Confusion of Political and Economic jargon.

[Z_Man]

Ok, So I have been reviewing various libertarian and anarchist websites searching for self-prescribed definitions of the terms. What I find is absolutly amazing though I can’t say that I didn’t know such confusion exists.

Some libertarians and anarchists insist that their movements are ‘left’ or ‘right’ in character and often charge other groups of libertarians and anarchists with deception for usage of the lables.

So many branches of these two movements have formed which in many ways have nothing in common with eachother. For example you have your Anarcho-Capitalists, your Anarcho-Communists, libertarian-left , libertarian-right , etc. So many ‘isms’ have been associated with the various movements its hard for one to even define themselves anymore. I would say I am a libertarian but whether I’m ‘right’ or ‘left’ or maybe really an anarchocapitalist is certainly subjective and one can only define themselves based on their personal principles rather than some broad lables.

I believe in individual liberty, free markets, and limited government ( or in the most extreme case no government since I can see how market anarchy can sustain itself thanks to Rothbard and other intellectuals.)

I understand libertarianism to be a modern day reincarnation of classical liberalism since the term ‘liberal’ has been hijacked by social-statists. I tend to avoid using the ‘left’ and ‘right’ terminologies because I think that confuses the matter. Furthermore, the ideologies of the political ‘left’ and political ‘right’ has been inverted, reverted, and changed so many times its hard to keep up lol .

I think what I find most disturbing is the definition of ‘capitalism.’ Originally coined by Marx , capitalism was a negative connotation in social and economic terms. An interesting explaination can be found at this site: http://mutualist.org/id72.html

There seems to be two cheif claims on capitalism, one negative , and one positive, and both are antonyms of eachother.

The first or ‘negative’ claim is that capitalism is actually exploitation of the working class. This is a Marxist view that has developed. The non-Marxists of this camp claim that capitalism is still evil and incompatable with free enterprise , private property, and liberty.

The second or ‘positive’ claim asserts the opposite. Capitalism is part of the Free Market , grounded in private property , and promotes liberty. This is the view I notice most Austrians take. I, myself, support this ‘positive’ claim about capitalism and feel that capitalism and laissez-fair have been subject to mass dosages of propaganda.

What are your opinions about this ideological paradox?

[equack]

Capitalism by definition is quite simply a system of a private property rights. Now, depending on your school of thought, you may deduce from this definition, a fair and efficient system called the free market which many Austrians hold to. If your a Marxist, you subscribe to the notion that within this system, it is not fair due to the capitalist entrepreneur taking out the ‘surplus value’ of goods out of workers wages; ‘exploitation’ in the Marxian sense. Then there comes the Hegelian synthesis of this system which was formerly called liberalism with its counterpart anti-libereralism (old conservatism, “ancien regime”) and you end up with socialism which is supposedly higher than the two systems before.

In my absolutist view of the political spectrum, capitalism is on the left with its adherants called liberals, socialism is in the middle with its adherants being socialists and on the right, conservatives, or fascists/national socialists. Now today, everything is a jumbled mess with your average liberal having the pro-personal freedom views of the old capitalist left and the economic views of a socialist or national socialist (Theres really not a huge distinction between the two). Your average neo-con would be even more a mix with supporting free markets in some industries, nationalizing others, and supporting welfare programs or other socialist measures. Welfare isn’t intrinsic to socialism though as even fascist Italy and Germany had welfare.

All in all, I hate the “left” and “right” distinctions and prefer using a binomial system in which the first word defines the size of government and the second word is the economic system. The convention fails when the person holds a jumbled mess of views, however. Anarcho-capitalism (Radical Libertarianism), Minarcho-capitalism (Libertarianism), State-capitalism (Fascism/National Socialism), Anarcho-socialism (Syndecalists), Minarcho-socialism (Social democrats), State-Socialism (Communism). Theres also anarcho-primativism which essentially wants to go back to the tribe and loathes modern technology.

[macsnafu]

@Z Man

What I find is absolutly amazing though I can’t say that I didn’t know such confusion exists.

Language is an imprecise tool–it serves the purpose of communication, but more fundamentally, it serves the purpose of conceptualization. I can’t talk to you about a chair, for example, until the term “chair” has been created and the idea of what a chair has been created in my mind. Even then, I can’t talk to you about chairs until the term and concept of chair exists in your mind, as well. Thus, it should be no surprise that conceptualization and communication is limited to some degree by subjective values and understanding of terms.

