Is there any flavor of libertarianism that even in theory makes sense? I lump libertarians together which I guess is unfair but I only talk to them online and they always seem to so similar however they define themselves with nuance. I find them to be ridiculous, obnoxious, and selfish.
For example - at Bluesky I just had an argument with a self-described socio-libertarian who was against "disruptive" protests against climate change. The character limit at Bluesky makes an actual discussion pointless in a situation like this. But they were an asshole anyway so that limit did me a favor. And I didn't need to her some kind of fantastical thinking about the magic of the free market solving climate change.
Here's what Wikipedia has to say about libertarian socialism...
Libertarian socialism is an anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist political current that emphasises self-governance and workers' self-management. It is contrasted from other forms of socialism by its rejection of state ownership and from other forms of libertarianism by its rejection of private property. Broadly defined, it includes schools of both anarchism and Marxism, as well as other tendencies that oppose the state and capitalism.
Lenin tells us "Only political power is real, everything else is an illusion."
A political ideology that specifically sets out not to hold political power just lands you squarely in the field of irreality.
In defense of Anarchist comrades, I think most of them understand Lenin's point intuitively and correctly identify that wielding revolutionary political power to bring about their ideas is necessary. Right wing libertarians don't, so their ideology is fundamentally not tethered to the real.
I know it's not supposed to be censoring Stirner's favorite word, but it's very funny to pretend it is.
I'm not totally sure I fall in the realm of anarchist, because I typically still want voting and some form of organizing, I just don't like the power structure and needless abstraction of representatives. I typically describe an ideal form of society as one composed of many small communities, that are sufficiently small for consensus democracies to be effective. That is, every rule is workshopped until it has unanimous support. So there are still rules, but through discussion and compromise, everyone supports every rule they follow. Travel and migration should be freely allowed, so people can find communities they are politically compatible with (perhaps by finding someone to trade houses with or asking to move in with someone). For projects that require scale to be reasonable, such as a form of currency for trading or a rail line or something, these communities can form coalitions, where decisions still require unanimity from a larger amount of people now, but only on the policies relevant to the coalition.
The point is, the above still follows what I think the spirit of anarchism is: spreading power as thinly as possible, treating individuals as equals and preventing them from being subjugated by another.
I don't think that what I described would be allowed to exist today due to imperialism, but I see it as an ideal that can be achieved eventually, as the contradictions of capital inevitably lead to a more equal and just society. That is, since socialism/communism are more stable than capitalism, eventually a society such as I described shouldn't have to be strong enough (militaristically nor controlling information) to defend itself against imperialism, and can then just peacefully exist.
Yeah I totally vibe with what you're saying, and despite having a different vision of the future I think what you describe is generally compatible with what a more orthodox Marxist or ML outlook prescribes in terms of the political action that's necessary right now. I think the issue of allergy to power, what I'm criticizing, is something you find in the right-libertarians that don't have a coherent plan to achieve that vision. But you probably would agree with me that building organized labor, anti-colonial struggle, queer liberation groups, etc to escalate the contradictions is the way that we build political power, which can then be leveraged to create a world where this vision is possible.
Yes, I think I'm definitely in alignment with you and the hexbear community at large on what our goals shold be now.
at Bluesky I just had an argument with a self-described socio-libertarian
I think masturbating would have been a better use of your time
At about the same time I was also dealing with a "former republican". He was being tedious and he did a putz move he stole from the libs there. He commented and then muted me. He didn't even give me the courtesy of a block.
Libertarians don't make sense by design. They are what happens when people are kept as politically ignorant as possible and proud of it.
This is a really comprehensive summary, thanks - I tell people I am a libertarian socialist when I don’t know if they’re cool enough to learn that I’m a anarcho-communist yet.
I’ll say that libertarian socialism is broad umbrella that covers everything from anarcho-socialist tendencies to “I would like to do the socialism without heavy-handed intrusion by the state into people’s lives.” So it’s kind of hard to make a blanket statement about it.
Personally, I think socialist political economies should strive to be as least intrusive as possible, but obviously the material conditions of the situation are going to dictate how possible that is. Which is a good indicator of how ridiculous a person is being, if they understand the realities that get in the way of that guideline or if they go into the territory of demonizing any AES country that doesn’t meet the perfect ideal.
my own opinion/thoughts:
i would think libertarian socialism will be a transitional state to full communism.
i mean, at some point the state has to wither and that will be a process just like building socialism itself. i'm talking generations under world or world majority socialism even under an ML framework. no siege socialism, the day has been won and now is time to win the peace
there could theoretically be shortcuts to it but i think this is beyond current prediction and would require some kind of incredible technological or social leap
Every single right libertarian I've seen on the internet has done extensive philosophical masturbation and mental gymnastics to vehemently defend capitalism, even against fascists. They worship von Mises, one of the most evil pieces of shit to have ever lived, and want you and I to suffer under social darwinist market conditions. It makes a lot of sense, when you think about it from the perspective of a rich "person".
