Libertarian my ass!

[Rampion]

It's funny how US people take concepts born in Europe to turn them upside-down.

Specifically, it's amazing how US folks call "libertarians" free market capitalists of the likes of Ron Paul, most of the times without even knowing the origins of this word.

Libertarian comes from latin word "libertas" = freedom (libertá in italian; libertad in spanish; liberté in french; etc.)

The term "libertarian" was used for the first time by the free thinkers of the Illustration: at the beginning it was only a metaphysical and philosophic concept opposed to the determinist philosophy. Nothing to do with politics or economics.

After that, it was used for the first time in a POLITICAL and ECONOMICAL way by Joseph Déjacque and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon as a synonym of ANARCHISM. And my friends, ANARCHISM is by definition AGAINST capitalist free market.

If you want to understand deeply why anarchism is against capitalism, and why anarchists are for a cooperativist and mutualist types of economy (but against totalitarian communism), please read:

• God and the State, by Bakunin
• The Mutual Aid, by Kropotkin
• What is the private property? By Proudhon (the famous thinker, not the famous btctalk bear )
• Anarcho-syndicalism, by Rudolph Rocker

Even more specifically: the libertarian revolution was made by the workers of the region of Aragon, in Spain, in 1930. They lived from 1930 to 1938:

• isolated from the republican state that ruled Spain
• exchanging goods and services for other goods and services (yes, almost without any money)
• without police, judges or any institutions
• and as a side note, without any crimes in 7/8 years (because you know that 99,99% of the crimes are related to private property, don't you?)

All this until they were crushed by the fascist counter-revolution.

You can read a detailed report of how they lived in: Anarchosyndicalism, libertarian communism and the state: the CNT in Zaragoza and Aragón, 1930-1937, by Kelsey Graham. Online you will easily find a PDF of this book and the others mentioned earlier.

These guys were "the libertarians", and they would hang themselves if they'd hear a free market capitalist calling himself a libertarian. Just call him an ultra-liberal, an ultra-capitalist, a free market capitalist or an anti-state capitalist: that'd more precise.

And now, do you want to understand quickly why Anarchists (or libertarians) are AGAINST capitalism? Because they are against any kind of coercive power, and CAPITALISM is coercive by nature. "Free market" is not free at all for an anarchist, because its freedom gives you two choices only:

A) You adapt to free market rules or B) you starve to death. That's not the kind of freedom a libertarian/anarchist is looking for.

This is why somebody calling himself an "anarcho-capitalist" or a "capitalist libertarian" is a joke. It's a like a "nazi-jew" or a "capitalist free market communist". I mean, it's an OXYMORON, full stop.

[Lethn]

I suppose I should bear in mind that I'm sorta just waking up while reading this, but reading your post makes me think that you've had the cluster fucked teaching and been told all kinds of bullshit when you were young and now you're just discovering that people have different definitions of things and have different beliefs. Yes, people think Libertarianism means something else than what you think and yes, people think Anarchism means different things, they come up with their own archetypes of Anarchism and Libertarianism. This is partly because as well that you have to deal with all sorts of bullshit propaganda regarding certain groups like these so people seek out new names and identities so they won't be automatically grouped in with them. A perfect example would be conservatives, because people in that group have gotten sick of being labelled as women hating religious fanatics they've decided to label themselves more clearly as fiscal conservatives or free market conservatives and so on.

Welcome to the real world Rampion, the more you dig through history and facts the more you'll realise what you're told is all bullshit and you have to find your own answer, for me the free market isn't an adopt or die scenario, it's consent, as long as people consent to all trades out there and deals etc. by their own will then that's a free market to me. To be fair as well the free market thing you've described sounds a lot like the sort of propaganda that's cooked up by what I call Imperial loyalists ( yeah I know but I'm using the dictionary definition which works ) they love to make out that we're all heartless rich people only obsessed with gaining wealth and would leave people out in the street to die and so on, of course as most of us would say here that's a load of crap.

A lot of these people have never heard of charity organisations or foundations which I wholly support lol .

[Vandroiy]

A) You adapt to free market rules or B) you starve to death. That's not the kind of freedom a libertarian/anarchist is looking for.

