What the Alliance of the Libertarian Left looks like to right-libertarians:
What the Alliance of the Libertarian Left looks like to social anarchists:
What the Alliance of the Libertarian Left looks like to pan-secessionists:
83 Responses to ParALLax View
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
-
My Comments on Roderick Blog’s Post about the Alliance of the Libertarian Left -
July 16, 2009
[…] this post: Roderick on July 13, 2009 at 6:53 […]
They just don’t “get us”, do they? 😛
In a comment to on the ALL board, I implied that I dont think that a *rigid* sense of anarcho-capitalism (in particular, I was refering to the Hoppean-influenced variety, as well as the paleo-libertarian paradigm in general) is compatible with left-libertarianism, and that there are distinctions between classical individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. You insisted that anarcho-capitalists can be considered individualist anarchists. I both agree and disagree, depending on which flavor we’re talking about.
I think we may have been talking about different individuals and tendencies. When I imply a distinction, I’m distinguishing those who I’ve personally experienced who overtly reject any prospect for a libertarian left, and who take “vulgar” positions, from those who don’t. And I’m distinguishing individualist anarchism in its classical sense, which tended to cling to a Proudhon-influenced view on certain matters, from an interpretation that mostly just has ties to Lysander Spooner, while people like Tucker and DeCleyre wouldn’t be considered a part of the picture.
When Kinsella dismisses people who are, in actual fact, individualist anarchists, as “marxoids”, this is the sense in which I clearly see that there is a certain interpretation of anarcho-capitalism that is actually quite divorced from classical anarchist traditions, even to the point of proudly declaring itself to be separate from “anarchism proper”. The idea that if you don’t accept a Hoppean notion of property rights, you’re the equivolent of a state-socialist, doesn’t seem to have much to do with individualist anarchism to me.
It’s certainly annoying when anarcho-capitalists dismiss or mischaracterise other anarchists. But dismissing or mischaracterising other anarchists has been a pervasive feature of all sectors of the anarchist movement for the last two centuries. Certainly social anarchists, for example, have had pretty dismissive and distorting things to say, not just about anarcho-capitalists but even about leftier individualist anarchists. And Bookchin even denied that Proudhon was an anarchist. But of course the individualist anarchists have done it too (Benjamin Tucker, for example, denied that anarcho-communists like Kropotkin and Goldman were genuine anarchists). So I think it takes more than sectarian exclusionism to rule someone out as an anarchist — else who should ‘scape whipping?
You’re right that the ridiculous sectarianism comes from “both directions”. I dislike it when I see certain anarcho-communists imply that you have to be a communist to be an anarchist, and dismissing even mutualists as not being anarchists. And I dislike it when I see certain anarcho-capitalists essentially refusing to distinguish any social anarchists from Stalnists.
However, there is an extent to which I think that the social anarchists have a legitimate complaint about anarcho-capitalism in terms of historicity; that, traditionally, anarchists have opposed “capitalism”, and so “anarcho-capitalism” sort of seems like a strange thing coming out of nowhere in the 1960’s, with little connection to classical anarchism, other than Rothbard’s ties with Spooner (and, to a lesser extent, Tucker).
Where I start to have a problem with them, however, is when they are dismissive even towards left-libertarian market anarchists, agorists and mutalists, as if there is no distinction between that and a hardline right-libertarian anarcho-capitalist. And when I see Kinsella conflating the libertarian left (and all libertarian socialists) with Marxists, I think that some serious ignorance is rearing its ugly head.
However, there is an extent to which I think that the social anarchists have a legitimate complaint about anarcho-capitalism in terms of historicity
Well, there were forerunners of anarcho-capitalism around in the 19th century (people like Molinari and Donisthorpe, for example — who also influenced Rothbard, incidentally), and Tucker was willing to call them anarchists; so I don’t think it’s quite true that it just pops up out of nowhere in the 1960s. And even if it had — I’m not sure that historical connection to paradigm cases is essential to defining something as anarchism. Certainly most anarchists are happy enough to identify someone like Bao Jingyan as an anarchist despite an ever greater lack of historical connection.
And when I see Kinsella conflating the libertarian left (and all libertarian socialists) with Marxists
Well, when Kinsella does that it’s a little different from when, say, Reisman does it. Kinsella has an in-your-face rhetorical style that tends to exaggerate or overstate what he actually believes. Or so I conclude after a decade or so of arguing with him. When you call him on the more extreme claims he usually backs down (at least if you call him on them in a friendly way; if you call him on them in an unfriendly way he morphs into the Joker and starts throwing his feces).
C’mon, Stephan, if you’re reading this — you can’t deny it. 🙂
BUFFY.
Is he evil?
GILES.
Not in the strictest sense.
BUFFY.
Is he evil?
GILES.
Not in the strictest sense.
rrr… that was supposed to be a picture with mouseover text.
Can anyone recommend a web page where one can test html before use on blog commentary? I’ve used Rad Geek’s and Mike Gogulski’s comments sections for this, but neither likes images.
You rattled my cage, Sir Roderick?
I am not sure what the question is. You’re not completely right, or wrong. I poke fun; I use colorful examples; I mock things I think mockworthy; and when I detect ambiguity or confusion in a position caused by the person expounding it (and often used disingenuously by them), I sometimes select an interpretation of their cloudy views that he may or may not agree with–how would we know, if they are so murky and conflicted–to challenge them to clarify, deny, expound, etc. It’s a sort of Socratic way of getting people to reveal views that are for some reason kept hidden or unclear.
