LWDT 8: Hitting the Marx

[Torrocca]

Murray Rothbard literally treated the use of "Libertarianism" to describe Classical Liberals as an act of stealing the word from Leftists; do take note that he wasn't a Leftist himself, and celebrated this notion in his own writings.



News flash: just as right-wing """Libertarians""" aren't Libertarians, """""Anarcho"""""-Capitalists sure as shit aren't Anarchists.



I am dealing with it - by calling it out for the bullshit that it is.

Indeed, we've stolen a word in order to make up for the fact that right-libertarianism is distinct from classical liberalism (we are far more resistant to the state) and contemporary liberalism (which fully embraces the state).

And, of course, you don't bother seeing the irony in your own ideology - that falsely claims to be """Libertarian""" - being defined by a contradiction.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

I don't want to get involved in this feud, but I am enjoying the irony of a libertarian, who's basing their arguments on libertarianism, arguing that private corporations shouldn't be allowed to create and enforce rules concerning the use of their website.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that private individuals should be allowed to do more or less whatever they want with their legally-owned property, and the government shouldn't be allowed to interfere with how private corporations operate as long as those corporations aren't violating anyone's basic human rights. Or does that basic premise no longer apply at a certain scale?

It's more complicated than you're presenting it as, but, yes, on a very basic level, when a corporation becomes a certain scale, they do start to get the ability to actively violate basic human rights, though not all do.

Since nothing you just said actually conflicts with my post, am I to assume that you agree with me?

[Torrocca]

Hold on, how exactly is right-libertarianism not libertarian?

Simple enough: it's paradoxical to define yourself as anti-authoritarian and still uphold a fundamentally authoritarian system (Capitalism).

[Nakena]

Libertarians and Anarchism can carry different adjectives and forms.

And none of them are right-wing.

Not all of them are ideologically aligned to your views however.

Yeah, yeah, I know LibComs, LibSocs, AnPacs, AnSynds, AnMuts, Egoists, SocDems, DemSocs, and the whole rest of the non-authoritarian left exists.

You will have to accept that theres some amongst us who will disagree with your ideology.

Neat. I'm not denying that. Right-wing """Libertarianism""" is still a crock of bullshit in all its forms.

Did I told you I became recently a little interested in anarchism and mutualism? Of course, in my very own interpretation thereof. :^)

Good for you.

You forgot National Syndicalism and National-Anarchism. Which may count as right-wing. Also then you have CasaPound which has a few mutualist characteristics and is heavily engaged in community work. And of course right-wing libertarism is absolutly a thing. Either in a soft form more resembling classical liberalism ala Ron Paul or hard form as, I believe, HHH and ND follow it.

[Proctopeo]

It's more complicated than you're presenting it as, but, yes, on a very basic level, when a corporation becomes a certain scale, they do start to get the ability to actively violate basic human rights, though not all do.

Since nothing you just said actually conflicts with my post, am I to assume that you agree with me?

My meaning is implied by my words.

[Pacomia]

Hold on, how exactly is right-libertarianism not libertarian?

Simple enough: it's paradoxical to define yourself as anti-authoritarian and still uphold a fundamentally authoritarian system (Capitalism).

but ancapism

[Northern Davincia]

Marxist-Leninism has a higher death toll than fascism when it comes to ideology. I still believe one has the right to express views sympathetic to either/neither side.

Marxism-Leninism can get fucked, too, for all I care.

And yet right-libertarianism has spread beyond America.

It's spread so magnificently that it's literally a laughing stock everywhere, including America.

>implying left-libertarianism isn't a global laughing stock
Tell me, what does free speech mean to you anyway?

[Torrocca]

And none of them are right-wing.



Yeah, yeah, I know LibComs, LibSocs, AnPacs, AnSynds, AnMuts, Egoists, SocDems, DemSocs, and the whole rest of the non-authoritarian left exists.



Neat. I'm not denying that. Right-wing """Libertarianism""" is still a crock of bullshit in all its forms.



Good for you.

You forgot National Syndicalism and National-Anarchism. Which may count as right-wing.

Rebranded Fascism.

Also then you have CasaPound which has a few mutualist characteristics and is heavily engaged in community work.

That's not a political ideology; they're also Neo-Fascists.

And of course right-wing libertarism is absolutly a thing. Either in a soft form more resembling classical liberalism ala Ron Paul or hard form as, I believe, HHH and ND follow it.

Nope. You can't claim to be the antithesis of authoritarianism and simultaneously uphold an inherently authoritarian system such as Capitalism.

[Proctopeo]

Hold on, how exactly is right-libertarianism not libertarian?

Simple enough: it's paradoxical to define yourself as anti-authoritarian and still uphold a fundamentally authoritarian system (Capitalism).

>capitalism is fundamentally authoritarian
kek

[Torrocca]

Marxism-Leninism can get fucked, too, for all I care.



It's spread so magnificently that it's literally a laughing stock everywhere, including America.

>implying left-libertarianism isn't a global laughing stock

It's not, given that it's actually inspired people to try and break the chains of Capitalism.

Tell me, what does free speech mean to you anyway?

Doesn't matter, it's irrelevant to what I'm talking about.

[Northern Davincia]

Hold on, how exactly is right-libertarianism not libertarian?

Simple enough: it's paradoxical to define yourself as anti-authoritarian and still uphold a fundamentally authoritarian system (Capitalism).

It would only be paradoxical if we accept your premise that capitalism is authoritarian, which we don't. We believe it to be the system by which liberty is maximized.

And none of them are right-wing.



Yeah, yeah, I know LibComs, LibSocs, AnPacs, AnSynds, AnMuts, Egoists, SocDems, DemSocs, and the whole rest of the non-authoritarian left exists.



