Is anarcho-libertarianism the new communism?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Anarchists were a pretty widespread bunch in the late 19th/early 20th century as well, but I don't really know what their policies were aside from "we're a bunch of punk kids with nothing better to do who'll assassinate people!" That's how Tsar Alexander II and William McKinley, among many others, bit the dust.

That's what's different about modern libertarians: they believe they have a utopian social system. Old-school anarchists just wanted society to burn down; these new ones think they can create a utopian new society with their half-baked ideas.

Actually, Anarcho-Socialism is a better descriptor for old-style Anarchism; I suggest briefly reading about Bakunin for an example of the basic theories and concepts which drove it. Communism discredited it because it was better organized and more able to directly appeal to individuals.

[Surlethe]

Frankly, I use the term "anarcho-libertarianism" to describe all economic libertarians, since that is where their deregulatory ideology leads. They just won't admit it. I only distinguish them from social libertarians.

Isn't that a black-and-white fallacy? One might as well use the same reasoning to lump all socialists with communists.

You're barking up the wrong tree. Communism is not an extreme version of socialism; it is an entire extra step, involving the elimination of capital.

Also, anarchy is not an extreme version of deregulation; it is simply a more honest term for it. The whole idea of deregulation is to eliminate laws, under the laughably absurd idea that society will regulate itself if the rule of law is removed.

Fair enough, that was a poor example. A better one might be arguing that all Protestants are fundamentalists, since that's where their Biblicist ideology leads. My point still stands, I think; there is enough of a spectrum in the libertarian community that the far edges can call each other psychos and accuse each other of being statist, communist, collectivist, etc. Whether they're all being logically consistent is a different matter entirely, but it is certainly not true that all libertarians believe in the elimination of government.

Anyway, so I don't drag the thread off topic, I think your analysis of the similarity of libertarianism and communism is spot-on. I would add, though, that as a consequence of being hopelessly unrealistic, anarcho-libertarianism can never be applied correctly because there is always too much government. Some of the more sensible varieties of the ideology could perhaps be persuaded to abdicate their position should certain conditions be met -- e.g., government limitations are no greater than such-and-such, etc. -- but modern anarchism is effectively unfalsifiable. Pie-in-the-sky unfalsifiable ideas will always have at least a small following; if the sociopolitical pendulum swings their way, they can gather much larger crowds behind them. And that's probably what happened with libertarianism: in the United States, which as Stas pointed out, has led the international political movement toward deregulation and classic liberalism, fear of communism began to rise in the '30s (did you know we had a House Committee on Unamerican Activities even back then?), and grew apace when the Soviet Union emerged as the only power potentially capable of challenging American hegemony after the war.

It's probably no coincidence that the religious right came out of hiding in the 1950s and '60s at about the same time the first moves toward economic liberalism occurred -- both coincided with US perceived rivalry with the Soviet Union. So you have the paranoid United States seeking to define itself in opposition to the USSR by minting "In God We Trust" as the new motto, adding "... under God ..." to the pledge of allegiance, and at the same time casting the USSR as a fundamentally atheistic country. Meanwhile, in academic circles, economists like Friedman are questioning Keynes' philosophy of broad countercyclic intervention. The questioning of how much good government actually does is part of this reaction, and it takes place against the backdrop of the zeitgeist terror of the USSR -- this shadowy collectivist freedom-hating horror. So naturally, this idea that freedom is everything takes hold, and that dovetails nicely with a reactionist anti-communist economic philosophy. And simultaneously, thinkers like Schaeffer are uniting libertarianism with evangelical Christianity to create the modern conservative movement.

Then come Vietnam and Watergate. If I'm remembering this statistic correctly, in the middle of the 1960s, some 75% of Americans trusted the federal government. Twenty years later, only 30% or so trusted the federal government. This erosion of trust in the institution of government accompanied and reinforced the growth of libertarianism as an ideology, and after Carter's ineffectual presidency paved the way for Reagan to enter office and build the altar.

