In that case, I have nothing against any personal preference; of course I’d ally with them.
Same here, though I would also leave room open for genuine Bakuninites, as their view of the individual’s right to their own person and labor products is not incompatible with ours; they wish to form organizations for collective homesteading and management of their own property, but insofar as they are genuinely anarchists and not state-socialists, such organizations would be voluntary in nature and perfectly capable of co-existing with mutualism and austrolibertarianism.
Unfortunately, at least since the Haymarket riots, communism has had a corruptive effect on collectivist anarchism, despite “to each according to their need” being completely incompatible with labor’s ownership of its own produce. I consider this phenomenon to be just another form of vulgar libertarianism; “anarchist” socialists wishing to justify and use statist means to achieve their preferred economic ends are no different from “anarchist” capitalists wishing to justify and use statist means to achieve their preferred economic ends. Neither type really believes in the rights or good sense of the individual, and hold themselves superior to others; in both cases, in their own view, only they know how others should manage their own lives and property, and so they deem themselves justified in using force to do so. It’s unsurprising to see vulgar libertarians - statists in all but name - of one type or the other attacking each other and any who claim any sort of common ground or cooperation could exist among the adherents of the various forms of anarchism. It is precisely because they are statists that they must make exclusive claim to the “voluntary” society.
One of Marx’s major sins was not differentiating between what we call “free market capitalism” and “predatory capitalism,” the latter being corporatism. If you understand by capitalist the latter, then what you’ve said above is true. All of these are tools in the toolbox of predatory capitalism, or corporatism. That’s why they were part of the New Deal, which was heavily supported by most large corporations. The depression threatened to bring down their game of special priviledge and monopolistic control, and the New Deal saved them from free market competition.
However, most socialists do not support these policies. The reason this seems like an absurd game is another one of those verbal sins - the government led us on a couple decades of Cold Wars and red-baiting, and used “socialist” or “communist” to mean “bad.” We then took the example and put together advocates of a mixed economy with socialists. Can you honestly see Proudon advocating social security?
“All these methods to ‘improve’ capitalism, such as social security, labor legislation, and so forth, are just petty bourgeois policies; they are detrimental to the interests of the workers because they only postpone the maturity of capitalism.” L.V. Mises, explaining Marx’s views on economic regulation in Marxism, Socialism, and Pseudo-Science. He also comments “Marx was opposed to social legislation - social security and so forth - at least after the 1850s…On the advice of Marx himself, and, after his death, of Friedrich Engels, the German Reichstag voted against socialized medicine, social insurance, and labor legislation, calling them frauds to exploit the laboring classes even more than before.”
Now, about goals. Rothbard explains in “Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty” that liberalism, of which libertarianism is the most extreme form, arose around the industrial revolution and the coming of the new order - that is, the end of feudalism. As Marx would agree, the issue is one of class. Marx is wrong only in his identification of the classes. In feudal times, the masses worked without hope of a better life, without hope of attaining much leisure, without hope of moving forward. No one had the notion, or opportunity, to make choices about their lives. The few, though, were guaranteed a life of leisure and pleasure as a birthright. When the industrial revolution made a more fulfilling life possible, the libertarian impulse was to equalize opportunity and remove this birthright. So, the socialist and the libertarian agree on the destruction of classes and the value of equality. Since that time, various means have been attempted to restore the conservative worldview - to restore the priviledge of the ruling class. Government is the primary one - and that’s why corporate fatcats, who wish to restore the priviledge as well, have always allied with government. The myth of the government beating up on large corporations, other than a few scapegoats who have challenged the government in some way, is a liberal and Randian myth. It obscures our view of the true rulers.
Rothbard then points out that state-socialism is a contradictory, confused, middle-of-the-road position that wishes to attain liberal - libertarian ends, by conservative means - by means of force and the law and order structure. He identifies Marx as representative of one of the more libertarian socialists. He does a far better job than I do: http://mises.org/journals/lar/pdfs/1_1/1_1_2.pdf
Hah!
“How many a dispute could have been deflated into a single paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms.”
-Aristotle
Yes but we differ as to what the definition of a class is. To libertarians class is a matter of power. To the socialists it’s a matter of economic advantage.
And no, I don’t think we agree with the socialists about the value of equality. I think most libertarians see liberty and equality are opposing and mutually incompatible objectives.
And “free exchange” should here be defined as doing whatever you want with you legitimate property (legitimate according to ancap-theory)?
So you would still call mutualists “statists”, because they differ slightly in their view of what legitimate property is?
