Left Libertarianism?

[RGacky3]

I have a question, directed toward hayenmill mainly,

How is "left libertarianism" left? In otherwords now is it different from say, "Right Libertarianism" or any other anarcho-capitalist or libertarian theory? What makes it left? Also did'nt it grow out of the free-market libertarian crowd rather than the Anarchist crowd?

[x359594]

The word "libertarian" is of Left origin, and in the Spanish speaking world it still retains its leftist connotation. Its usage by the Left dates to the 19th century, while the term "libertarian" was appropriated by the Right in the mid-1940s and and was widely applied by the Right in the mid-1960s.

So left libertarianism refers to non-authoritarian socialism or non-authoritarian communism (in Spanish socialismo libertario or communismo libertario.) For example, the anracho-marxist Abraham Guillen, author of Strategy of the Urban Guerrilla, describes himself as a libertarian socialist, as does the British anarchist Colin Ward.

[Havet]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/left-left-....html?t=122374

[Skooma Addict]

I undertand what is meant by left-libertarian. Left-libertarians have a certain cultural and political outlook. They also seem to strive after certain goals. However, the term "right-libertarian" has become meaningless. I think you can be a left-libertarian and an AnCap though. Take Roderick Long for example.

[syndicat]

From the point of view of the libertarian socialist or social anarchist Left, "left-libertarian" means anti-capitalist, socialist libertarianism. "Left" refers to the struggle for social justice and equality. Because capitalism is a system of oppression and exploitation, we can speak of the masses fighting for their liberation from it. It's really about whose liberty you are concerned about. The libertarian socialist Left is concerned with the liberty of the working class, the oppressed. The libertarian Right is concerned with the liberty of capitalists, owners of property, landlords, bosses.

However, within the pro-capitalist libertarian right, "libertarian Left" I believe refers to those who are more minarchist or statist, that is, they acknowledge a role for the state. This is a mistaken use of the word "Left" though because "Left" doesn't necessarily mean statist. Social anarchism is antistatist but left and anti-capitalist.

The word "libertarian" was first coined by an American libertarian socialist back in the 19th century.

[RGacky3]

From the point of view of the libertarian socialist or social anarchist Left, "left-libertarian" means anti-capitalist, socialist libertarianism. "Left" refers to the struggle for social justice and equality. Because capitalism is a system of oppression and exploitation, we can speak of the masses fighting for their liberation from it. It's really about whose liberty you are concerned about. The libertarian socialist Left is concerned with the liberty of the working class, the oppressed. The libertarian Right is concerned with the liberty of capitalists, owners of property, landlords, bosses.

The word "libertarian" is of Left origin, and in the Spanish speaking world it still retains its leftist connotation. Its usage by the Left dates to the 19th century, while the term "libertarian" was appropriated by the Right in the mid-1940s and and was widely applied by the Right in the mid-1960s.

So left libertarianism refers to non-authoritarian socialism or non-authoritarian communism (in Spanish socialismo libertario or communismo libertario.) For example, the anracho-marxist Abraham Guillen, author of Strategy of the Urban Guerrilla, describes himself as a libertarian socialist, as does the British anarchist Colin Ward.

I understand that classical meaning of the word nad the commonly accepted meaning, but some Free market anarchist and American Capitalist "libertarians" have used the word, and it confuses me a little.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/left-left-....html?t=122374

I would like to hear an explination in your own words, on what makes it leftist, considering your ideology goes contrary to the vast majority of people who call themselves leftists, or why you call yourself a leftist.

However, the term "right-libertarian" has become meaningless. I think you can be a left-libertarian and an AnCap though. Take Roderick Long for example.

If right libertarian has become meaningless so has left-libertarian. I simply don't understand how the hell American intelectual discourse has distorted basic political language so much, to the point to where somehow Hayenmill calls himself a left-libertarian. I just want to hear an explination (not a link to an article)

[Havet]

I would like to hear an explination in your own words, on what makes it leftist, considering your ideology goes contrary to the vast majority of people who call themselves leftists, or why you call yourself a leftist.

What makes me leftist? My oposition to statism and militarism, my opposition to cultural intolerance (including racism, sexism and homophobia) and my opposition to the prevailing corporatist capitalism falsely called a free-market, as well as my emphasis on education, direct action and building alternative institutions rather than electoral politics, as the chief strategy to achieve liberation.

I'm also an advocate of mutual aid, equality of opportunity and equality of authority, if that was not clear. I also have an egalitarian view concerning natural resources, wherein i believe it to be illegitimate for someone to claim private ownership of them to the detriment of others.

[RGacky3]

ic. So what would the difference be between you and regular American Libertarians, or ANarcho-capitalists. I suppose this one right?