The sort of mindless libertarianism most conservatives in the United States subscribe to, then, has its roots in the rise of the Soviet Union, a group of economists developing and endlessly advocating classic liberalism, the rise of the religious right and its marriage of social issues with libertarianism, and the one-two punch of Vietnam and Watergate causing people to associate "federal government" with "bad". Now, even though the USSR is gone, the nation is still dominated by two generations who lived through the Cold War and, on the whole, absorbed these libertarian ideas.

[Patrick Degan]

Libertarianism was originally anachro-socialism, the form by which it was understood by thinkers in the 19th century. Libertarians then also opposed the dire social conditions which inspired the socialist and Marxist movements but distrusted central state authority as inherently oppressive and sought to reorganise society along the lines of voluntary communal cooperation. This ideology, like the other forms of anarchism, fell into disfavour as either insufficient to serve as the basis for a successful revolutionary movement or became too identified with the bomb-throwers and assassins who simply wanted to see society burn and presumed something better would arise from the ashes on its own accord.

It was in the 1950s when Libertarianism was coopted by greedheads who picked from the trasheap a mouldering political philosophy which railed against central state authority and twisted its polarities in the opposite direction: instead of voluntary communal cooperation, libertarianism came to identify with the most extreme form of laissez-faire market philosophy which required the removal of effective government to realise. As it's enshrinement of private wealth as an organising principle put it diametrically opposed to the Dread Spectre of Boshevism™, the new philosophy was quickly adapted and refined by conservatives who saw in this ideology the perfect wedding of their anticommunism with their greed and armed them with the tools not only to oppose America's number one ideological and military enemy but also everything accomplished by and associated with Progressivism and the New Deal, which was counter to their own interests of unrestricted private wealth and privilege. As it made a direct appeal to greed, it was easy to sell this to millions of yokels who had been fed the Horatio Alger myth while also being scared shitless of the mythical threat of a communist takeover: "You too could be rich if it just weren't for the government getting in your way" along with "Government regulation is no better than communism".

[K. A. Pital]

The main question is why libertarianism has become resurgent, in it's new capitalist form, in a nation of people who are complacent, for the most part well-clothed and well-fed, and are overconsuming enormously relative to the rest of the world.

As an ideology borne out of resistance to suffering, it's importance should decline once the economic policies and welfare of the people rise to the point where suffering is minimal.

However, that did not happen and libertarianism has successfully tried to put it's adherents at the top power structure in the wealthiest nation in the world.

[bobalot]

Libertarianism is to social and economic policy is what creationism is to science. Have any problem? Deregulate and cut taxes! Let the market work its magic!

The economy is fucked because shitty regulation allowed banks, investment funds, hedge funds, and all manner of financial parasites to get away with anything (In the words of Madoff himself "...In today's regulatory environment, it's virtually impossible to violate rules ..."), which ended up fucking up the world economy!

What's the Libertarian solution? Deregulate more! Cut taxes!

These guys are like a 'tickle me' elmo doll with one line. When I first heard of these people, I honestly couldn't believe they actually existed. Then I got the Internet.

[Patrick Degan]

The main question is why libertarianism has become resurgent, in it's new capitalist form, in a nation of people who are complacent, for the most part well-clothed and well-fed, and are overconsuming enormously relative to the rest of the world.

As an ideology borne out of resistance to suffering, it's importance should decline once the economic policies and welfare of the people rise to the point where suffering is minimal.

However, that did not happen and libertarianism has successfully tried to put it's adherents at the top power structure in the wealthiest nation in the world.

For the most basic of motivations: simple greed.

[Knife]

The main question is why libertarianism has become resurgent, in it's new capitalist form, in a nation of people who are complacent, for the most part well-clothed and well-fed, and are overconsuming enormously relative to the rest of the world.

As an ideology borne out of resistance to suffering, it's importance should decline once the economic policies and welfare of the people rise to the point where suffering is minimal.

However, that did not happen and libertarianism has successfully tried to put it's adherents at the top power structure in the wealthiest nation in the world.

The persecution complex of christians, coupled with the 'rough outdoors man' mythology of America?