In addition, sometimes when one makes a narrow point, as I often do, people leap to all sorts of assumptions, because they have difficulty with reading comprehension, or because they are reverse racists or cosmotards.
I have trouble taking the left-libertarian program seriously; it is only because of the very few of them, like you, Roderick, who are serious, formidable, sound thinkers, and not dated caricatures, that I sometimes think it may be worthwhile to try to find common ground, correct misimpressions, etc.
BTW I don’t “conflate” Marxists with left-libertarians; if anything they do this themselves by trying to use the word, um, socialist to refer to libertarianism.
In my own view this whole debate is almost as confused as the one that plagues mainstream thinking about the left-right axis. I have always found that useless and engendering confusion; and I think a similar thing is at work in those who want to insist on the usefulness of the left-right libertarian “axis”; and this is exacerbated or linked in with the confusion surrounding the semantically confused and non-rigorous “thick” arguments, IMHO.
But in my mind, the so-called “left” libertarians, such as Roderick, are just libertarians, and damn good solid ones, with a few different interests, research programs, insights, or emphasis. (And as far as this goes I myself might not inaccurately be called a “left” libertarian by some; if this had much utility.) And then you have others such as mutualist etc., who deviate so much from standard libertarian views that I think it is in many cases doubtful whether the libertarian label should be applied. And it is some of these who do explicitly praise Marx and whose thought is, excuse me, riddled with all sort of leftist-Marxian economic nonsense. One of them told me Mises and Marx are about on an equal plane for him; each had his own weaknesses and insights to draw from. I have not been persuaded that it is bad form to recognize connections to Marxian thought.
Stephan,
You rattled my cage, Sir Roderick?
You’re in a cage? Great Scott! Need any help?
BTW I don’t “conflate” Marxists with left-libertarians; if anything they do this themselves by trying to use the word, um, socialist to refer to libertarianism.
Well, as you know, a) socialism is both broader and older than Marxism; b) left-libertarianism draws heavily on pre- and anti-Marxian versions of socialism; and c) the use of the term “socialism” to refer to movements that favour radical worker empowerment by free-market/non-state/non-aggressive means has been around for over a century.
I myself tend to avoid both “capitalism” and “socialism” as terms with too much confusing baggage. But I can understand why both terms might be attractive for various reasons to various flavours of libertarian.
And it is some of these who do explicitly praise Marx
Such as Rothbard, who described Marx as “relatively libertarian” and Lenin as “congenial to the libertarian”? Or Hans Hoppe, who maintains that “the theses that constitute the hard core of the Marxist theory of history” are “all … essentially correct”?
I have not been persuaded that it is bad form to recognize connections to Marxian thought.
Well, there are connections between Marxism and Austrian thought too. A number of writers have pointed out similarities between Marx and Mises/Hayek on the business cycle. Sciabarra has written three books on parallels between Marx and libertarian thought generally. And George Reisman — no willing Marxist propagandist I presume — defends, and argues that Böhm-Bawerk held, a version of the cost-of-production theory of value.
“I have trouble taking the left-libertarian program seriously.”
But you do spend much time attending to it, no? And time is our most absolutely scarce commodity… there must be some reason you like reading us.
I personally think Kevin has made difficult and rare advancements in political economy which will endure.
Keith’s creative dissent from standard received libertarian elements certainly makes use of a number of theoretical constructs familiar to Marxism, Georgism, and individualist anarchism which right-libertarians have traditionally considered foreign.
I think some of his borrowings are brilliant, others primarily a matter of alternate focus and phrasing, and a few trouble me. Those that trouble me align mutualism with Catholic distributism and suggest Medieval moral attitudes towards commerce with a very disturbing history entwined with guild mercantilism, which have in the past idelogically justified theocratic prohibitions such as usury and sumptuary laws. The labour of theory of value, to cite another relatively unworrisome example, has never made sense to me as justified by any relevant fact of reality, but it’s also not clear to me that this concept does any work essential to Carsonian mutualism. And Carson has made clear that he does not construe his theories to support politics whose aim is to revive premodern cultural forms.
The more technical economic issues are matters on which I don’t consider myself fully confident to judge; I’m attracted to mutualism largely because it offers the best model I’ve encountered for the founding of an economic system which fixes the ways in which capitalism doesn’t work as promised. That said, I’m more interested in Carson as a brilliant thinker than one whose specific program is necessarily systematically right.
I certainly think that the currently hegemonic formulations of libertarianism excuse classist heirarchies, corporate statisms, and neo-imperialism. These confusions are sometimes completely innocently intended, sometimes a symptom of unconscious privilege, and sometimes a culpable product of vile socioeconomic authoritarianism, with Hoppe being the most obviously demonic example. In such a context, the appearance of a powerful and original thinker like Kevin Carson is a blessing, and his work is a prominent part of a necessary correction whose time has come. Carson provides a shift in perspective to show us a libertarianism in which the working class gets to seriously sit at the table of radical individualism. This is good stuff, and his lesson of ‘vulgar libertarianism’ is invaluable.
Stephan, I don’t know that I understand your position. Are you saying that what we mean by left-libertarian is not distinguishable from what we mean by right-libertarian, or that left-libertarianism isn’t libertarianism, or that left-libertarianism is a back-seat driver to right-libertarianism, or something else?