It's a good thing people start realizing this outcome. I personally would recommend productivity-based population control to prevent B) happening en masse, but the vast majority seems to prefer the starving. Or maybe they don't care, which is a more plausible explanation.



Regarding "libertarian": I call myself that and guess you won't like that. I'm mostly a capitalist liberal in the literal sense, with a major exception against the forming of monopolies. That's long and most people still don't understand what it means. What should I call myself?

I'm certainly not an anarchist, statist, communist or conservative, nor do I fully agree with the mainstream approach to economics that produces gigantic corrupt entities. I'm annoyed myself that "libertarian" seems to be ill-defined. It still seems to be the closest word.

[Rampion]

I suppose I should bear in mind that I'm sorta just waking up while reading this, but reading your post makes me think that you've had the cluster fucked teaching and been told all kinds of bullshit when you were young and now you're just discovering that people have different definitions of things and have different beliefs. Yes, people think Libertarianism means something else than what you think and yes, people think Anarchism means different things, they come up with their own archetypes of Anarchism and Libertarianism. This is partly because as well that you have to deal with all sorts of bullshit propaganda regarding certain groups like these so people seek out new names and identities so they won't be automatically grouped in with them. A perfect example would be conservatives, because people in that group have gotten sick of being labelled as women hating religious fanatics they've decided to label themselves more clearly as fiscal conservatives or free market conservatives and so on.

Welcome to the real world Rampion, the more you dig through history and facts the more you'll realise what you're told is all bullshit and you have to find your own answer, for me the free market isn't an adopt or die scenario, it's consent, as long as people consent to all trades out there and deals etc. by their own will then that's a free market to me. To be fair as well the free market thing you've described sounds a lot like the sort of propaganda that's cooked up by what I call Imperial loyalists ( yeah I know but I'm using the dictionary definition which works ) they love to make out that we're all heartless rich people only obsessed with gaining wealth and would leave people out in the street to die and so on, of course as most of us would say here that's a load of crap.

A lot of these people have never heard of charity organisations or foundations which I wholly support lol .

Nothing of this was taught to me in school. In school I was taught that anarchists are bad people who uses bombs. I self-taught myself reading BOOKS by

a) the first, pre-capitalists liberals, from Rousseau to Humboldt
b) the industrial-capitalists liberals (Adam Smith et all)
c) the anarchists fundational books (Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, etc. etc.)
d) the anarchist economic principles (by Proudhon, Rudolph Rocker, Abad de Santillán, etc. etc.)

The reality is simple: ANARCHISM is anti-capitalist by definition, and "libertarian" was originall meant as a euphemism of ANARCHIST. This is the pure truth. Of course you can think that "words mean different things to different people"... Hey, you can even say that nazism for you means "love-and peace ideology", but that would be a mystification of the original term. Which is what happens when you call "libertarian" a free-market capitalist.

About free market consensus: I personally disagree with your view. I think that in capitalist free market more capital=more power to set your own rules. And free-market players does not start from scratch. One example: who can manipulate bitcoin prices to their own interest - the one who has 1.000.000btc + 100.000.000usd or the small-timers that try to enter the market? Who will be able to pump&dump, etc.? Anyhow, this is not my point: my post was just to point out how the term "libertarian" was used in a "funny" way in the US, and how a lot of US citizens call themselves "anarchists" in a twisted way, without having even read in their life a book by the founders of anarchism.

[Rampion]

A) You adapt to free market rules or B) you starve to death. That's not the kind of freedom a libertarian/anarchist is looking for.

It's a good thing people start realizing this outcome. I personally would recommend productivity-based population control to prevent B) happening en masse, but the vast majority seems to prefer the starving. Or maybe they don't care, which is a more plausible explanation.



Regarding "libertarian": I call myself that and guess you won't like that. I'm mostly a capitalist liberal in the literal sense, with a major exception against the forming of monopolies. That's long and most people still don't understand what it means. What should I call myself?

I'm certainly not an anarchist, statist, communist or conservative, nor do I fully agree with the mainstream approach to economics that produces gigantic corrupt entities. I'm annoyed myself that "libertarian" seems to be ill-defined. It still seems to be the closest word.