[TithonusSyndrome]

For the most basic of motivations: simple greed.

That's a bit of an unfair oversimplification, don't you think? That greed came about as a result of consumer culture, the Self-Esteem Generation and other things that contributed to the current attitude of entitlement that nineteen year old basement-dwelling Paultards have caught like so much fungal infection. "A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage" used to cut it, but fast-forward five or six decades and several cultural movements and you have a generation of people who seem to think that society thrives in spite of government oversight, and that suddenly plummeting into Depression-era standards again is impossible under literally any method of governance. When viewed in that light, the choice seems to be one between a status quo of a bloated government and parasitic working class, versus a limitless free market paradise of barrel-chested industrial heroes. It seems like lost potential that rightly belongs to capitalistic high achievers, not a choice between a working, sustainable government and mortgaging the future into neo-feudal barbarism.

[Rye]

For the most basic of motivations: simple greed.

That's a bit of an unfair oversimplification, don't you think? That greed came about as a result of consumer culture, the Self-Esteem Generation and other things that contributed to the current attitude of entitlement that nineteen year old basement-dwelling Paultards have caught like so much fungal infection. "A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage" used to cut it, but fast-forward five or six decades and several cultural movements and you have a generation of people who seem to think that society thrives in spite of government oversight, and that suddenly plummeting into Depression-era standards again is impossible under literally any method of governance. When viewed in that light, the choice seems to be one between a status quo of a bloated government and parasitic working class, versus a limitless free market paradise of barrel-chested industrial heroes. It seems like lost potential that rightly belongs to capitalistic high achievers, not a choice between a working, sustainable government and mortgaging the future into neo-feudal barbarism.

Yes and no. Greed became enshrined as a guiding principle and a virtuous arbiter in Rand's cult and that mixed well with the American myth. She literally said it was a virtue and that altruism was irrational and evil and gained a small if influential circle that repeated such ideas till eventually it was just diluted to "extremely market friendly". This, packaged with the easy and long-established hatred of poor people through social stratification (and the always easy conservative political option of punishing the poor) has progressively led to the sort of market fundamentalism amongst American conservatives we see today. The market can punish the poor and allow you whatever you can afford; removing a requirement to contribute to non-market concerns is appealing to people for the reasons you cite (though they are merely modern variants of older reasons), but it only came to popularity through Rand, Reagan and Thatcher types. Before that, Austrian-school types were less numerous and economics were more centrist as a result of the Victorian era's various social issues, revolutions, wars and general political awakening.

[Junghalli]

The main question is why libertarianism has become resurgent, in it's new capitalist form, in a nation of people who are complacent, for the most part well-clothed and well-fed, and are overconsuming enormously relative to the rest of the world.

I think that's precisely why it's so popular. The average person has no clue what a trap poverty can be since they've never experienced it, so it's easy for them to think "them damn lazy welfare bums just want my hard-earned money! If they weren't so fucking lazy they wouldn't be poor!" That way they have an excuse to cling to their money like children to candy, screaming like banshees about the injustice of it every time somebody dares suggest they need to share, and not have to admit to themselves and others that they're just being selfish sociopathic fucktards.

[Patrick Degan]

For the most basic of motivations: simple greed.

That's a bit of an unfair oversimplification, don't you think? That greed came about as a result of consumer culture, the Self-Esteem Generation and other things that contributed to the current attitude of entitlement that nineteen year old basement-dwelling Paultards have caught like so much fungal infection. "A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage" used to cut it, but fast-forward five or six decades and several cultural movements and you have a generation of people who seem to think that society thrives in spite of government oversight, and that suddenly plummeting into Depression-era standards again is impossible under literally any method of governance. When viewed in that light, the choice seems to be one between a status quo of a bloated government and parasitic working class, versus a limitless free market paradise of barrel-chested industrial heroes. It seems like lost potential that rightly belongs to capitalistic high achievers, not a choice between a working, sustainable government and mortgaging the future into neo-feudal barbarism.

OK —greed and ignorance then.