I also have an egalitarian view concerning natural resources, wherein i believe it to be illegitimate for someone to claim private ownership of them to the detriment of others.

So you believe private ownership over Natural resources are an illigitimate claim?

[Havet]

So you believe private ownership over Natural resources are an illigitimate claim?

Illegitimate when it deprives others of their means of survival (when it restricts their equality of opportunity).

[RGacky3]

Which would be decided democratically I presume, which I means that natural resources are democratically controlled.

Let me put it too you this way, if a government contracts out the right to drill for oil, however they reserve the right to take away that contract at anytime if they decide it nessesary to do so, its really the government controlling the resource not the contractors.

I'm presuming its the same way in your ideology, private control is essencially ok, as long as it is democratically accepted that it is, which means in reality, its democratically controlled.

Am I right?

[IcarusAngel]

What makes an ideology leftist is that the public controls the resources and are empowered, and no one has power over anybody else (egalitarianism).

Thus, a society where only private actors are allowed to control the means of production, occassionally operating under brutal collectivism (corporations, capitalist "worker cooperatives"), is not leftist in the least.

[Havet]

Which would be decided democratically I presume, which I means that natural resources are democratically controlled.

In the beginning, yes.

Let me put it too you this way, if a government contracts out the right to drill for oil, however they reserve the right to take away that contract at anytime if they decide it nessesary to do so, its really the government controlling the resource not the contractors.

I don't understand the analogy since we were discussing a stateless society, but i think i get the overall idea of what you're trying to say.

I'm presuming its the same way in your ideology, private control is essencially ok, as long as it is democratically accepted that it is, which means in reality, its democratically controlled.

Am I right?

Yes, you're right. That's how I see it, at least.

[RGacky3]

In the beginning, yes.

WHat you mean no recall? other generations loose that power? Either its democratic or its not, if you vote for a king once, then a monarchy continues, thats hardly a democracy.

Yes, you're right. That's how I see it, at least.

Ok, so there really is no private property, its democratic property, and some people might be allowed to use it if the people allow it.

And you believe a market economy would grow out of this?

[IcarusAngel]

As Adam Smith said, when the market equalizes things the government is playing a vital role, and this is always justified.

Otherwise the needs and wants of the rich get out of hand. why should we trust a serious social theorists like Adam Smith versus a crazy fringe lunatic like the founder of agorism.

[Havet]

WHat you mean no recall? other generations loose that power? Either its democratic or its not, if you vote for a king once, then a monarchy continues, thats hardly a democracy.

What I said was that INITIALLY they would be democratically controlled.

And you believe a market economy would grow out of this?

Yes. There are benefits in personal property and trade. So long as an environment of equality of opportunity is kept, I predict that no harm would appear.

[RGacky3]

What I said was that INITIALLY they would be democratically controlled.

So a one time vote? no recall, the one vote gest passed down generation to generation? who enforces that vote? I want you to clerify please.

Yes. There are benefits in personal property and trade. So long as an environment of equality of opportunity is kept, I predict that no harm would appear.

How would you keep equality of opportunity (in practical terms, in other words don't just say a word, explain how it would be kept)

[Havet]

So a one time vote? no recall, the one vote gest passed down generation to generation? who enforces that vote? I want you to clerify please.

One time vote, then it becomes intersubjective consensus. If a new generation wants to contest it, they can call in another vote.

How would you keep equality of opportunity (in practical terms, in other words don't just say a word, explain how it would be kept)

When i talk of equality of opportunity I talk of equal ability for an individual to start his own enterprise, bound only by natural market factors. Such enterprise can be communistic, cooperative or a regular trade business. Equality of opportunity is kept by making sure that no entity or institution carry their will by force in a way to grant them privilege.

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. it is up to everyone in that society to organize themselves into institutions, unions or others forms of voluntary organization to make sure that the use of force is not used to grant a person or group of people any special privilege.

[Steve_j]

When i talk of equality of opportunity I talk of equal ability for an individual to start his own enterprise, bound only by natural market factors.

So whats your views on inheritance?

[Havet]

So whats your views on inheritance?

They own the products of their labor, they are free to do with them whatever they please.

Furthermore, in an environment where equal opportunity for one to start their own enterprise is present, I do not fear that the amount one can save will give them a beastly amount of advantage over others. As deCleyre said:

"The differences in natural ability are not, in freedom, great enough to injure any one or disturb the social equilibrium. No one man can produce more than three others; and even granting that much you can see that it would never create the chasm which lies between Vanderbilt and the switchman on his tracks."

[Steve_j]

So you are opposed to wage labour?