MBH: “Stephan, I don’t know that I understand your position. Are you saying that what we mean by left-libertarian is not distinguishable from what we mean by right-libertarian, or that left-libertarianism isn’t libertarianism, or that left-libertarianism is a back-seat driver to right-libertarianism, or something else?”
I’m saying there is standard libertarianism–the opposition to aggression in all its forms combined with the awareness that the state necessarily institutes institutionalized aggression–and it is neither left nor right. The original left-right spectrum is confused and anti-libertarian. If someone claims to be a left-libertarian, then to the extent their views are libertarian, they are not “left” but shared by all libertarians; to the extent they are not libertarian, then… they are not libertarian.
If someone claims to be a left-libertarian, then to the extent their views are libertarian, they are not “left” but shared by all libertarians; to the extent they are not libertarian, then… they are not libertarian.
Stephan,
Would you also buy the following argument?
If not, what’s the difference? The characteristics that make a dog a golden retriever aren’t necessary to being a dog (otherwise all dogs would be golden retrievers), but they aren’t merely extraneous add-ons like “being within 500 yards of a stop sign” (otherwise golden retrievers wouldn’t be a kind of dog). Being a dog-within-500-yards-of-a-stop-sign isn’t a way of being a dog, but being a golden retriever is a way of being a dog. (Golden retrievers are hoper dogs, in Aristotelean terminology.)
Likewise: the characteristics that make a libertarian a left-libertarian aren’t necessary to being a libertarian (otherwise all libertarians would be left-libertarians), but they aren’t merely extraneous add-ons like “liking jazz” (otherwise left-libertarians wouldn’t be a kind of libertarian). Being a libertarian-who-likes-jazz isn’t a way of being a libertarian, but being a left-libertarian is a way of being a libertarian.
Roderick,
“‘If certain animals are claimed to be golden retrievers, then to the extent their characteristics are canine, they are not “golden retriever” but shared by all dogs; to the extent they are not canine, then… they are not canine.'”
The problem is golden retriever is indisputably one type of dog, and golden retrieverness is not incompatible with or unrelated to its dogness.
Whereas, libertarianism is a political theory concerned with the proper use of interpersonal violence, and holds a distinct view about when it is appropriate or legitimate. So to the extent leftish views are compatible with the libertarian focus and view on aggression, it’s either part of libertarianism already, or it’s just orthogonal to it, sort of like my love for riding dirt bikes is compatible with libertarianism but not part of it. And if the leftish views are incompatible with it, they are not part of it.
“Likewise: the characteristics that make a libertarian a left-libertarian aren’t necessary to being a libertarian (otherwise all libertarians would be left-libertarians), but they aren’t merely extraneous add-ons like “liking jazz” (otherwise left-libertarians wouldn’t be a kind of libertarian).”
Okay, I am with you so far–but the problem is that I think the “left-right” spectrum is both ambiguous and vague, and also rests on unlibertarian assumptions (as we libertarians should well know, as we have deplored the simplistic, inacccurate, confusing, statist left-right spectrum for a long time).
It seems to me you leftish/thicker types want to have it both ways. You want to trot out the left- prefix as if it makes your libertarianism better; as if it does mean something; hence your comments about bossism and “exclusionism” (? are we now also against “discrimination” and “prejudice”?). But when pushed, you seem to reluctantly admit these views are not libertarian strictly speaking.
I’m just a libertarian. I think we can learn something from some of the insights of leftists, as well as the insights of mathematicians, computer scientists, hunters, and convicts.
Kinsella: The original left-right spectrum is confused and anti-libertarian.
Well, if you’re going to get all originalist on us, Stephan, the original left-right spectrum ran from ultra-royalist mercantilists who believed that the State was the instrument of God on Earth, to radical free marketeers who favored the abolition of State control in the name of the Rights of Man [sic]. (Bastiat sat on the Left; so did Proudhon.) Doesn’t seem especially confused to me; seems like a pretty straightforward spectrum from statists to anti-statists, with a laissez-faire economist and an avowed anarchist holding down the leftward end.
LOL, best post ever!
Clearly I have to get myself out to some Alliance of the Libertarian Left parties. Looks like they’re having a great time!
“Clearly I have to get myself out to some Alliance of the Libertarian Left parties. Looks like they’re having a great time!”
Precisely. And this is why we can attract more people to left-libertarianism than libertarianism ever did. The paleolibertarians offer stifled misery and the partyarchs offer us the false promise of a free society to be experienced by our grandchildren after generations of selfless, heartbreaking organising. Left-libertarians can offer the experience of freedom now, in any place and time where you can get left-libertarians to socially cooperate with a prior mutual commitment to ignore our friend the state and other established structures of oppression. Create a functional society wherein illibertarian laws and illiberal customs are not recognised and you have created a context in which illibertarian law does not exist.
The free market economists have shown up what freedom and incentives can do for efficiency. Let’s do that. Let’s also create a libertarian culture and show what liberty can do for consciousness as well as existence. If we have a world which respects spunk and exhilaration, entrepreneurship and the good life, pleasure and passion, then we have more to offer than our sociopolitical competitors ever will. People who want a better world will run to us if we merely have the courage and commitment to start founding it, and invite them to join us in the excitement of building our global polycentric boom town.
Oh, and in times where liberal civilisation is nervously unsteady, maintaining a vibrant culture can help preserve some of humanity’s most cherishable accomplishments through difficult times, accomplishments which might otherwise fail permanently. People who would otherwise have nowhere to turn to find a life of their own will come to us. That makes this a good cause.