[Surlethe]

The main question is why libertarianism has become resurgent, in it's new capitalist form, in a nation of people who are complacent, for the most part well-clothed and well-fed, and are overconsuming enormously relative to the rest of the world.

Like I said above, it has a lot to do with the Soviet Union. It's been said enough to be cliche, but it's true -- the US defined itself as opposition to the USSR. The religious right rose in part because the USSR was perceived as atheistic, and thus the United States must be religious to oppose it: the Cold War took on religious overtones (as you can see with the addition of "under God" and "in God we trust" during the 1950s). For fundamentalists and evangelicals, the Cold War was, quite literally, the precursor to the Apocalypse. In all sorts of apocalyptic, prophetic literature, Armageddon was predicted as a sudden invasion of Israel by the USSR. Even now, the religious right sees Russia as a bogeyman; do you remember the letter from 2012 [pdf] by Focus on the Family? The chief foreign policy failure is a Russian invasion of Eastern Europe.

So, it seems to me that you have to see everything from mainstream American culture of the 1950s and 1960s as shaped by the desire to be diametrically opposed to the USSR. The USSR was oppressive and the US was free. The USSR was atheist, and the US was Christian. And the USSR was communist, so the US was ... libertarian. That is probably the chief reason libertarianism fused with fundamentalism: since the USSR was perceived as Satanic, anything that was opposite it must have been seen as godly. This libertarianism dovetailed nicely with the premillennialist bent of fundamentalism and evangelicalism; instead of working to make the world better so Jesus could return, as postmillennialists believed, premillennialists believed the world would only get worse until the Rapture and the Tribulation.

TL;DR version: the USSR became the arch-evil of the mid-twentieth century, so libertarianism was embraced and given religious hues in the US. Also, rich people benefit from libertarianism, and they are more likely to be in power, so it's no surprise to see libertarians (in name, at least) in power.

[K. A. Pital]

Hmm... I would not be so keen on making the religious influence on the US so fundamental in the rise of libertarianism as a popular ideology, as to be the key factor.

While it is undeniable that "the Right" has come to be dominated by radically theist views, the libertarian philosophy for the most part of it's existence did not view itself as "godly" (apart from a very small hardcore group of Christian capitalist anarchists, who are pure comedy to watch and read...), neither did it have a fundamentally theist nature. The pillars of capitalist libertarianism currents such as objectivism, and various forms of minarchism, were often atheist themselves or expressed deep contempt for religion which was translated to their successors as well. How many of the current Randian fanatics - especially those in the higher places - espouse the principles of Christian fundamentalism? Did Greenspan - perhaps the most obvious example of a high-profile libertarian administrator whose political opinion hijacked everything he did, all his policies - believe in fundamentalist christianity and opposition to Evil?

The ideology of a right-wing large, nationalistic and militaristic government is closer to the traits of fascism than libertarianism. The colossal disparity between the views of libertarians on inner policy and foreign policy is also all too obvious to glare over.

But I do agree with many trends you highlight in your assessment. Indeed, there was no real suffering to give birth to libertarianism and thus other factors, like religious fervor, contempt for political opponents, and human greed and callousness will have to be used to explain it. Were libertarianism in it's genesis comparable to communism, it should have been borne as a resistance ideology inside the command economies, by the deeply opressed who wish a free market; but instead, the real opposition inside the command economists were either state-capitalist proponents or democratic-socialist proponents, not libertarian theorists.

The spread of libertarianism among the rich is easily explained by their class interests, as is the spread of communism among the downtrodden worker classes in the Third World nations during hte XX century and now.

What is hard to explain is the spread of libertarianism as an ideology of "mom and pop stores" among the American middle and worker class, for the ideology is directly opposed to their interests and yet a warp of mind makes them support it, quite often even more fervously than it's rich adherents.

[Samuel]

That letter is priceless. We all know that the Russians want to reconquer all of Eastern Europe and no one can stop them but the US... even though France and England might disagree on that. Or Eastern Europe or...

I can't believe people actually think that way.