It is reasonable to conclude that they all deserve beatings.
The concept of right-libertarianism, technically speaking, because this is the self-justifying modern descendant ideology of settler-colonialism, from Amerikkka to Australia, in its infancy...
Think about it, there isn't much propetarian libertarianism, beyond the New World
Thery are everywhere now due to probably US ideologic hegemony. In fact, i never heard anyone using the term "left-libertarian" outside of anglo internet. All people who would fit that use anarchist or syndycalist or whatever else. And specifically in Poland even in internet anyone who describe themself as "libertarian" you can sure be certain it's at best austrian cultist and usually just a nazi.
I was a "left libertarian" for a while. In theory, do whatever you like as long as you're not hurting anyone sounds nice. Of course, this means people would have to uphold environmental regulations, since there's a lot of bad stuff other people could be downwind of. There's also regulations on hunting, fishing, and farming. I also noticed a pattern where a lot of libertarians weren't so fond on personal freedoms if they involved being gay or a religion other than Protestant Christian.
Tldr: there are libertarians with good intentions, but most of them lack theory or just don't like to think to much beyond "good vibes for everyone". The Ancom leaning sorts can work in the small scale commune type of situations, I guess.
there are libertarians with good intentions, but most of them lack theory or just don't like to think to much beyond "good vibes for everyone"
I’ve listened to some of what Chase Oliver (Libertarian Party presidential candidate) has to say. Unlike most LP politicians I’ve heard (or adjacent ones like Rand Paul), he seems like a nice guy who genuinely means well. For example, he’s spoken out pretty vociferously against the the genocide in Gaza; and he mentioned the invasion of Iraq was what got him into politics.
But when he starts to get into the details of Israel/Palestine, you can tell he just doesn’t know much of the context. He doesn’t understand the purpose Israel serves for the US. I think he has good intentions but the libertarian ideals really don’t have a good theory of imperialism like we do.
Libertarian Socialism is effectively the end game of Communism, from what I understand of Marx's meaning by the eventual "withering away of the state".
Unfortunately, the ethos adherents are typically just a bunch of theory illiterate very onliners who like the idea of not paying taxes and doing whatever they like, but also, trying to still be humanists.
They are skipping all the hard work steps, which involve revolutionary solidarity and action which deliberately dismantles the structures which protect capitalist power. Anarcho-Syndicalists completely ignored that the people who have monopolized capital will fight tooth and nail to maintain and preserve their privileges. They will murder using war and police without remorse.
Libertarian Socialists will try to both-sides the state monopoly on violence. This is a false equivalency logical fallacy. The Capitalist state will do extra-judicial murder all the time in order to protect their hoards. They are anti-human dragons. The Communist state is explicitly pro-human, and uses violence to fight back or to protect and preserve the people's revolution, because without that ever vigilant revolutionary spirit, we will again fall victim to the psychopathic greed of the anti-human Capitalist.
Is violence always bad? Sadly, it is not. Humanity was born out of a violent nature, and was raised amidst it. But humanity will have to fight for justice, and preserve it.
I will say, imho, libertarian socialism (anarcho-communism as well) is an easier pill for some to swallow as an introduction to leftist thought.
It sort of just follows the thought of "everyone will get along because they will". My real introduction to serious leftist thinking was right after I read parenti I decided to read some kropotkin and it got me into this sort of thought. And it didn't take much reading of Marx to get me out of that headspace.
Many are just unwilling to realize how a communist state is needed not only for the early formation of a communist state but also for defense against capitalist forces.
True. It was for me. Noam Chomsky is a little inscrutable at first, but a good example of the ethos perspective.
Being raised in the states by parents who used "Commie" as a cuss made it a difficult indoctrination to overcome to even consider the notion of a people's state requirement first before any chance at utopia.
But then I joined a Communist Minecraft server last summer and joined Hexbear and Lemmygrad and now I wonder what took me so long to come around.
I think the biggest obstacle for me personally was the notion of means-to-an-end based morality being dangerous, and how it can be used to justify any atrocity.
But stuff like gulaging unrepentant landlords is obviously justifiable lol.