Well, I wrote my post to get the feedback you just gave me - thanks for that, you understood 100% of what I wrote. Hope I also made you interested in reading some of the books that founded the libertarian philosphy. I recommend Bakunin, Kropotkin and Proudhon for the philosophyc side, and Rudolph Rocker for the economic side.

I think it's important to understand that words and concepts are tight together - and it's important to know the origins of the terms we are using, even if we decide to give them "another meaning".

[LastBattle]

Irrelevant points. Libertarianism has meant the "right" version in most of the world, and even generally in Europe, for the past thirty or so years. Many libertarians are anarchists and would dispute that anarchism is inherently anti-capitalist. Meanwhile, socialists stole the words "liberal" and "progressive" from us a long time ago, but you don't see anyone posting "Liberal my ass!" threads.

[myrkul]

You seem to have an odd - specifically communist - definition of "Anarchism." Let's see if we can correct that.

an·ar·chism

noun /ˈanərˌkizəm/ 

 1.   Belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.
 2.   Anarchists as a political force or movement

Nothing about a desire for a voluntary society that is specifically anti-market. Indeed, Murray Rothbard defined the market as:

... a summary term for an array of exchanges that take place in society. Each exchange is undertaken as a voluntary agreement between two people or between groups of people represented by agents.

In contrast, State actions are almost always not voluntary, for instance, taxation. They're going to take the money whether you want to pay them or not. Now, many past anarchists have been anti-market, or anti-property, but that does not mean that anarchy means no market. It only means no government. In fact, the logical conclusion of free-market principles is anarchism. I hope I have helped clear up your misconceptions of Anarcho-capitalism. If you have any further questions, I'll be glad to answer them.

[Rampion]

Irrelevant points. Libertarianism has meant the "right" version in most of the world, and even generally in Europe, for the past thirty or so years.

That is true only for the US - and that doesn't change that the modern US interpretation of "libertarian" is a mystification of the original term. I would just like people understanding that.

Meanwhile, socialists stole the words "liberal" and "progressive" from us a long time ago, but you don't see anyone posting "Liberal my ass!" threads.

That gives me the chance to deepen my exposition.

What I exposed on the OP are FACTS. More facts:

- anarchism and modern liberalism have a common origin: the pre-capitalist liberalism of the XVI Century (from Russeau to Humboldt)
- in the XIX century modern liberalism (free market capitalism) and anarchism were born, sharing a common origin (pre-capitalist liberalism) but splitting because a totally opposite conception of capitalism. For modern liberalists capitalism is: the natural way; for anarchists capitalism is: the non-natural way.

The US libertarians and the "original" libertarians have only one thing in common: they are both anti-state. But for original anarchists anti-capitalism is as important as anti-state. Otherwise, they would just be ultra-liberals, wouldn't they?

You should know that Anarchism is a left movement because Anarchism founders participated in the First International (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Workingmen's_Association), and they actively cooperated with communists until Bakunin realized that Trotsky's and Lenin's intentions were totalitarian. In fact, in Bakunin's own words, "the red burocracy is going to be the biggest lie in this century", as he saw Lenin's view as state-based capitalism, where workers were told what to do by super-structures outside their direct control (like modern businesses and enterprises, by the way).

[Rampion]

You seem to have an odd - specifically communist - definition of "Anarchism." Let's see if we can correct that.

an·ar·chism

noun /ˈanərˌkizəm/ 

 1.   Belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.
 2.   Anarchists as a political force or movement

Nothing about a desire for a voluntary society that is specifically anti-market. Indeed,

In bold the core of this matter. For Bakunin, Kropotkin and the other anarchism founders, capitalism IS a compulsive force. If you read their fundational works, you will understand that for anarchists, capitalist free-market meant:

- the worker needs to rent his time, body and labour to the higher bidder, following market rules; if he does not do that, he will starve to death. For anarchists, free-market capitalism was just a form of slavery: "salary slavery"

Anarchists were (and are) AGAINST this as they saw it as freedom-killer.

