Jewish socialists and Jewish libertarians are arguing over means and not ends i.e. which is the best way of realising our group interest? Whether under laisez-faire capitalism or a multicultural welfare state they can expect, that they are going to rise to the top and accrue all the benefits that flow from it. What you don’t find is many Jews standing up for the traditional values of the gentile populations they live amongst, i.e. they don’t defend christianity, they support mass immigration, they make gentiles feel guilty of their heritage. The reason of course is that there is no advantage for Jews to do this and every advantage to do the opposite. A self-confident and homogenous gentile population with a strong in-group identity are liable to look upon Jews as an alien out-group who’s interests are separate to their own and will likely impose measures that harm jewish group interests.
Yes there are variants of socialism including national socialism but I am talking about ideologies like communism and cultural marxism aka liberalism. National Socialism is very much an in-group altrusim, liberalism is an out-group altruism.
Races don’t have interests; individuals do. Races don’t wake up in the morning and ask, “what’s in my people’s best interests?” When you talk about Jews, you’re talking about millions of individuals, all over the world, who have different preferences, different experiences, and different interests. They belong to different movements, if they belong to any movement at all. Ludwig von Mises and Hyman Minsky had different interests. A Jew in Budapest and a Jew in Brooklyn have different interests, and Jews within Brooklyn have different interests.
Your collectivist argument is absurd. It has nothing to do with reality; it is something your own mind has created in order to explain phenomena you don’t really understand.
I do think Jews have a sense of group identity. I mean at least I do. All the Jews I know do. That sense of Jewishness is very important to a lot of us.
HOWEVER, we do not all agree on things and, in particular, I think different Jews interpret the pact we’re supposed to have with God differently.
What does it mean to be a light unto all nations?
Either way, I do think it’s inaccurate to say that a lot of Jews don’t see themselves as part of a larger group. Being Jewish is not just about worshiping God in a certain way, it’s about being a part of a people who have a very rich history and the sense of chosenness, being chosen by God, is something that I believe every Jew has to come to terms with and figure out how they are going to contribute to the Jewish community at large (group cohesivess.) That sense of group cohesiveness is very strong within the Jewish people and very important to understanding Jews, imo, and while some Jews are very certain to ignore it or cast it aside or deride it, it’s still there. That may be collectivist but it is what it is.
As a kid, I thought it was ridiculous, but as I’ve gotten older, the sense of chosenness and being a part of a chosen people has become more and more relevant to me. So I ask what does it mean to be a light unto all nations?
Eventually, however, de Cleyre was moved to reject individualism. In 1908 she argued “that the best thing ordinary workingmen or women could do was to organise their industry to get rid of money altogether” and "produce together, co-operatively rather than as employer and employed.
Individualism and Mutualism, resting upon property, involve a development of the private policeman not at all compatible with my notion of freedom."[11]
Emma Goldman’s wiki:
“Anarchism, then, really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property”
Goldman believed that the economic system of capitalism was inimical to human liberty. “The only demand that property recognizes,” she wrote in Anarchism and Other Essays, “is its own gluttonous appetite for greater wealth, because wealth means power; the power to subdue, to crush, to exploit, the power to enslave, to outrage, to degrade.”[154] She also argued that capitalism dehumanized workers, "turning the producer into a mere particle of a machine, with less will and decision than his master of steel and iron
“Yes,” she wrote later in her autobiography, “the end in this case justified the means.”
Someone may have brought this up already; I’m not going to read through every reply to find it; but I think it’s interesting that Rothbard identifies Chuang Tzu (the student of Lao Tzu) of ancient China as the first Anarchist in world history. As such, he’s an important figure in the Libertarian movement, and he’s not white. In Economic Thought Before Adam Smith, Rothbard quotes Chuang Tzu:
“I would rather roam and idle about in a muddy ditch, at my own amusement, than
to be put under the restraints that the ruler would impose. I will never take any
official service, and thereby I will [be free] to satisfy my own purposes”
‘There has been such a thing as letting mankind
alone; there has never been such a thing as governing mankind [with success]’
the world ‘does simply not need
governing; in fact it should not be governed’.
‘A petty thief is put in jail. A great brigand becomes a
ruler of a State’
In addition to Chuang Tzu, there was a whole tradition of Anarchist thinkers in ancient China. I encourage you to read Rothbard on the subject.
Thanks for this. Im sure it is fascinating to see how the first Ancap-ish thinker formulated his ideas, having no real foundation to build upon.
This topic was started, a loong time ago, with the purpose of deflecting modern stereotypes about libertarians. Even though you and I would find Chaung Tzu really nifty, saying “hay did you know the first libertarian was actually asian even though you’re complaining about how we’re all white and male now?” doesn’t seem convincing.
“Well, one vital and recent social change has been not only truly revolutionary but has occurred at almost dizzying speed. Namely: Until literally mid-October 1994, it was shameful and taboo for anyone to talk publicly or write about, home truths which everyone, and I mean everyone, knew in their hearts and in private: that is, almost self-evident truths about race, intelligence, and heritability. What used to be widespread shared public knowledge about race and ethnicity among writers, publicists, and scholars, was suddenly driven out of the public square by Communist anthropologist Franz Boas and his associates in the 1930s, and it has been taboo ever since. Essentially, I mean the almost self-evident fact that individuals, ethnic groups, and races differ among themselves in intelligence and in many other traits, and that intelligence, as well as less controversial traits of temperament, are in large part hereditary.”
Libertarianism and believing in markets won’t reduce the socio-economic status of the vast majority of blacks, it would increase it for everyone- don’t you think so?
lol you really need solid proof? Is it that difficult to wrap your mind around the concept of a non-white libertarian? Sure come to Jamaica, Queens and I’ll introduce you to everyone I know. They engage in activism in their own ways by talking to people they know in the neighborhood- I haven’t seen organizing groups and rallies working over here, people will only go to things like that if they already agree with the ideology.
These discussions about libertarians being a bunch of white dudes always confused the shit out of me because thats not my experience- the majority of every ideology in this country is white anyway. Minorities in my areas are more likely to think something is completely wrong with the “system” as a whole- but lack of knowledge about economics and other areas(Just like a lot of white people around the country) gives them faulty or limited reasoning for why things are bad such as “Its all Bush’s fault” or “Its all these greedy corporations”- which are true I guess but don’t give the full picture. A little bit of education and wala you have yourself a libertarian.
Areas like New York and California are more democratic than republican- and that’s where most black people in this country live so of course they’re gonna be more black democrats. I really don’t think too many people were thinking in terms of “Obama is going to offer more privileges so I want to vote for him” but voted for him because he didn’t represent the “Bush party” like McCain**(voting for McCain was like voting for Bush, Obama was a democrat and the ruse worked)**- and since no one pays attention to the actual policy changes and just likes to hear the slogans of “Change! Hope!” - it was easy pickings for Obama. Especially since the general consensus seems to be “Republican = Racist white guy from the south, Democrat = Everyone else” in places like New York.
But anyway being Born black has nothing to do with if you’re more receptive to libertarian or socialist ideas- that’s nonsense. Wouldn’t that logic then say then that since a white man brought Marxism to the world, Hitler and Stalin were white, and many whites engaged in slavery- that if you’re born white you’re more likely to use force to steal the rights of other men?