Parenti is awesome.
Increase in price of bad behavior (i.e. getting shoved into a mine shaft by a collective of like minded people) is perfectly adequate position. American ancap perverts thus explicitly say that state has to do the policing, cause they are very uncomfortable with anarchism.
If they are against that, and start mumbling about laws, they are just ancap who hates taxes
This is flippant of me, but I think it's obvious that Libertarianism is just what happens when you would otherwise arrive Liberalism or Anarchism, but don't do the homework.
Putting my neck out again, hopefully not getting dogpiled THIS time...
I believe I fall into this category. I want us to get to that theoretical goal called Communism: A stateless, classless, moneyless society. In order to get there I believe we need a state that is as unrestrictive as possible, while still protecting people from being harmed by others.
The law is a threat by the state. It means "do this and we will lock you up". I want less reasons for cops to exist. I want less excuses to oppress people. I want a state that leaves people alone as a rule unless it's absolutely necessary to intervene.
The speed limit is a good example. This is possibly the most commonly recognized, visible law in the world. There are signs posted with a limit of how many miles or km per hour you can drive, and if you go over that you're supposed to be fined. Do it a lot and you lose your privilege to drive, or spend time in jail.
In reality this doesn't happen. I drive on highways a lot, and there are lots of people who are driving 20-30mph over the limit, weaving in and out of lanes, being super dangerous! Do they get caught? No. Meanwhile when I do see someone pulled over, they tend to be from a minority group. Guess which part of the US I live in
This law isn't keeping people safe because it is selectively enforced. Worse, it's mainly used as an excuse to harass POC, leading a demographic down a path that leads to legal slavery (via prisons) and a lifetime of oppression.
Should we get rid of speed limits? Probably not. But I would be in favor of making them more flexible, making them higher, and coming up with ways to indiscriminately punish people who go over the more reasonable limits.
Now to the reason I got piled the other day: online gambling. I thought about it some more, and I realized I had an ableist take on addiction. Some people literally can't help themselves from getting into this to the point of throwing away their life savings, ruining their families in the process.
Here's the controversial part: I'd support restrictions on online gambling / sports betting / casinos but not outright bans. I don't believe it's fair to completely ban something for people who enjoy it, can do so responsibly, and aren't harming others from that casual enjoyment. Peggle is my game, but I get why people love Poker and slots and betting on who will score a touchdown in the 3rd quarter. I also get some people take it too far.
So what should we do? Ban online gambling completely? No. Instead I could see some sort of restriction on the amount individuals can bet per month. Maybe that's $50 at first and tied to inflation. Or we require banks to stop payment after a certain monthly limit is hit. Or we initially cap betting at a low amount, requiring counseling to increase that amount. Let people play the games without betting real money. I'm sure a happy middle-ground exists where the casual users can have their fun and the addicts get cut off before it becomes a big problem.
I'd apply the same thing to cigarettes, beer, and other "vices". Enjoy in moderation. I'm never going to support prohibition or completely banning tobacco use even though it has ruined countless lives.
No, this doesn't mean I support "voluntary" human trafficking or other nonsense people accused me of. I want governments to generally leave me alone as long as I'm not hurting other people with what I'm doing.
The main reason is I don't trust the government to do anything good. In fact, I'm afraid of what a more powerful government can do to hurt me and my family! A government that can force apps off my phone can take away my speech, control where I go, control what I can say, control who I can associate with, and more. I'm afraid of these things happening here where I live. The government is already too strong and law enforcement in places around here have literal military equipment on hand to keep us obedient.
Why should I want a government that is banning books and bombing kids overseas have more control over my life? Ultimately what Libertarian Socialism means to me is self-defense against systems of oppression. That means I want the workers to control the means of production (self-defense against Capitalism / bourgeois control) AND I want a minimal state to protect us and do what small groups of people can't realistically do (self-defense against state control).
It sounds like you don't have any problem with a strong government that is capable of "indiscriminately punishing" people or that is capable of dictating banks to shut down 50$ transfers for entertainment. Rather, you're more concerned with the particulars of laws themselves.
People shouldn't be punished for driving over the speed limit as it stands; however, you'd be okay with it if the speed limit were 30 mph higher. Gambling shouldn't be banned, but bank accounts should be frozen at a particular number.
None of what you provide is a critique of power or capitalism or liberal democracy- it's just preferences concerning laws.
I want a state that leaves people alone as a rule unless it's absolutely necessary to intervene.
Everyone believes this. There's no ML who says "we need a strong vanguard party who dictates the happenings of our personal lives because I like it." Everyone wants laws to be "reasonable."
