Hot take 1: I rather have cringey libertarians be against the war for the wrong reasons than cruise missile socialists and anarcho-natoists fantasizing about cleansing the world of Russian orcs.
Hot take 2: I still think a united front with libertarians over being anti-war shouldn't be off the table. Ultimately, the concept of the united front is forming a tactical alliance with people who are ideologically opposed to you. If Mao could make it work with the KMT who betrayed and killed good communists, I'm not sure why a forming a united front with libertarians over this particular issue is insurmountable. Like, libertarians were very much part of the anti-war movement during the 2000s. It's literally the one (1) political issue they're not absolutely terrible about.
Hot take 3: I don't see how this libertarian rally is that different from the "good" rallies arranged by actual anti-imperialist orgs. What's the functional difference between this rally and a rally hosted by say, PSL? There's going to be a bunch of people with signs, numbering less than 2000 people total, a bunch of people are going to read their speech off their phones, and the rally will end with no real material impact on the war in Ukraine. It's not like the good orgs are doing a little adventurism to slow down the war or have support from more mainstream orgs and worker unions. Compare that with Palestine Action, an anti-Zionist org in the UK that broke into multiplefactories in order to smash parts that go into drones used by the Zionist entity to bomb Palestinians. To me, the only difference is that the PSL rally would have less cringey speakers and have a less grifty atmosphere. That's literally it. I'm not even sure if the rally would be significantly larger than the grifter rally.
Overall, most of the speakers are fucking terrible on top of being shameless grifters, but this post rubbed me the wrong way because actually existing anti-imperialism in the US isn't that much better. Outside of having much better politics, it's about as socially marginalized and politically insignificant as a bunch of libertarian clowns.
There used to be a coherent libertarian anti-war movement back in 2003 before the invasion of Iraq. Their narrative was, the military should only be used to defend the US mainland and anything else is government overreach and a waste of taxpayer money.
If that was their narrative today, I would agree with you. It may not be as good of a reason to be anti-war, but good enough.
But the problem is, it's 20 years later (jeezus...) and American libertarianism itself has changed. Much more co-opted by conservatives. And they no longer have a coherent anti-war message. Maybe I missed it, but I have not heard one self-described libertarian actually make a case against war that isn't steeped in incoherent Trump-ism or pointlessly bashing Biden and Democrats (you know like, for actual reasons).
I think your point about the 2000s is valid but I really don't think we're dealing with the same types of libertarians nowadays.
But the problem is, it’s 20 years later (jeezus…) and American libertarianism itself has changed. Much more co-opted by conservatives. And they no longer have a coherent anti-war message. Maybe I missed it, but I have not heard one self-described libertarian actually make a case against war that isn’t steeped in incoherent Trump-ism or pointlessly bashing Biden and Democrats (you know like, for actual reasons).
This makes sense. Perhaps I have a soft spot for an older version of them that's completely undeserving for their modern iteration.
I do too! I am not opposed at all to marching in a singular cause with people from say a libertarian background. I actually think it would be a good thing. But I have yet to see anyone outside of the left offer even a minimally acceptable critique of US involvement in Ukraine or anti-China rhetoric.
I mean, one of their headliners is Tulsi. We know she's not anti-war. She's literally a "proud veteran" and is all for wars against the "right" people in her mind (usually Muslims). If god forbid India and Pakistan got into a war she'd be the first person out there demanding the US nuke Karachi.
it's easy to imagine uniting with libertarians because they are, mentally and politically, sort of childlike, and we want to believe that they'll "grow out of it." problem is there's reasons they arrived where they're at, and sometimes those reasons mean the reactionary aspects of the ideology have a stronger hold on them than any desire for a better world.