Chair is a relatively simple concept, but political philosophies are highly abstract concepts that incorporate other high-level concepts about justice, equality, government, rights, legal systems, economics, money, property, labor, and so on. Is it any wonder that confusion exists when talking about such high level concepts?

Furthermore, if a label doesn’t quite fit, the desire to create one that is more appropriate is great. But any more appropriate label is less useful until enough other people have the term and concept in their minds. Thus “libertarian socialist” and “anarchocapitalist” seem strange and meaningless to many people, especially when they initially encounter them. But time and more discussion will help clarify. And some people want to be “special”, or revel in confusion.

[Brainpolice]

Some libertarians and anarchists insist that their movements are ‘left’ or ‘right’ in character and often charge other groups of libertarians and anarchists with deception for usage of the lables.

I have grown to generally reject the terms “left” and “right” as anti-concepts devoid of objective meaning. In modern times, at best they are hasty generalizations and constantly shifting descriptors. However, there is a context in which I boldly assert that libertarianism is inherently “left” in the sense that Rothbard describes in his essay “Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty”, which can be found in the compilation book “Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature”. He was using the term “left”, however, in its original or classical context in which “left” essentially means voluntaryism, radicalism, revolutionary and historical progressivism while “right” means monopolism, statism, historical romanticism and the status quo.

So many branches of these two movements have formed which in many ways have nothing in common with eachother. For example you have your Anarcho-Capitalists, your Anarcho-Communists, libertarian-left , libertarian-right , etc. So many ‘isms’ have been associated with the various movements its hard for one to even define themselves anymore. I would say I am a libertarian but whether I’m ‘right’ or ‘left’ or maybe really an anarchocapitalist is certainly subjective and one can only define themselves based on their personal principles rather than some broad lables.

Oh yes, the list of anarchos and subcategories within them goes on and on. Anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-collectivism, anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-primitivism, crypto-anarchism, green anarchism, individualist anarchism, mutualism, agorism, and so on. The amount of “isms” does get a bit absurd. The various schools like to point the finger at eachother and say “you have no place within tradition” and “you’re not really an anarchist”. However, so long as everyone involved accepts or abides by voluntaryism, the differences are irrelevant in the sense that they all co-exist peacefully. That is, voluntaryist anarchism in principle is panarchy, a highly pluralist phenomenon, in practise. Basically, “anarchism without adjectives”. The labels and subcategories become nothing more then a matter of personal preference.

I understand libertarianism to be a modern day reincarnation of classical liberalism since the term ‘liberal’ has been hijacked by social-statists.

I agree partially but I think it’s more complex and broad then that. Firstly, it would be misleading to think of libertarianism as if it were solely a modern phenomenon that arose in the 20th century, as the term itself derives from the 19th century. Definitionally, I tend to use the term libertarian in a broad sense that includes both anarchism and classical liberalism or minarchism. So to say that libertarianism is a modern day reincarnation of classical liberalism is only true for minarchist libertarianism, and the extent to which anarchists are influenced by classical liberalism. Also, I see anarchism as partially being a logical outgrowth of classical liberalism, and I consider certain classical liberal thinkers to be “philosophical anarchists” in that they had a principled ethical opposition to the state as institution in general and/or essentially proposed anarchistic theories without using the term anarchism (I’d lump people like Herbert Spencer and Gustave De Molinari into this category).

There seems to be two cheif claims on capitalism, one negative , and one positive, and both are antonyms of eachother. The first or ‘negative’ claim is that capitalism is actually exploitation of the working class. This is a Marxist view that has developed. The non-Marxists of this camp claim that capitalism is still evil and incompatable with free enterprise , private property, and liberty. The second or ‘positive’ claim asserts the opposite. Capitalism is part of the Free Market , grounded in private property , and promotes liberty. This is the view I notice most Austrians take. I, myself, support this ‘positive’ claim about capitalism and feel that capitalism and laissez-fair have been subject to mass dosages of propaganda.

It is precisely because of this paradox in definitions, this definitional chaos, that I have ditched the terms capitalism and anarcho-capitalism. I believe Roderick Long explained why capitalism and socialism are anti-concepts quite well in his recent speech Rothbard’s “Left and Right”: 40 Years Later. I think Rothbard was mistaken to call his philosophy “anarcho-capitalism”. His choice in terms has caused endless semantics and confusion to take place in debates with the contemporary “left” as well as more social anarchists. It’s like sending a red flag up to a bull in discourse. The principles and ideas in question is really what matters, not the integrity of the old beaten label of capitalism.