Gripes and info about Libertarianism, from an economist

Post Reply New Topic

Well, yes. But you saying that they're "confusing" left-libertarians and libertarians by saying that some libertarians are left-wing is like saying that someone who says "some vegetables are carrots" is confusing vegetables and carrots. "Some As are B" does not imply "all As are B".

I don't really think "the libertarian movement is broad" is a particularly insightful point, but there is disagreement among libertarians about how capital should be treated. These aren't entirely unrelated ideologies. There's a lot of overlapping theory. Both left-libertarians and right-libertarians often support anarchism. Both tend to support individualism, pluralism, cosmopolitanism, free movement, free trade, freedom of association, freedom of choice, freedom of speech, and voluntary cooperation, while opposing state violence, authority, nationalism, and violent conflict.

Now personally I view left-libertarianism as a bit of a contradiction. I don't think it's possible to seize the means of production or whatever without violence. I think that without the state, yes there will be plenty of mutual aid and charity, but overall things would look more like the right-libertarian imagines than like the left-libertarian imagines (though neither would be truly getting their utopia). But in any case, left-libertarianism is a thing that exists, and which is closer to right-libertarianism than either side would like to admit.

His views in favour of a social safety net might be described that way, but he's more of a predictor of the New Liberals.

Modern liberalism is essentially based on the criticisms of classical liberalism made by some liberals as the two split. It took awhile before liberalism seriously considered if individual liberty was achievable only under favourable social and economic circumstances and the end result was they couldn't agree.

I wouldn't say he was "a social democrat," but some of his views were certainly closer to those of social democrats than to those of right-wing libertarians. For example, according to Wikipedia:


and:

I see, I like him less now. Just joking, he was a great man.

I said that they are unrelated because their use of a common name is accidental. Libertarian originaly meant anarchist. And that's what it means nowdays in Europe. Anarchism and Classical Liberalism are two unrelated ideologies though, Liberalism having influenced anarchists. They do overlap, especialy individualist anarchism with anarcho-capitalism. I've seen Rothbardian libertarians praising Max Stirner's work.

I don't see modern liberals as not classical liberals. They come from the classical liberal tradition. Social democrats on the other hand originate in socialism. Modern liberals look like social democrats but are ideologically closer to classical liberals (the much hated libertarians).

I agree that modern liberals still form a branch from classical liberalism; I'm saying a lot of where they deviate from classical liberalism is a result of liberals critiquing liberalism. They don't deviate in those ways because they're hostile to liberalism, they do so because they saw what they considered flaws that needed addressed (which, like we've both said, means they're still within that tradition).

It wouldn't be fair to treat social democracy as being a form of socialism though. Social democracy doesn't argue for a transition towards a socialist economy, which at least by definition, makes it not socialism. Social democracy embraces market-economics for the most part, a 'social market economy' is basically capitalism with regulations, a social safety net and with collective bargaining for most workers.

Reform minded socialists often support social democratic parties, but that's largely pragmatism. Social democratic parties tend to pursue policies that benefit the most vulnerable and working people. This can be viewed as a building block towards more in the future, but that doesn't mean the average social democrat has those sorts of ideas in mind.

Ultimately, social democrats seek reforms that would make radical socialism less likely to emerge because they seek to address the problems that make radical socialism appealing to some people, effectively nipping it in the bud.

A number of social democratic and labour parties have been influenced by neo-liberalism, further watering down any connections to fabian socialism and making it clear they support a capitalist economy funding a social safety net.

Historically social democrat was used much more broadly, but it wasn't uncommon for leftist groups to to be made up of different factions, including radicals, fabians and social reformers.

This means that while a lot of those sorts of parties might have had some radicals at the time of their founding, it doesn't mean they weren't largely viewed as the fringe of the party all along and it doesn't mean the party didn't end up as indistinguishable from a liberal party - because it's core ideology was always about moderate reform and they just wanted the radicals votes back in the day.

Think of how Democrats treat the social democrats within their party, or how Republicans treated Ron Paul and his supporters. They don't agree with their fringe but they still want those votes.

When I said that there is a difference between Modern Liberalism and Social Democracy. I ment their philosophical foundations. Modern Liberalism's central theme is freedom. Social Democracy's main theme is it's Marxist eschatology of socialism (they somehow know that the inevitable future of humanity is socialism). The Social Democrats believe that it will come eventualy naturaly, they are commies willing to take their time. Modern Liberals on the other hand are Classical Liberals with common sense social sensibilities. There is a big difference between the two.

My Mum worked for a library at one time.

Are you familiar with Whig history?

Whigs are similar to Marxists in that they believe history is inevitably marching towards some 'ideal' goal, but this doesn't make them Marxists. Whiggism is the foundation of modern politics for much of the English speaking world. Freedom and individual liberty are the main drivers, and that includes for most SocDems.

Ultimately, most SocDems are not Marxists of any sort (and have very little familiarity with Marxist theory, if any), the majority are hostile to any sort of revolutionary ideology and possess no ambitions of transitioning to a socialist economy, they support a market economy. Marxists would decry those sorts as 'revisionists'.

At the end of the day, they're not communists, they're not socialists, they're capitalists who'd like a bit of reform to make the threat of revolutionary socialism go away. The only way they become socialists is to stretch the definition of socialism to the point it's meaning changes significantly. It's socialism, minus anything that actually defines socialism, which is to say it can't fairly be described as socialism.

If they don't advocate for socialism, how can they be socialists?
If they don't support socialism, how can they be socialists?