Left libertarianism: idealistic, profitable, and fun… and a flame of freedom to keep through an unfree age, if necessary. You can’t beat that.
~~~~~~~~
Of course, those who hate human human pride and passion, or who have given up their sense of a right to these things, will try unceasingly to destroy it.
More of this, please!
And this is why we can attract more people to left-libertarianism than libertarianism ever did
I’m skeptical, unless you’ve got numbers to back it up. As far as I can tell, most people on earth adhere to religions that look askance at hedonism. Some economists have said that the costly demands such religions place on their adherents are part of the reason for their success. I think the crankier aspects of Ron Paul (100% reserve gold standard) explain more of his support than his position on free trade. Let’s not push a Dougherty Doctrine.
Also, I’d like to ask if its possible all three caricatures are accurate!
Numbers won’t be a problem, eventually.
Why is hedonism relevant?
I’m curious as to what you mean by the rest because you seem to imply that the costly demands of the Ron Paul “religion” are part of the reason why the Paulistas were inclined towards success. Is this an accurate interpretation?
Anyway:
http://tinyurl.com/l96nsz
Numbers won’t be a problem, eventually.
Forgive me if I don’t merely accept that on your say-so. Elaborate on the reasons for your expectation!
Hedonism is relevant because Aster contrasted left-libertarianism with the “stifled misery” of paleolibertarianism, which must be doomed to failure. However, misery has its attractions. Bryan Caplan thinks geo-engineering will never get off the ground because its low cost will not satisfy the public’s moralistic demand for penance. George Orwell wrote about how the fascist message of bloody struggle had more appeal than the liberal (could be classical or socialist) one of peace and prosperity. In his own country Winston Churchill was successful on a platform promising blood, sweat and tears.
The economist I was thinking of was Rodney Stark, although it turns out he’s a sociologist.
Ron Paul was not that successful relative to proponents of what’s considered mainstream conservatism these days. However, in some sense that ideology is even crankier than his own.
I should make it clear that I’m inclined to the anti-politics take associated with agorism here, so I don’t advocate pushing ideas I think are untrue even if that would make the whole package more appealing.
Some economists have said that the costly demands such religions place on their adherents are part of the reason for their success
Well, hey, we have costly demands too! Our adherents not only have to give up fun stuff like aggression, but they also have to give up still more fun stuff like bossism, vulgar-libbin’, and cultural intolerance. We can offer hair shirts for anyone who wants ’em!
“Vulgar-libbin” would be a great phrase if it weren’t ambiguous whether it referred to liberalism or libertarianism.
Someone should come up with an eye-catching banner advertising hair-shirts.
“Vulgar-libbin” would be a great phrase if it weren’t ambiguous whether it referred to liberalism or libertarianism.
True. The philosopher in me is tempted to pull out subscripts, but that would sort of defeat the point of having a nickname.
>Elaborate on the reasons for your expectation!
Changing your mind with regard to your skepticism in time will be an impossible task to perform. At some point you will no longer have the ability to be skeptical, so satisfying your requirements will be irrelevant. Aside from that, in time none of us will be around to consider the lack of numbers a problem. The rest is optimism as I look forward to promoting the cause in anyway I can. I can be rather convincing under the right circumstances.
It is still unclear why you would contrast hedonism with “stifled misery”. It’s not like she is juxtaposing this failure on the part of paleos with the ‘solution’ of pursuing pleasure for its own sake. The grounds for your assumption seem shaky.
I doubt that liberalism ipso facto lacks the high cost you refer to. Yet I also doubt that your examples are proof that such a high cost is absolutely necessary.
Neil:
Changing your mind with regard to your optimism in time will be an impossible task to perform. At some point you will no longer have the ability to be optimistic, so satisfying your requirements will be irrelevant. Aside from that, in time none of us will be around to consider increased numbers a possibility. The rest is pessimism as I see no hope of promoting the cause in any way. None of us can be convincing under any circumstances.
Would you agree that what I just said was not very convincing?
It is still unclear why you would contrast hedonism with “stifled misery”.
Bob Kaerchner said it looked like ALLs were having a great time, Aster said “precisely” and that was why they would attract more people than paleolibs (with “stifled misery”) and partyarchs (with long delayed gratification). The virtues of hedonic utility for its own sake is not at issue here, it is the relative appeal of different approaches.
Someone greatly opposed to left-libertarianism (perhaps an authoritarian) might say that it would in fact have great costs in that it would make all our lives nasty, brutish and short. That’s a different issue from how it is marketed.
>Would you agree that what I just said was not very convincing?
No.
>The virtues of hedonic utility for its own sake is not at issue here, it is the relative appeal of different approaches.
ALL may be having a great time, but leaping to the conclusion that this is hedonistic just doesn’t seem quite like a valid inference. This particular approach isn’t necessarily “having a great time”. It is a likely consequence of achieving freedom, though. That does give it serious appeal. However the means to achieving freedom could leave someone with more pain and suffering along the way than the great times that could ever be had by actually achieving it.
Yet there are only so many ways to actually achieve freedom. Some of them are more expedient than others and vary in what freedoms are gained (or lost) as consequences of the acts. Yet it’s not as though only one approach is going to do the trick. What makes ALL so appealing is that they are open to more approaches and are likely to defend more positions than the libertarian right variety.