What I'm saying is that it's kinda funny to call yourself "libertarian" or "anarchist" when you are pro-capitalism. Again: anarcho-capitalist is an OXYMORON. Just call yourself liberal, or anti-state liberal or ultra-liberal: that would be much more appropriate from a philosophic and historical point of view.

[myrkul]

the worker needs to rent his time, body and labour to the higher bidder, following market rules; if he does not do that, he will starve to death.

This is true even if the person works only to feed himself. The highest bidder, in this case, is merely himself. As it happens, trade and the market make each participant's life better. A farmer can have better clothes than he can make himself, and a clothes-maker can have better food than he can grow himself.

That aside, how do you propose to remove the fact of life that in order to live, you must work - even if only for yourself?

[coqui33]

OP: Semantic masturbation.

[Rampion]

the worker needs to rent his time, body and labour to the higher bidder, following market rules; if he does not do that, he will starve to death.

That aside, how do you propose to remove the fact of life that in order to live, you must work - even if only for yourself?

Anarchists think that work is a reward in itself: in the capitalist system, you produce goods and services you don't consume yourself in order to get an extrinsic reward: the money you need to feed your family. Anarchists says that work has an instrinsic value, which is the service you do to your community. This is one of the few points where anrchists and communists converge - in theory, because in practice anarchists say that lenin's communism alienated workers just as capitalism does.

You may think this is unrealistic, utopian, unpractical or anachronic: my point is not to discuss this, as it would take a very long (and interesting) debate, and at the end of the day the fact that an anarchist society is possible have never been proved or refutated empirically*: is pure and simple speculation.

My intention is point out the origins of the term libertarian, and how this term is used in rather a funny way in the US. If in the meantime, if I get only one "capitalist anarchist" to read one of the books of the anarchist thinkers (Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, Rocker, Abad de Santillán, etc.) I will be more than happy.

*this is true apart from very small exceptions, as for the kibutz in Israel or the Aragón (Spain) experience from 1930 to 1938. A very small sample indeed.

[myrkul]

the worker needs to rent his time, body and labour to the higher bidder, following market rules; if he does not do that, he will starve to death.

That aside, how do you propose to remove the fact of life that in order to live, you must work - even if only for yourself?

Anarchists think that work is a reward in itself: in the capitalist system, you produce goods and services you don't consume yourself in order to get an extrinsic reward: the money you need to feed your family. Anarchists says that work has an instrinsic value, which is the service you do to your community. This is one of the few points where anrchists and communists converge - in theory, because in practice anarchists say that lenin's communism alienated workers just as capitalism does.

I see... Work is a reward in itself. Yet working for an additional reward - monetary remuneration - is slavery. Gotcha. 

So, if work is a reward in itself, how does one get fed? Do you only produce the goods and services you yourself consume?

[Rampion]

the worker needs to rent his time, body and labour to the higher bidder, following market rules; if he does not do that, he will starve to death.

That aside, how do you propose to remove the fact of life that in order to live, you must work - even if only for yourself?

Anarchists think that work is a reward in itself: in the capitalist system, you produce goods and services you don't consume yourself in order to get an extrinsic reward: the money you need to feed your family. Anarchists says that work has an instrinsic value, which is the service you do to your community. This is one of the few points where anrchists and communists converge - in theory, because in practice anarchists say that lenin's communism alienated workers just as capitalism does.

I see... Work is a reward in itself. Yet working for an additional reward - monetary remuneration - is slavery. Gotcha.  

So, if work is a reward in itself, how does one get fed? Do you only produce the goods and services you yourself consume?

That additional reward is what you are forced to have to survive in a capitalist society. It's an imposition: there you have the slavery for the anarchists.

If you are interested in understanding deeply how anarchists think you can feed yourself in a mutualist type of economy, I recommend you:

1) The Mutual Aid, by Kropotkin (to understand why anarchists think that the mutual aid is the natural way, opposed to capitalist liberals view of market competition or social darwinism)
2) Anarchosyndicalism, by Rudolph Rocker (to understand the basis of a mutualist economy).