It sounds like you don't have any problem with a strong government that is capable of "indiscriminately punishing" people or that is capable of dictating banks to shut down 50$ transfers for entertainment. Rather, you're more concerned with the particulars of laws themselves.
I don't have a strong preference over what size the state is. I just want life to get better and for life to be more fair. I want the bombings to stop, I want the world to stop being exploited by the rich and the big corporations. Maybe I have the wrong labels to describe my views? I don't really care for political labels but I figure Libertarian Socialist fits best. That or just plain "Marxist"
I'm trying to find a happy medium between enabling companies to prey on whales/problem gamblers & allowing the casual players to still have their hobby. So yeah, details matter.
I'm not anti-state. I support having a state, just not one that is so big it gets to veto the entire UN, send bombs to Israel, and crush dissent back home.
People shouldn't be punished for driving over the speed limit as it stands; however, you'd be okay with it if the speed limit were 30 mph higher. Gambling shouldn't be banned, but bank accounts should be frozen at a particular number.
More like 10mph higher, but harshly enforced. We all know the posted speed limit isn't the "real" limit. If the sign says 65 people are going 75-80 and it's fine. So make it 75 and then, because this is the future, cars just throttle you past that limit or your car insurance automatically ticks up but there's an override if you have an emergency and have to get to a hospital. Again, future here so the car's onboard systems & GPS knows this.
I want the highways to be safer because I want to be safer driving on them. We have roads here that get 2-3 accidents PER DAY. These laws aren't working!
Everyone believes this. There's no ML who says "we need a strong vanguard party who dictates the happenings of our personal lives because I like it." Everyone wants laws to be "reasonable."
I can't tell if people are joking on here when they talk about banning video games or FanDuel or anime.
I don't have a strong preference over what size the state is
I support having a state, just not one that is so big
I mean this politely, but you are politically confused. You are someone who cares about all of the inequality you see in the world, and it makes you really angry. Which is good.
I just want life to get better and for life to be more fair. I want the bombings to stop, I want the world to stop being exploited by the rich and the big corporations
I want the highways to be safer because I want to be safer driving on them. We have roads here that get 2-3 accidents PER DAY. These laws aren't working!
it gets to veto the entire UN, send bombs to Israel, and crush dissent back home.
It's good that you're angry about all of these things, but it's important to have a roadmap to actually achieve all of these things. It has more to do with how society is structured and how the government interacts with the people rather than the particular laws themselves. The current laws create inequality because they serve capital.
The reason you get dogpiled is because you're drawing a distinction between libertarian socialism and actually existing socialism in a way that implies you care more about freedom than the alternative.
The fact is, states like China have already implemented laws, particularly related to driving and surveillance, that are similar to what you're requesting. They've also had a heavy hand in regulating toxic apps without outright banning them. They are not libertarian. They are Marxist Leninists.
Get with the program and drop the libertarian label. It's American nonsense. Any major communist organization shares all of your concerns and has a better theoretical framework to achieve them.
I saw someone here recommend that you read state and revolution. I second this. If you have read it, I'd like to hear why it wasn't convincing enough for you to adopt its framework.
You are conflating a dictatorship of the proletariat and a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Please read The State and Revolution as soon as possible, I think it would do you a lot of good.
Glad to hear it! If while reading you have any questions, I’m sure people at !genzhou@lemmygrad.ml or !asklemmygrad@lemmygrad.ml would be willing to help. I assume Hexbear has similar communities as well, but idk about those ones.
exorcise the latent yankee libertarianism from your brain
"Cops are racist so let's let motorists get away with even more dangerous things" is certainly a take I haven't heard before I'll give you that.
The motorists are getting away with more dangerous things already. It pisses me off seeing the white guy speed off going 90 in a 65, putting all of us in danger, while a POC mom gets pulled over for a broken tail light or something like that.
The cops we have don't exist to serve or protect us.
Yeah but that's an issue with policing in America, not speed limits
Agree. In the future I want speed enforced through things other than cops. I want less reasons to cops exist so that we can replace them with community defense teams or some other proletarian form of keeping us safe.
I tried to come up with a reply to this that wasn't insulting and I failed. This is all I've got:
This is a very silly thing to say.
See what I said instead of being like the person who told him to 'go back to reddit'
He clearly prefaced this with an acknowledgement people might not agree, I don't see what good mocking does
I agree that mocking doesn't help and that your reply is much better, but I honestly felt that was pointing out the obvious to the level of it being insulting to even suggest a person wasn't aware of that.