However the means to achieving freedom could leave someone with more pain and suffering along the way than the great times that could ever be had by actually achieving it.
That’s what was disparaged as the promise of the “paryarchs” path to freedom.
“The free market economists have shown up what freedom and incentives can do for efficiency. Let’s do that. Let’s also create a libertarian culture and show what liberty can do for consciousness as well as existence. If we have a world which respects spunk and exhilaration, entrepreneurship and the good life, pleasure and passion, then we have more to offer than our sociopolitical competitors ever will. People who want a better world will run to us if we merely have the courage and commitment to start founding it, and invite them to join us in the excitement of building our global polycentric boom town.”
I think this accurately describes my own recent attraction to the Libertarian Left. Konkin’s concept of agorism–direct action in economic exchange–is really what inititally drew me to it. Why should any individuals who desire freedom have to wait around for everyone else to come to their senses and stop legitimizing aggression? Freedom loving people should take any direct action they can to circumvent aggression-based institutions and pursue their own happiness in the here and now.
My sympathies for “thick” libertarianism also put me in the LL camp, I think, though you don’t *have* to be LL to subscribe to the thick-l. But considering that it was developed by and is largely more welcome in the LL is what draws me there.
I think these are pretty clear, distinctive reasons for adopting the LL label.
I don’t know if there’s such a great analogy between economic and non-economic freedom. As Jeffrey Friedman put it, there is no substitute for profit and loss.
Well you know first we start off with some molotov cocktail races and tire burning dances… then we go back to the counting house and measure out the gold we require for the evening and then its off to the baccanalian orgy.
What the Alliance of the Libertarian Left looks like to pan-secessionists:
Yeah, but is there a group out there that sees us as starchy social conservatoids by contrast?
Sub-Genii?
Sadomasochists that perceive left-libertarians as making common cause with reactionary feminisms.
I never really got the burning-tire thing during periods of civil unrest. Is it just a convenient way to setup a roadblock? Why are they burning in that case?
The smoke counters tear gas, actually.
I… did not know that. :/
BTW I don’t “conflate” Marxists with left-libertarians; if anything they do this themselves by trying to use the word, um, socialist to refer to libertarianism.
Ah, so you’re conflating socialism with Marxism? I see…
Tristan: if socialism means what most people mean by it–collectivist ownership of the means of production–I’d say yes, it has something to do with Marxism. If it means … private property, free market “anti-bossism” (?), I guess it doesn’t. Semantic debates bore me to tears.
I’m not sure that most people mean “collectivist ownership of the means of production” by “socialism” either. They tend to mean “state control of the means of production” – which is not the same thing, if we understand that the state is essentially constituted by an oligarchy, not “the people” or “the workers”.
This is awesome, just totally awesomeness.
It would be interesting to have a series of images of how the left libertarians view the right anarchism as micro feudal monarchs, the communist anarchists as bomb throwers and pan-secessionists, well I don’t even know that word and wikipedia and searchengines doesn’t give me any clues.
By pan-secessionists I had in mind people like Keith Preston.
Come on. Prefix his name with “the evil”. You know you wanna.
I actually don’t feel any particular hostility toward Keith. The idea that his critics are all motivated by “hatred” for him is one that he seems to find consoling, but it’s not where I’m coming from.
What do you think of this? I agree with every word, and I only wish I’d said it myself earlier. the only difference is I’ve read a few of KP’s other essays and I dig them.
I wonder who you consider yourself closer to ideologically, KP or, for instance, Christopher Hitchens? Or why single him out. How about 99% of Washington punditry? Or 99% of world punditry?
Why are we wasting time and energy attacking ourselves when the other side is so far ahead of us?
I’m probably closest to Preston on your spectrum, but the main thing I always liked about him was the radical pluralism. His purging of himself just didn’t make any sense to me.
Roderick didn’t single Preston out. He listed three different groups, one of which was pan-secessionists, and he didn’t even name Preston until lordmetroid virtually asked for an example.
What do you think of this?
I think it’s an attempt to a) whitewash Keith’s words into something less offensive than they really were, and then b) defang the offensiveness of what remains by wallowing in moral relativism.
Why are we wasting time and energy attacking ourselves when the other side is so far ahead of us?
I think you should be asking Keith that question, not me.
Roderick:
“the use of the term “socialism” to refer to movements that favour radical worker empowerment by free-market/non-state/non-aggressive means has been around for over a century.”
That’s fine, but it has a different connotation now, so I think calling a strand of libertarianism “socialist” is confusing.
“I myself tend to avoid both “capitalism” and “socialism” as terms with too much confusing baggage.”
Me, too; though I think “capitalism’s” modern meaning is much closer to libertarianism–less confusing–than is “socialism.”
“Such as Rothbard, who described Marx as “relatively libertarian” and Lenin as “congenial to the libertarian”? Or Hans Hoppe, who maintains that “the theses that constitute the hard core of the Marxist theory of history” are “all … essentially correct”?”
Well played, Sir Roderick–well played.
“Well, there are connections between Marxism and Austrian thought too. A number of writers have pointed out similarities between Marx and Mises/Hayek on the business cycle. Sciabarra has written three books on parallels between Marx and libertarian thought generally. And George Reisman — no willing Marxist propagandist I presume — defends, and argues that Böhm-Bawerk held, a version of the cost-of-production theory of value.”
It is the adoption of his fallacious views that I oppose.
Aster:
“‘I have trouble taking the left-libertarian program seriously.”
