Seriously, whatever superficial (and I mean superficial) aims, goals, and similarities we may share:
all forrms of radical leftism would lead to a vast wasteland of unimaginable proportions.
This would include Tuckerites, Mutalists, and Individual anarchists who reject things like rent and interest as well.
Say what you will about mainstream social democrats, keynesians, progressive liberals, neo-cons or whatever - but they actually all have at least some intellectual merit and standards, and none of them or the systems they would impose would lead us anywhere near the wreckage of radical revolutionary leftism. What merit is there in even thinking about these fringe people?
Another thing:
It would be anathema and counter productive (and rightly so) to associate with uber crazy fringe right wing groups (neo-nazi’s, KKK, etc) but somehow there is a socially acceptable element in associating with a freaking neo-Marxist or “revolutionary” anarcho-primitivist - how insane is that?
And a note on how itisn’t the same type of “anarchism”:
For most of us, I think it is just seeing the evidence and facts and seeing somewhat of a logical conclusion that can be drawn from it. It is overall,nothing too radical when the evidence comes in. It’s just kind of a consequence of the facts.
Menger, Bohm-Bawerk, Mises, Hayek, Lachmann etc were radical enough to even think in terms of “minarchy” there is no need for us to assume they would take the extra step*. Rothbard, in this regard, really was just a dude in this tradition kind of adding the numbers together, just like what his predeccecors were doing.
Leftists “propose the system”, as it were, and tell us how we accomplish it. That’s an act of insanity.
*There is a story of Hayek talking to some of hisstudents in the 80’s saying he was too old at this point in his life, but if he were a younger man he would probably be an Ancap. How cool is that if it’s true?
I have a really tough time keeping up with these labels or titles that are given to what people percieve certain “groups” of people to believe. At the end of the day, to me anyway, it is all just a waste of time and ignores any point being made. This even goes with labels that some people here try to associate themselves with; whether it be libertarian, anarcho-capitalist, anarchist. Most of us here are in favor of freedom and I think we can get that message across without labeling everyone with a group name tag.
(I don’t even know if what I said was on topic at this point but this thread inspired me to write what I did)
I can call something a banana because it has every single solitary attribute that defines a banana. When it comes to political or social labels, you’ll find many things about a person or group of people that contradict what someone else is going to try and label them as. So I find the whole thing to be a complete waste because you’d really have to have endless knowledge about someone or a group of people to be able to group said person or people into such groups.
I feel that the radical left is a lot more respectable than the radical right. The left at least desires positive ends like community and human fulfillment, while the radical right is pro exclusion, state, and nationalism. For this reason they are more worth attempting to convert and to talk to.
I think they have their usages as co-belligerents against the state if we can agree that the best way to organise society is at the smallest possible level- i.e. they support secession. That way the modern state apparatus can collapse and we can have small pockets (on a city or county level) of varying systems. Then most people would probably leave the hispster communes and society would be relatively more sane. If Lenin can have useful idiots so can we.
Robert Nisbet would disagree with you. What do you do you mean with “pro exclusion”?
Anway, what you describe sounds more like jingoism, which is essentially centrist. (While I of course think the whole right-left scheme is an anachronism anyway).
Also, the text about AnSyn being a “recipe for ruin” is disproved by the most powerfull argument- reality. AnSyn system established in Spain lead to economic boom.
Depends on what you mean by caring. If you mean ‘talking to’ then the answer is this:
Because they are radicals. The kind of people who become social democrats do not matter. Even if they become anarchists they will not act. When the revolution comes they will stay at home sitting in their rocking chairs on their verandas while we fight it out alone. And when we win, they’ll go along anyway even as social democrats, because that is what they do. They go along.
The OP seems to depict them as evil beasts who are stupid and not worth the time. Which is very disappointing in that most people see us in the same way. I’m far more sympathetic to the left than the right, at least with the left they have good intentions, even if they are a bit too idealistic and misguided in how they wish to satisfy their values, whereas the right is more likely to have a attraction to authoritarianism. (Authoritarianism is despicable no matter how you look at it, while fairness, in some forms is not only acceptable but morally required.)
It seems to me that “libertarians” (maybe not anarcho-capitalists) definitely DO associate with the radical right wing. I don’t feel like getting mired in a RP Newsletter discussion, but I think historically it’s not an uncommon association, so I’m not sure that’s a valid point.
Anyways, aside from that, I don’t think the goals we have in common are superficial. Most radical left-wingers I know definitely have their hearts in the right place, they’ve just read too much Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky and not enough Mises or Rothbard. They’re willing to think outside the mainstream and they care about the individual, they’re just really confused. Seems like the perfect demographic to try to educate about free markets to me. Maybe we mean different things by “radical left-wing” though because I wouldn’t say Keynesians, social democrats, etc etc are even close to more intellectually rigorous
Libertarians often do associate with the right wing and I believe that’s why Libertarians have had only minimal success. The right, on average, values authority highly, Libertarians don’t. Authority isn’t one of those things that are easily justified (in the rational, semi-objective sense) either, people value authority not on rational grounds but primarily for emotional/psychological reasons, making it difficult to break that spell. Anti-authoritarianism is practically the defining feature of Libertarianism, trying to appeal to people who are on average the most authoritarian sure doesn’t help our cause.
It’s redundant to make such a comment given your avatar
Anyway,
As for as good intentions and / or “morals”, I am suspicious of all claims to this. Of course I am morally non-cognative,so that doesn’t help - but it is beyond me to psychologize. And frankly I find Procrustean leftist universalist tendencies not very desirable traits in people. Isolationism is probably more ignorable and escapable.
Other than that those talking about “revolutions” - I don’t think there is any reason to desire a real live revolution as leftists love so much. I want to be nowhere near such an event
The syndicalist movement in Spain is not, to my knowledge, anarchist in nature. Moreover, syndicalism isn’t simply “every employee gets a say in the management of the firm”; alternative methods of management are perfectly acceptable under a state of anarcho-capitalism, and if these arrangements are more profitable then they will tend to be adopted across the market. Anarcho-syndicalism is a “recipe for ruin” because it labors under the same inefficiences as “orthodox socialism” (the lack of a working price mechanism) while adding on the additional encumberment of going without a central planning authority to act as a proxy for market organization. Current syndicalist arrangments operate in a capitalist economy using capitalist methods of gauging profit and loss; the only difference is managerial.
Between syndicalism and orthodox socialism I would vie for the latter, and between market socialism and orthodox socialism I would vie for the former.
In regards to the original post, I “care” about radical leftists because of their boundless entertainment value. I certainly don’t take many of them seriously, though.
This article is awful. The writer did not bother to inform himself of the ideologies on which he spoke and was unable to distinguish between mutualism and anarcho-syndicalism.
I’m not sure about syndicalism but mutualism is purports to be a market system based on an occ/use property norm. There is no reason then that firms would favor producer interests over consumers, because then they would not sell enough to sustain the factory. There have been real life examples of functioning worker co-ops in non-retail settings which, on testimony of locals, provided cheaper goods than before their conversion.
That said one must admit there much less of a reason to save in such a scenario and it would be likely that society would be in a state of net consumption, which is, in my humble opinion, the best argument against such property norms.
Why do people care about leftism? I care about it because, in all of its various retardations of thought, it is an anti-power ideology. The systems it proposes are, more often than not, not. Thus I think it’s a good reason to toss the ideology and its systems but try to grab some of the people attracted to it.
