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.
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.