“But you do spend much time attending to it, no? And time is our most absolutely scarce commodity… there must be some reason you like reading us.”
As I have said, it is primarily out of respect for people like Roderick that I do.
“I’m more interested in Carson as a brilliant thinker than one whose specific program is necessarily systematically right.”
I can appreciate that. While I place more emphasis on getting it systematically right.
“I certainly think that the currently hegemonic formulations of libertarianism excuse classist heirarchies, corporate statisms, and neo-imperialism. These confusions are sometimes completely innocently intended, sometimes a symptom of unconscious privilege, and sometimes a culpable product of vile socioeconomic authoritarianism, with Hoppe being the most obviously demonic example. In such a context, the appearance of a powerful and original thinker like Kevin Carson is a blessing, and his work is a prominent part of a necessary correction whose time has come. Carson provides a shift in perspective to show us a libertarianism in which the working class gets to seriously sit at the table of radical individualism. This is good stuff, and his lesson of ‘vulgar libertarianism’ is invaluable.”
Hoppe is a wonderful person and significant libertarian thinker; applying the word “demonic” to him is insane.
MBH:
“Stephan, I don’t know that I understand your position. Are you saying that what we mean by left-libertarian is not distinguishable from what we mean by right-libertarian, or that left-libertarianism isn’t libertarianism, or that left-libertarianism is a back-seat driver to right-libertarianism, or something else?”
I think the left-right spectrum is confusing and useless. I think it groups unlreated ideas and characteristics in an ad hoc, unprinipled way-and this is true for “right-libertarian/left-libertarina.” To the extent “left” really means something, it deviates from libertarianism, or is beyond it (bringing in the thickism debate). To the extent it means something that is compatible with libertariansim, it is not “left,” it is just part of libertarianism.
I think the most charitable spin I can put on left-libertarainism is either a useful reminder not to conflate modern corporatism with what would exist in a free market–that is, to not be too vulgar; and/or an activist emphasis. But the latter doesn’t interest me since I find this is what leads people to compromise, sell-out, rah rah boosterism, and self-delusion.
I just don’t follow your reasoning. Distinguishing left from right libertarianism is as useful as distinguishing neo-conservatism from isolationist-conservatism. The former wants violent foreign adventures. The latter doesn’t believe in interventionism.
Left-libertarians believe that the product of your labor belongs to you. Right-libertarians believe that management owns the product of worker’s labor. Left-libertarians believe that “you get out of it what you put into it.” Right-libertarians believe that those hierarchically above you, get out of it what you put into it.
How are these trivial distinctions?
MBH:
“Left-libertarians believe that the product of your labor belongs to you. Right-libertarians believe that management owns the product of worker’s labor. Left-libertarians believe that “you get out of it what you put into it.” Right-libertarians believe that those hierarchically above you, get out of it what you put into it.”
Does Roderick believe workers “own” the “product” of their labor–in a sense distinct from the way “right”-libertarians see it? Not to my knowledge. So is he a left-libertarian? Who knows. Yes? No? What does all this mean? Who knows. Nobody.
Roderick often references workers entering into agreements in which they signs the product of their labor over to management. Then it’s hard to see the distinction between his position and the left-libertarian position. But right-libertarians think of the post-agreement as the default position. That is the distinction.
Roderick untangles these two positions. The left holds that workers necessarily own their labor and its production–to begin with–what the worker chooses to do with it is their decision. The right holds that management owns workers’ labor to begin with. The right sees it as a default position. The left sees it as a matter of choice.
Damn. That first paragraph may have been confusing. It should read like this:
Roderick often references workers entering into agreements in which they sign the product of their labor over to management. After that point it’s hard to see the distinction between his position and the right-libertarian position (in matters of labor). But right-libertarians think the post-agreement is a default position. That is the distinction.
MBH:
“Roderick often references workers entering into agreements in which they sign the product of their labor over to management. After that point it’s hard to see the distinction between his position and the right-libertarian position (in matters of labor). But right-libertarians think the post-agreement is a default position. That is the distinction.”
this is nonsense. Neither Hoppe, Rockwell, Rothbard, nor I would say that there is a default position. So is “right-libertarian” a straw man?
“Roderick untangles these two positions. The left holds that workers necessarily own their labor and its production–to begin with–what the worker chooses to do with it is their decision. The right holds that management owns workers’ labor to begin with. The right sees it as a default position. The left sees it as a matter of choice.”
Libertarians see it as a matter of choice, of course. If the left does, congrats to them–they agree with us on this. But given their support of unions, their ridiculous economic views on land and labor, I don’t think they do. But if they do–welcome to the libertarian cause. BUt it ain’t left, buster.
Is one side or the other more inclined to support a organization managed by workers?
MBH: “Is one side or the other more inclined to support a organization managed by workers?”
Support? What does that mean? All libertarians support the *right* of workers to (try to) organize. If they go beyond this type of support to some more active type of “support,” they do so not qua libertarians.
If they go beyond this type of support to some more active type of “support,” they do so not qua libertarians.
This seems like another version of the position I gave my golden retriever argument against.
Agreed. And we can infer that insofar as a laborador and a golden retriever are both canine, then they are identical kinds of dogs.
To quote Stephan: What does all this mean? Who knows. Nobody.