I'll give it more of a think.
I didn't say you're dumb, just that what you said was silly. Smart people can say silly things.
Cops being racist doesn't mean everything cops do should be stopped, just that cops shouldn't be racist(or rather, racist cops should be stopped from being that). Does your complaint also apply to any other laws that are enforced differently based on race? Because that's all of them and I doubt you want to relax every single law.
Not to dogpile further, but you are, like most liberals (of which a libertarian is just yet another flavor of), getting into the weeds of policy without even figuring out the basics of even simplistic political philosophy, because so much of it has been taken for granted in your life.
Let's take this seemly simple statement "I want the government to generally leave me alone as long as I am not doing anything to harm anybody."
This is impossible, the statement of an idealist constitutionalist, which has no bearing on reality whatsoever. Why is this? Well, because someone has to define what constitutes 'harm'. If it is not you, then someone else will, which means that you can't leave government to passively sit. Well then, who can dictate what constitutes 'harm'? Of course the people who agree to the constitutional contract. Ok then, at what point do you get to decide your constitutional contract? What happens if two different constitutional agreements definitions of 'harm' are at odds with each other? Who is the arbiter then? How is that arbiter decided? What if there is a disagreement with the arbiter? How is that conflict settled? Even this seemingly simple statement is fraught with issues.
These are things that can and have been argued and in some cases 'solved' by liberal bourgeoisie democracy for centuries to decades at this point. However libertarians, especially 'leftist' libertarians, get so caught up in policy that they have no structure for actually figuring out very real basic political and social science issues. I'm not saying ML theory has it 'solved' but it's foundations, such as "The state apparatus exists to monopolize violence, all other aspects of it are secondary, the key is appropriate that violence for the betterment of the industrial working class, the only class that can hope to transition us out of the necessity of states as it is the only class that is likely to effectively replicate the means of production and bring about an ideology, culture and production basis for universal post-scarcity, which will dissolve the need for a state to monopolize violence" has a better understanding of what the state does, how it actually functions, and what is likely necessary in order to dissolve it as a human institution.
There are tech libertarians that also believe their ideology and technology will bring about this post scarcity society as well, but they, as a bourgeoisie class, do not actually replicate the means of production, and have far more material incentive to engage in and profligate M-M market conditions which do not lead to lessening of global poverty, post scarcity and the withering of the state, which is why despite being nominally 'progressive' they are prone to strong ideological reactionary backlash.
I'm not a liberal. I hate it when those surveys ask me what "ideology" I am and the only options range from "Very Conservative" to "Very Liberal". I know I'm anti-Capitalist and I know I want a more collectivized form of society.
This is impossible, the statement of an idealist constitutionalist, which has no bearing on reality whatsoever. Why is this? Well, because someone has to define what constitutes 'harm'. If it is not you, then someone else will, which means that you can't leave government to passively sit. Well then, who can dictate what constitutes 'harm'? Of course the people who agree to the constitutional contract. Ok then, at what point do you get to decide your constitutional contract? What happens if two different constitutional agreements re at odds with each other? Who is the arbiter then? How is that arbiter decided? What if there is a disagreement with the arbiter? How is that conflict settled? Even this seemingly simple statement is fraught with issues.
This seems straightforward to me unless I'm missing something? Under my ideal government, the working class democratically approves a new constitution which will define how we arbitrate issues between people. We'll probably end up with a court system, but one that is much more fair and equitable and one that isn't influenced by who can afford the best lawyers.
But I'm not an expert on this and I wonder how much direct Democratic control is necessary vs. what I call "occasional" Democratic control. I'm not an expert on building codes and I'm guessing most of the working class aren't either, so maybe we let the experts among the carpenters and architects and other building-people form a committee to decide what regulations get placed on buildings so that they are sturdy, use as little carbon as possible, etc. Ditto for day-to-day operations of a company. Workers should definitely have a say in how everything is run, but does that mean the people driving delivery trucks get to choose what software the Accounting department uses?
What you are asking for is a vastly different thing than 'I want the government to stay out of my business unless I am harming someone'. Every worker council constitutes an aspect of government, and if their judgements are legally binding, an element of the state. All of those determinations can and should be made by the workers directly involved in their production, however enforcement of those decisions and arbitration of those conflicts may require the use of the state apparatus.
Mostly you just seem confused.
Thanks for the comment. I can't read it now - I have no focus. My brain is cooked from too many frustrating games of speed chess. I'll read it tomorrow.
Yes, watch the documentary series, Mad Max.