United fronts with right wingers are always a dead end, no exceptions. When we assume that fascism (and Amerikan libertarianism is just fascism for stoners) is capitalism in decay and that a decaying system forces us to choose between socialism or barbarism, you cannot side with the barbarians. You are strenghtening the fascist position while accelerating the fall of liberalism. That serves fascism, not communism. It really is as simple as that. For revolutionary leftists, antifascism always comes first, even before antiimperialism. That is the only viable approach. You build up your own forces, you side with liberals were necessary because they are historically doomed to failure anyway and aren't the real long term threat.
Your aim isn't that the liberals are as weak as possible, your aim must be that fascism is in no position to win when the liberal project collapses under its own contradictions. The collapse of Amerikan liberalism is inevitable, a victory of the Amerikan left is very definitely not.
United fronts with right wingers are always a dead end, no exceptions. When we assume that fascism (and Amerikan libertarianism is just fascism for stoners) is capitalism in decay and that a decaying system forces us to choose between socialism or barbarism, you cannot side with the barbarians. You are strenghtening the fascist position while accelerating the fall of liberalism. That serves fascism, not communism. It really is as simple as that. For revolutionary leftists, antifascism always comes first, even before antiimperialism. That is the only viable approach. You build up your own forces, you side with liberals were necessary because they are historically doomed to failure anyway and aren’t the real long term threat.
I don't think this is a hard rule, especially when we have the historical example of the CPC forming a successful united front with the KMT. Chiang Kai Shek was deeply reactionary and the KMT under him was a reactionary party. But a united front was formed because between Chiang Kai Shek and Japanese fascists, he was the lesser evil even when the lesser evil had Chinese communist blood in his hands.
As far as whether it's wise to form a united front with libertarians, I personally don't think so, at least not as a general strategy. But there's a difference between saying a particular tactic shouldn't be taken off the table and saying a particular tactic should be adopted as a general strategy. It's less "we should form a united front with libertarians" and more "we should form a united front with these particular people and orgs who self-identify as libertarians."
Would I advocate forming a united front with the people who are going to participate in this Libertarian Party-sponsered rally? Absolutely not. For one, most of them are opportunist grifters like Dore and Hinkle. Gabbard is basically a psyop officer and you have a couple of ex-US politicians (Paul, Kucinich). And to tie this particular rally into my third point, it's just a rally. It's not like libertarians are not seen as clowns by the average American or have the stones to actually do a little adventurism. Most libertarians who actually do adventurism are civilian militia types that are more fascist than libertarian.
Hot take 1: I rather have cringey libertarians be against the war for the wrong reasons than cruise missile socialists and anarcho-natoists fantasizing about cleansing the world of Russian orcs.
Hot take 2: I still think a united front with libertarians over being anti-war shouldn't be off the table. Ultimately, the concept of the united front is forming a tactical alliance with people who are ideologically opposed to you. If Mao could make it work with the KMT who betrayed and killed good communists, I'm not sure why a forming a united front with libertarians over this particular issue is insurmountable. Like, libertarians were very much part of the anti-war movement during the 2000s. It's literally the one (1) political issue they're not absolutely terrible about.
Hot take 3: I don't see how this libertarian rally is that different from the "good" rallies arranged by actual anti-imperialist orgs. What's the functional difference between this rally and a rally hosted by say, PSL? There's going to be a bunch of people with signs, numbering less than 2000 people total, a bunch of people are going to read their speech off their phones, and the rally will end with no real material impact on the war in Ukraine. It's not like the good orgs are doing a little adventurism to slow down the war or have support from more mainstream orgs and worker unions. Compare that with Palestine Action, an anti-Zionist org in the UK that broke into multiple factories in order to smash parts that go into drones used by the Zionist entity to bomb Palestinians. To me, the only difference is that the PSL rally would have less cringey speakers and have a less grifty atmosphere. That's literally it. I'm not even sure if the rally would be significantly larger than the grifter rally.
Overall, most of the speakers are fucking terrible on top of being shameless grifters, but this post rubbed me the wrong way because actually existing anti-imperialism in the US isn't that much better. Outside of having much better politics, it's about as socially marginalized and politically insignificant as a bunch of libertarian clowns.