Stephan,
Considering Aster’s sexual orientation/identity, and Hoppe’s vocal advocacy of “physically removing” advocates of said orientation/identity from society “if one is to maintain a libertarian order”, how is it insane or even the least bit unfair for Aster to view Hoppe as demonic? If Hoppe advocated your physical removal from society, wouldn’t you consider him demonic as well?
Here’s Hoppe’s full quote:
He’s saying that the “covenant”, which is “a solemn promise to engage in or refrain from a specified action”, might say that you must agree to anything to live somewhere. Possibly you must agree not to be a homosexual, or not to be a hetersexual. I would personally like to live somewhere that prohibits smoking and wild parties, because I prefer peace and quiet. Brüno might insist on living in a spot that insists on homosexual parties every single night.
I’m not gonna have this ridiculous debate again, but will make 3 short points: first, this is a very short phrase and somewhat ambiguous, so it’s uncharitable to construe it so … uncharitably. Second, he is not necessarily advocating it but describing or predicting it.
Third, he refers to intolerance for those *advocating* certain lifestyles–I do not think there is any way to confidently conclude he was referring to all homosexuals and in fact I firmly believe and know Hoppe is personally tolerant of all this and thinks that even such communities as he describes would tolerate homosexuals, as opposed to *advocates* of alternative lifestyles. I believe what he was getting at here was those who are hostile to the basic natural order that (he believes) is necessary for a private property order to prosper. A monogamous priest for example is tolerated even though if everyone were monogamous the race would die out; the priest does not advocate that everyone be monogamous or rail against the predominant reproductive mode in society. The gay person does not necessarily condemn the standard norms and private orders that (arguably) by and large underpin any successful community, merely by being gay; it is going beyond this, to adopt a stance hostile to this.
My point is not to defend this here but to disagree with the proposition that it is obvious that *these* views are bigoted or anti-homosexual. They are not.
For the record, I am personally horrified by anti-gay bigotry, and don’t like or associate with those kind of people–and Hoppe is one of my best friends. One of the things I love about him is his tolerance, sweetness and gentleness of soul. People who do not know him but caricature him based on out of context quotes or assaults on him by those with an agenda, um, should not do this.
I’m done with this issue.
I advocate that those who desire others of their own sex should pursue romance with them. I advocate that a proper society should encourage (or at least not attempt to prevent) everyone to enjoy their own life and express their desires. I not only advocate this, but consider any society which does not do this to be illegitimate, and counsel revolution against such a society by any means appropriate and necessary, for precisely the same reasons why any collectivist social order ought to be met with revolution by self-interested individuals.
While I’m at it, imagine I’ve put in a few good words for communism, democracy, and nature-based religion.
Now, are you saying that I should be thrown out of the social bonfire to die in the cold for saying these words?
That is what Hoppe argues. I find it interesting that you attribute ‘sweetness’ and ‘gentleness of soul’ to such a man. I don’t doubt he’s capable of sentimentality, but so are many dictators. His life’s work has had anything but a sweet and gentle influence.
To excuse Hoppe’s blatant homophobia and general authoritarianism requires the will to see black as white. Libertarianism will continue to betray individualism again and again until it finds the courage to distinguish itself from reactionary patriarchal collectivism.
“A monogamous priest for example is tolerated even though if everyone were monogamous the race would die out”
Huh? I assume you meant to type “celibate”? If not, I’m sure Keith Preston will have some harsh words for you, you sexual deviant!
Aster, If someone were a homophobe I would agree with you that this should not be excused. However I am sure you agree that this kind of charge is serious and requires good evidence. I simply disagree–and strongly and sharply–with you, that you have a good reason to conclude this about Hoppe. For at least two reasons. First, I know him, and know this to be untrue. Second, I can read too, and know that it’s an uncharitable stretch to conclude this from the few snippets of information and tortured argument trotted out in a witchhunt against him by certain loathsome types.
I disagree with you that Hoppe believes that you “should be thrown out of the social bonfire to die in the cold” for advocating the things you advocate. I think this is a tortured, uncharitable interpretation, not a serious one.
You know the harm that can come from unfair classifications, assumptions, prejudices; I agree with you; but the same is true of accusing someone of bigotry. It’s a serious thing to do and utterly immoral, wicked, irresponsible, and despicable to do it, without damn good reason–and you sure as hell don’t have it here. We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Hoppe is one of my best friends. One of the things I love about him is his tolerance, sweetness and gentleness of soul . . .
Is it just me, or did it suddenly get a little less family friendly in here?
Brandon,
You actually stopped a little short of the money quote that confirms his exclusion of gays. From Democracy: The God that Failed:
Kinsella,
Third, he refers to intolerance for those *advocating* certain lifestyles–I do not think there is any way to confidently conclude he was referring to all homosexuals and in fact I firmly believe and know Hoppe is personally tolerant of all this and thinks that even such communities as he describes would tolerate homosexuals, as opposed to *advocates* of alternative lifestyles.
What exactly does it mean to “advocate” homosexuality” if not to practice it openly? I mean, unless he actually believes that old conspiracy theory about teh gays infiltrating our public schools to “recruit” teh childrenz (and steal our precious bodily fluids while they’re at it) . . .
As in most cases pertaining to lifestyle choices or ethical ideas, but especially this one, it’s difficult to draw a line between advocates and practitioners. Are priests not both advocates and practitioners of Christianity? Do libertarians only advocate libertarianism without any intent to practice it?
Oh, and in case anyone needed anymore proof of Hoppe’s homophobia:
Feel free to look it up.