What is hard to explain is the spread of libertarianism as an ideology of "mom and pop stores" among the American middle and worker class, for the ideology is directly opposed to their interests and yet a warp of mind makes them support it, quite often even more fervously than it's rich adherents.

Quite simple. People are idiots. Specifically, these people think it is in their best interests. I think the number was 23% of the population thinks they are in the top 1%- people think they are the ones who will succedd. Remember Stas, they haven't known what it is like to be really poor, but they do know what wealth is like and so they overestimate the rewards and underestimate the losses.

I'll try to make it as blunt as possible. Most of the worlds population live in places where there are actual problems. In America, a good portion of the political problems... well, look:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ ... rack_Obama

It is wiki, but I'm not using it as a source for anything but to show what the issues are. Almost NONE are issues of critical resource distribution- they are about fighting over the huge pot of money and social issues (aka the Christians fucking with everyone).

[Junghalli]

What is hard to explain is the spread of libertarianism as an ideology of "mom and pop stores" among the American middle and worker class, for the ideology is directly opposed to their interests and yet a warp of mind makes them support it, quite often even more fervously than it's rich adherents.

Simple. They are victims of a con job pulled by the people who actually do benefit from it.

Also, while economic libertarianism may be strongly influenced by atheistic philosophies like Objectivism, it's hard not to see the influence of Calvinism in it as well. I'm talking of course about the idea that God's favor is reflected in earthly success, and being rich is a sign of probably being one of the Elect, while being poor is probably a sign of being hellbound.

[K. A. Pital]

It is wiki, but I'm not using it as a source for anything but to show what the issues are. Almost NONE are issues of critical resource distribution

That is true. So, in essence, libertarianism as a movement is only fit for political struggle in a liberal and rich environment. It is useless as an ideology which could prevent true suffering, because it never concerns itself with suffering at all.

I think the number was 23% of the population thinks they are in the top 1%- people think they are the ones who will succedd.

*tears in eyes* That's too good to pass. A link to the poll? I love when the "people" think they are going to be the ones who'll become filthy rich and powerful if they follow their ideology. It's amazing in it's implications, that would mean the dreams of tens of millions of idiots are crushed every 20 or so years, in a completely liberal environment, and yet still a large fraction just can't face reality at all.

[Samuel]

Note to self- don't cite sources you don't have on hand.

The best I can come up with is a referance to a October 2000 Time-CNN poll which found that 19% of Americans thought they would benefit from proposed tax cuts that lowered the tax rate on the top 1%.

On the other hand...
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movabl ... 01085.html

DAVID BROOKS, ATLANTIC MONTHLY - During the most recent presidential election a Time magazine-CNN poll asked voters whether they were in the top 1 percent of income earners. Nineteen percent reported that they were, and another 20 percent said that they expected to be there one day.

On the gripping hand, I need to find that survey. Anyone have any experience diving into poll data? I think the companies require subscriptions to access the info.

[Junghalli]

Note to self- don't cite sources you don't have on hand.

The best I can come up with is a referance to a October 2000 Time-CNN poll which found that 19% of Americans thought they would benefit from proposed tax cuts that lowered the tax rate on the top 1%.

On the other hand...
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movabl ... 01085.html

DAVID BROOKS, ATLANTIC MONTHLY - During the most recent presidential election a Time magazine-CNN poll asked voters whether they were in the top 1 percent of income earners. Nineteen percent reported that they were, and another 20 percent said that they expected to be there one day.

On the gripping hand, I need to find that survey. Anyone have any experience diving into poll data? I think the companies require subscriptions to access the info.

That certainly sheds some new light on why the scaremongering about socialism is so effective. We apparently have vast numbers of people who have a vastly inflated idea of where on the food chain they fall or of their chances of getting into the top 1%. It's always amazed me how people get so scared of policies that inconvenience the top few percent to benefit everyone else - now I know. They actually believe policies that hurt the top few percent are aimed at them.

