economic phenomenon) is the real basis and need for human societies. Changes in one correspond with changes in the other. E.g., when the division of labor blew up to unheard of proportions in the industrial revolution, human societies also blew up to unheard of sizes in the form of modern nation-states.

Incidentally, there's also no such thing as economic "individualism", and for the exact same reason. Anywhere you have division of labor, you by definition have economic collectivism. The only question is whether this will be hierarchical or non-hierarchical collectivism.