And now the short (and superficial) answer: Anarchists believe that, if you work in a factory/field/company - that factory/field/company belongs to you. You (and not the State or a private owner) have to decide how to organize production, and you and your community have to directly benefit from that production. Anarchists don't believe that you should feed from the groceries you cultivate on your own, that is a common but very mistaken misconception. Anarchists were born in industrail societies, and their mutualist conception of the economy is tightly linked to industrial society.

[collapse]

region of Aragon, in Spain, in 1930. They lived from 1930 to 1938

First at all, seems strange that

without any crimes in 7/8 years

because:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War

I think the problem is the freedom definition, itself.
Term "liberal",in spanish from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortes_de_C%C3%A1diz

From Liberal, Liberalism, not opposed to State.

[myrkul]

the worker needs to rent his time, body and labour to the higher bidder, following market rules; if he does not do that, he will starve to death.

That aside, how do you propose to remove the fact of life that in order to live, you must work - even if only for yourself?

Anarchists think that work is a reward in itself: in the capitalist system, you produce goods and services you don't consume yourself in order to get an extrinsic reward: the money you need to feed your family. Anarchists says that work has an instrinsic value, which is the service you do to your community. This is one of the few points where anrchists and communists converge - in theory, because in practice anarchists say that lenin's communism alienated workers just as capitalism does.

I see... Work is a reward in itself. Yet working for an additional reward - monetary remuneration - is slavery. Gotcha. 

So, if work is a reward in itself, how does one get fed? Do you only produce the goods and services you yourself consume?

That additional reward is what you are forced to have to survive in a capitalist society. It's an imposition: there you have the slavery for the anarchists.

But it's not - we've already established that you can simply work for only yourself - if you're willing to subsist on what you can produce yourself.

If you are interested in understanding deeply how anarchists thinks you can feed yourself in a mutualist type of economy, I recommend you:

1) The Mutual Aid, by Kropotkin (to understand why anarchists think that the mutual aid is the natural way, opposed to capitalist liberals view of market competition or social darwinism)
2) Anarchosyndicalism, by Rudolph Rocker (to understand the basis of a mutualist economy).

If "Anarcho-capitalism" is an oxymoron, wouldn't anarcho-syndicalism be redundant? (perhaps this is showing that the political system - or lack thereof - is separate from the economic system) I'd also like to point out that Anarcho-capitalism does not forbid mutual aid, but that anarcho-syndicalism would forbid trade. Which system is more free?

And now the short (and superficial) answer: Anarchists believe that, if you work in a factory/field/company - that factory/field/company belongs to you. You (and not the State or a private owner) have to decide how to organize production, and you and your community have to directly benefit from that production.

If I own the field I work in (not an impossibility under capitalism, I might add) why does my community have to benefit from my production? Would that not be slavery? Slavery to the community? And if I have the ultimate decision on how to organize production, what if I decide to organize production in such a way that it does not benefit the community?

Anarchists don't believe that you should feed from the groceries you cultivate on your own, that is a common but very mistaken misconception.

I'm quite aware of that. You believe that I should work - and work is it's own reward - and then just give away the production.

[Rampion]

region of Aragon, in Spain, in 1930. They lived from 1930 to 1938

First at all, seems strange that

without any crimes in 7/8 years

because:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War

You can read a detailed description of the facts related to the anarchosyndicalist experience in Aragón during 1930 and 1938 in the book below, written by the English historian Kelsey Graham: http://books.google.es/books?id=WjR8mqM0hmcC&printsec=frontcover&hl=es&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

You will discover that anarchists in opposition to a) fascists, b) communists and c) spanish republican state created an anarchist "island" in Aragón where economy and society worked flawlessy (and with NO CRIME) until this experience was crushed by the fascist counter-revolution. These men called themselves "libertarians".

But of course text books, wikipedia et al. will tell you that anarchists were bad people who burnt god-fearing christians. Hey: who win writes history.

[Richy_T]

Anarchists think that work is a reward in itself

Who says?

[myrkul]

Anarchists think that work is a reward in itself

Who says?

The anarcho-syndicalist.

[Richy_T]

Anarchists think that work is a reward in itself

Who says?

The anarcho-syndicalist.

I bet he'd kill for a sandwich.