There used to be a coherent libertarian anti-war movement back in 2003 before the invasion of Iraq. Their narrative was, the military should only be used to defend the US mainland and anything else is government overreach and a waste of taxpayer money.
If that was their narrative today, I would agree with you. It may not be as good of a reason to be anti-war, but good enough.
But the problem is, it's 20 years later (jeezus...) and American libertarianism itself has changed. Much more co-opted by conservatives. And they no longer have a coherent anti-war message. Maybe I missed it, but I have not heard one self-described libertarian actually make a case against war that isn't steeped in incoherent Trump-ism or pointlessly bashing Biden and Democrats (you know like, for actual reasons).
I think your point about the 2000s is valid but I really don't think we're dealing with the same types of libertarians nowadays.
This makes sense. Perhaps I have a soft spot for an older version of them that's completely undeserving for their modern iteration.
I do too! I am not opposed at all to marching in a singular cause with people from say a libertarian background. I actually think it would be a good thing. But I have yet to see anyone outside of the left offer even a minimally acceptable critique of US involvement in Ukraine or anti-China rhetoric.
I mean, one of their headliners is Tulsi. We know she's not anti-war. She's literally a "proud veteran" and is all for wars against the "right" people in her mind (usually Muslims). If god forbid India and Pakistan got into a war she'd be the first person out there demanding the US nuke Karachi.
Tulsi lost the confidence of the DC blob when she went to personally meet with Assad to find out if there was a way to end the war in Syria.
Turns out, they like that war very much and Tulsi was called a butcher apologist for going to the trouble.
it's easy to imagine uniting with libertarians because they are, mentally and politically, sort of childlike, and we want to believe that they'll "grow out of it." problem is there's reasons they arrived where they're at, and sometimes those reasons mean the reactionary aspects of the ideology have a stronger hold on them than any desire for a better world.
United fronts with right wingers are always a dead end, no exceptions. When we assume that fascism (and Amerikan libertarianism is just fascism for stoners) is capitalism in decay and that a decaying system forces us to choose between socialism or barbarism, you cannot side with the barbarians. You are strenghtening the fascist position while accelerating the fall of liberalism. That serves fascism, not communism. It really is as simple as that. For revolutionary leftists, antifascism always comes first, even before antiimperialism. That is the only viable approach. You build up your own forces, you side with liberals were necessary because they are historically doomed to failure anyway and aren't the real long term threat.
Your aim isn't that the liberals are as weak as possible, your aim must be that fascism is in no position to win when the liberal project collapses under its own contradictions. The collapse of Amerikan liberalism is inevitable, a victory of the Amerikan left is very definitely not.
I don't think this is a hard rule, especially when we have the historical example of the CPC forming a successful united front with the KMT. Chiang Kai Shek was deeply reactionary and the KMT under him was a reactionary party. But a united front was formed because between Chiang Kai Shek and Japanese fascists, he was the lesser evil even when the lesser evil had Chinese communist blood in his hands.
As far as whether it's wise to form a united front with libertarians, I personally don't think so, at least not as a general strategy. But there's a difference between saying a particular tactic shouldn't be taken off the table and saying a particular tactic should be adopted as a general strategy. It's less "we should form a united front with libertarians" and more "we should form a united front with these particular people and orgs who self-identify as libertarians."
Would I advocate forming a united front with the people who are going to participate in this Libertarian Party-sponsered rally? Absolutely not. For one, most of them are opportunist grifters like Dore and Hinkle. Gabbard is basically a psyop officer and you have a couple of ex-US politicians (Paul, Kucinich). And to tie this particular rally into my third point, it's just a rally. It's not like libertarians are not seen as clowns by the average American or have the stones to actually do a little adventurism. Most libertarians who actually do adventurism are civilian militia types that are more fascist than libertarian.