"There were, indeed, marked “conservative” strains in the writings of Marx and Engels themselves which often justified the State, Western imperialism and aggressive nationalism, and it was these motifs, in the ambivalent views of the Masters on this subject, that provided the fodder for the later shift of the majority Marxists into the “social imperialist” camp. "
Left & Right.
Personally I think that any sympathy for Marx and his comrades is a bit misguided.
Sage, I then deflated the dispute into a paragraph, and the dispute was settled a couple of posts later!
You apparently missed the part where I said
.
You are hopeless, and I feel sorry for you.
The external improvements to the state bit really do get rather tired and old. It’s a perfect example of vulgar libertarianism, confusing contemporary society with a libertarian society. Even in the context of “cutting” this and “cutting” that, to suggest that a society involving any kind of state is a desireable one or even one to shoot for is a hopeless abstraction of what the New Libertarian really wants.
No, Socialists do not simply edge for the “cuts” you describe, and neither do I. Not because “cuts” are bad, but because these “cuts” require a cutter and that cutter is the state. Accepting the existence of the state and pleading with it to “cut” to me simply seems counter-productive as the initial “cut” will only bring ten more add-ons. No, the problem is not necessarily what must be “cut” so much as it is with the cutter. Relying on the state to find your freedom ultimately defeats the purpose of being a libertarian.
Now, I know the objection coming “well less state is better than more state,” and fine, I will concede that this is true, however, as a pragmatist I only see that the state continues to grow and even in instances where it seems to cut back, it only grows ten-fold again. Like a Hydra, cutting off the head will not break the beast; likewise, shooting at targets marked social security, medicare, Iraq, Iran, etc. will not bring the New Libertarian his just prize.
To kill the beast you have to be willing to allow it to grow at the pace it wishes to grow at, for at least then you’re not wasting your time with trying to kill it in a counter-productive manner. To kill the beast, you must begin to fight smarter, more tactical, and calculating. To fight a war sacrifices must be made, a little threat from the state today means nothing if it ensures that the state will be dead tomorrow.
When the socialists are for cutting regulations and price controls, we will ally with the socialists. When they are increasing them, we will ally with those who oppose them. When the socialists oppose war, we will ally with the socialists. When the socialists go to war, we will oppose them with the conservatives.
That way, whenever we take a stand on an issue, we will be employing maximum force.
Well the NAP is essentially a restatement of “the law of equal freedom”. So libertarianism does support equality at least in terms of equality or universality of rights. The NAP is a balanced equilibrium of liberty.
But here I think we get into another definition problem. If I own some property then I have the right to use and dispose of that property, and you do not have the right to use or dispose of it. Here is a legitimate right that is not universal or equal. I’m guessing that by equality you mean specifically equality before the law. But that presumes law, and doesn’t law by definition violate the NAP?
Well the word equilibrium implies there are two things in tension being balanced. You listed only liberty. What’s on the other side? If it’s just something like anti-liberty then it’s not a very deep thought.
People are not naturally equal in abilities or in fortune. And if we admit the notion of natural elites then people are not naturally equal in power either. To make people equal requires compulsion. And so equality and liberty are always going to be at odds.
Have you read Erik Kuehnelt-Leddihn yet? His last book was Liberty or Equality and dealt with this topic at length. It’s available in pdf on this site. BTW my avatar is from an image in that book. It’s Procrustes who stretches some people and saws other people’s feet off, so that they will all be equal.
I don’t like the “equal liberty principle”, because it is very easy to misinterpret as an endorsement of positive liberty. I think it’s clearer to say simply “you may do whatever you wish so long as in doing so you do not harm another person or that person’s property”. Liberty, in that sense, is everything that does not invade the property rights of others.
Equality means equality before the law. No priviliges. No authority. Equal Rights. Equal Freedom. NAP. Whatever name you like best.
On the other hand
I think that if ‘we’ do that, then ‘we’ are not libertarians. Isn’t Mr. Leddihn a monarchical conservative or something ?
OK. That takes care of liberty. Does anyone want to venture a definition of equality?
I don’t mean to be pedantic. It’s just that I’m a little surprised that I got pushback when I argued that liberty and equality are opposing objectives.
The idea of natural elites is also one argued by Hoppe. And EKL argues that aristocrats are almost always anarchists.
How can there be law without authority?
Oh. Well, I happen to agree with you. “Equality under the law” is not equality in any other sense, and I define true, consistent equality under the law as liberty.