Of course I've always suspected that a lot of the appeal of libertarianism is the people who believe in it are arrogant. They think they've got the right stuff and would do better in an ultracompetitive anything-goes environment, unconstrained by the "fetters" of government. They're too arrogant to look at poor workers in the nineteenth century and realize that will probably be their lot under the kind of social order they wank to. They think that would be something that only happens to the people who just can't hack it, which of course won't be them. TL;DR version: they think in a Social Darwinist society they'd be the ones to have it good.

[starfury]

That certainly sheds some new light on why the scaremongering about socialism is so effective. We apparently have vast numbers of people who have a vastly inflated idea of where on the food chain they fall or of their chances of getting into the top 1%. It's always amazed me how people get so scared of policies that inconvenience the top few percent to benefit everyone else - now I know. They actually believe policies that hurt the top few percent are aimed at them.

Of course I've always suspected that a lot of the appeal of libertarianism is the people who believe in it are arrogant. They think they've got the right stuff and would do better in an ultracompetitive anything-goes environment, unconstrained by the "fetters" of government. They're too arrogant to look at poor workers in the nineteenth century and realize that will probably be their lot under the kind of social order they wank to. They think that would be something that only happens to the people who just can't hack it, which of course won't be them. TL;DR version: they think in a Social Darwinist society they'd be the ones to have it good.

That certainly seems to be the gist of it, We have seen that point raised up again and again, that those who wank to a brutally competitive society that is not far from the idea of Might makes right, never seems to consider that they would be ones crushed under the boot heels in the very society that their delusions of grandeur would lead to.

[bobalot]

Where are this boards resident libertarians? Every board has a few. Maybe the financial meltdown from lack of regulation has embarrassed them too much. It wasn't too long ago across many forums they were bragging about how deregulation was spurring "investment" and "innovation" (well at least in bullshit). How quickly they fall silent when reality comes knocking.

[Patrick Degan]

Where are this boards resident libertarians? Every board has a few. Maybe the financial meltdown from lack of regulation has embarrassed them too much. It wasn't too long ago across many forums they were bragging about how deregulation was spurring "investment" and "innovation" (well at least in bullshit). How quickly they fall silent when reality comes knocking.

We get a few who pop up every once in a while to spew their Randroid nonsense. But by and large they've learned that if they can't stand the heat, they'd best get out of the reactor core.

[Pablo Sanchez]

We get a few who pop up every once in a while to spew their Randroid nonsense. But by and large they've learned that if they can't stand the heat, they'd best get out of the reactor core.

I think the issue is that we have so many people who despise libertarianism and relish the opportunity to argue against it, that anybody who starts talking about it can expect a dogpile. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, though, because my understanding is that on the internet they're usually the ones dogpiling.

[Samuel]

Where are this boards resident libertarians? Every board has a few. Maybe the financial meltdown from lack of regulation has embarrassed them too much. It wasn't too long ago across many forums they were bragging about how deregulation was spurring "investment" and "innovation" (well at least in bullshit). How quickly they fall silent when reality comes knocking.

We brainwashed them into seeing reason.

[EarthScorpion]

In all sorts of apocalyptic, prophetic literature, Armageddon was predicted as a sudden invasion of Israel by the USSR. Even now, the religious right sees Russia as a bogeyman; do you remember the letter from 2012 [pdf] by Focus on the Family?

Damn! I've never seen that before. This changes everything.

Barrack Obama is considerably more awesome than I'd thought before. I agree with every single one of the real policy changes (that is 1 to 20 and 26), and ignore the contrived foreign policy situations.

But, oh noes. Teh lefties are treating the gheys as real people. And removing things that were only added in the '50.

[Dooey Jo]

I think the issue is that we have so many people who despise libertarianism and relish the opportunity to argue against it, that anybody who starts talking about it can expect a dogpile. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, though, because my understanding is that on the internet they're usually the ones dogpiling.

That's not just on the internet, they're the same in real life. Even is this country, on national television, you can hear them dismiss arguments by simply shouting "socialism", and get away with it, terrifyingly enough. They seem to be more like some kind of cult than a political movement, with dogmas instead of theories and policies. They even have a holy book, don't they...