Neat. I'm not denying that. Right-wing """Libertarianism""" is still a crock of bullshit in all its forms.



Good for you.

You forgot National Syndicalism and National-Anarchism. Which may count as right-wing. Also then you have CasaPound which has a few mutualist characteristics and is heavily engaged in community work. And of course right-wing libertarism is absolutly a thing. Either in a soft form more resembling classical liberalism ala Ron Paul or hard form as, I believe, HHH and ND follow it.

I drift between Hoppean libertarianism and the Paulite form somewhat frequently. Paul is more of a voluntaryist nowadays.

[Nakena]

You forgot National Syndicalism and National-Anarchism. Which may count as right-wing.

Rebranded Fascism.

Also then you have CasaPound which has a few mutualist characteristics and is heavily engaged in community work.

That's not a political ideology; they're also Neo-Fascists.

And of course right-wing libertarism is absolutly a thing. Either in a soft form more resembling classical liberalism ala Ron Paul or hard form as, I believe, HHH and ND follow it.

Nope. You can't claim to be the antithesis of authoritarianism and simultaneously uphold an inherently authoritarian system such as Capitalism.

Wrong. Thats not Fascism;

National-anarchism is a radical anti-capitalist and anti-Marxist right-wing anarchist ideology.[1][2] National-anarchists advocate a post-capitalist stateless society in which homogeneous communities of different ethnic or racial groups would be free to develop separately in their own tribal communes, named "national autonomous zones", that are politically meritocratic, economically mutualistic, ecologically sustainable, and socially and culturally traditional.[1][2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National-anarchism

Just a different form of anarchism, not my cup of tea but still a thing.

As for CasaPound, they have some quite progressive policies, and other stuff that separates them from "Fascism". I do find them actually quite interesting. Libertarism is by no means always anti-authoritarian. You are for sure familiar with the Hans-Herman Hoppe and his thesis yes?

[Pacomia]

Both capitalism and socialism can be libertarian. Both capitalism and socialism can be authoritarian.

[Torrocca]

Simple enough: it's paradoxical to define yourself as anti-authoritarian and still uphold a fundamentally authoritarian system (Capitalism).

It would only be paradoxical if we accept your premise that capitalism is authoritarian, which we don't. We believe it to be the system by which liberty is maximized.

And you'd be wrong. There is no liberty under a hierarchy of servants ruled by masters.

[Northern Davincia]

>implying left-libertarianism isn't a global laughing stock

It's not, given that it's actually inspired people to try and break the chains of Capitalism.

Tell me, what does free speech mean to you anyway?

Doesn't matter, it's irrelevant to what I'm talking about.

Sure, it's inspired them to fail miserably despite existing for much longer than right-libertarianism has. Our most significant victories, ironically enough, come from occupying seats of government.

[Pacomia]

to be fair capitalism was traditionally individualist whereas socialism was traditionally collectivist

[Northern Davincia]

It would only be paradoxical if we accept your premise that capitalism is authoritarian, which we don't. We believe it to be the system by which liberty is maximized.

And you'd be wrong. There is no liberty under a hierarchy of servants ruled by masters.

Specialization of labor necessitates hierarchy. It would only be authoritarian if social mobility did not exist.

to be fair capitalism was traditionally individualist whereas socialism was traditionally collectivist

This remains to be the case.

[Torrocca]

And you'd be wrong. There is no liberty under a hierarchy of servants ruled by masters.

Specialization of labor necessitates hierarchy. It would only be authoritarian if social mobility did not exist.

The worker's labor becomes a profit for the Capitalist, not the worker. That is authoritarian.

[Northern Davincia]

Specialization of labor necessitates hierarchy. It would only be authoritarian if social mobility did not exist.

The worker's labor becomes a profit for the Capitalist, not the worker. That is authoritarian.

The capitalist puts in far more risk into every decision he makes. The capitalist is an intellectual laborer, and the laborer below him profits when his boss decides wisely. The market ultimately decides the value of their labor in any case.

[Pacomia]

to be fair capitalism was traditionally individualist whereas socialism was traditionally collectivist

This remains to be the case.

False. Capitalism can now be both individualistic and collectivist, as is socialism.

[Torrocca]

The worker's labor becomes a profit for the Capitalist, not the worker. That is authoritarian.

The capitalist puts in far more risk into every decision he makes.

The Capitalist loses some money if he fucks up; the worker can easily lose everything if the Capitalist fucks up.

It's not the Capitalist taking the most risk.

[Nakena]

*snip*

Since you didn replied to me, I take that you ran out of ammo. ^^

[Pacomia]

The capitalist puts in far more risk into every decision he makes.

The Capitalist loses some money if he fucks up; the worker can easily lose everything if the Capitalist fucks up.

It's not the Capitalist taking the most risk.

Also, the worker is constantly subject to the possibility of being outsourced, laid off, etc.

[The Black Forrest]

The worker's labor becomes a profit for the Capitalist, not the worker. That is authoritarian.

The capitalist puts in far more risk into every decision he makes. The capitalist is an intellectual laborer, and the laborer below him profits when his boss decides wisely. The market ultimately decides the value of their labor in any case.

Risk? With golden parachutes? It’s great to be a capitalist; you are rewarded for success and failure.

The best to date was a ceo of home depot. He was fired for failing to meet all objectives. His punishment? Two hundred and ten million.

[Kowani]

The worker's labor becomes a profit for the Capitalist, not the worker. That is authoritarian.

The capitalist puts in far more risk into every decision he makes. The capitalist is an intellectual laborer, and the laborer below him profits when his boss decides wisely. The market ultimately decides the value of their labor in any case.

“The market decides the value of their labor.”
I didn’t know scam artists were valuable now.