So here we witness this sweet, tolerant, gentle man effectively characterizing homosexuality as a pathology on par with child abuse, and a symptom of societal breakdown. Quite a slanderous statement, this time directed against homosexuals themselves rather than by implication against their “advocates”.
Never forget, ladies and menfolk, that Hans Hermann Hoppe is a racist, classist, homophobic Deutsch-bag.
“Is it just me, or did it suddenly get a little less family friendly in here?”
ROTFL. Love is beautiful, even when the object is Hoppe.
Stephan-
I agree with you that bigotry is a serious matter. But Hoppe’s homophobia (and general authoritarianism) is so blatantly obvious that it requires a willful evasion of reality not to see it. Which part of ‘removal from society’ is so difficult to understand? He wrote it, not me. He is free to identify the nature of his statements and retract them at any time.
BTW, why is it OK for Hoppe to argue that libertarianism entails conservatism, and vice versa, but it’s not OK for left-libertarians to argue that libertarianism entails progressivism, and vice versa. Double standard much?
Hoppe’s disgrace of libertarianism prevails because libertarian intellectuals of similar stature sanction his attitudes by their silence. His theories cannot survive forthright identification of their antecedents, nature, or consequences. Anyone who wished to step forward and discredit Hoppe would have reason and reality on their side an could restore libertarianism’s right to call itself a philosophy of human liberation. They would also achieve much public prominence within the libertarian ‘verse, of the best kind and for the best reasons. Hoppe is the philosophical weight dragging libertarianism to the right, and he ought to be discredited both in high philosophy and in public social life. Remove his credibility and the centre of libertarian discourse will shift, and we’ll have a movement to be proud once more.
Aster:
“I agree with you that bigotry is a serious matter.”
Not as much as I do, apparently, or you would not so callously or blithely hurl this accusation.
“But Hoppe’s homophobia (and general authoritarianism) is so blatantly obvious that it requires a willful evasion of reality not to see it.”
We’ll have to agree to disagree. He is not homophobic or authoritarian in the sense meaningful to libertarian, in the slightest.
“Which part of ‘removal from society’ is so difficult to understand?”
I have given several tentative explanations for being reluctant to characterize it in this way. First, he was predicting, not advocating. Second, he was not saying removal by aggression, but perhaps by voluntary, peaceful means. Third, he was referring not to homosexuals per se but to certain *advocates*–those hostile to the institutions prerequisite to a peaceful order. Fourth, it was a brief passage, he is not a native English speaker, and perhaps he was exaggerating to make a point.
One would think a genuine homophobe to leave an easy to trace trail of evidence, not ambiguous dense academic points that require philosophical parsing.
” He wrote it, not me. He is free to identify the nature of his statements and retract them at any time.”
And you are free to be charitable and not to petulantly assume the worst until he satisfies your demand that he satisfy the PC hordes. I admire his ignoring the shrill cries of the intolerant left.
“Hoppe is the philosophical weight dragging libertarianism to the right, and he ought to be discredited both in high philosophy and in public social life. Remove his credibility and the centre of libertarian discourse will shift, and we’ll have a movement to be proud once more.”
I am somewhat proud of our movement, such as it is, though we have lost, and will continue to lose. Hoppe is not on the right.
You’re on some near-perfect drugs about Hoppe, tho’.
You missed an opportunity (dare I say a hopportunity?) to say he’s hopped up on some near-perfect drugs about Hoppe. 🙂
“Hopped up“, for the record. Roderick teaches me a new word!
Stephan, would you care to explain how Hoppe is not on the right?
Aster, “would you care to explain how Hoppe is not on the right?”
He describes himself as being culturally conservative, but does this make one “right”? I don’t think so. What does culturally conservative mean? How one dresses? That one is employed or not in jail? That one has an education and a career, is not flamboyant, and enjoys some traditional things like western culture and food etc.? Does these things make one a “rightist”?
I don’t think so. So what else is there? Hoppe is not, contrary to assertions otherwise, personally uptight or homophobic; he associates with all sorts and is very multicultural; as a radical libertarian he supports the right to be a cocaine seller or prostitute, opposes the state itself, and of course the state-church relationship; opposes outlawing sodomy, atheism, opposes a state religion; is pro-choice as far as I know, etc.
The only substantive position I can think of that one might call him rightist on are his immigration views, but he is an anarchist who opposes the state and its immigration policy and apparatus, not a typically rightist view on immigration. I don’t think he’s a leftist (though some of his views might be characterized this way by some on the right), but I don’t think he’s a rightist. I certainly am not. I am neither. I despise both, since they are both statist, and I am a libertarian, which means something, to me.
I’m still unclear on what it means to be an advocate of homosexuality as opposed to a practitioner. Or why we should assume that someone who has a problem with the advocacy of X does not also have a problem with the practice of X.
Of course, that notorious quote from D:TGTF is not the only reason to think Hoppe has bigoted views towards the LGBT community; there’s also the stuff he said about “the gays” that got him in trouble at UNLV: asserting that homosexuals have higher time preferences than heterosexuals because “life ends with them” – as if homosexuals don’t have brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, friends, husbands, wives, and yes, even children, both adopted and biological. And in this same lecture Hoppe gave other examples of people with high time preferences: foolish children, selfish elderly, criminals, “the muggers, the murders, the rapists… [are] characterized typically by high time preference…” As Jason Kuznicki notes at the above link:
I sometimes wonder if 1969-era Rothbard would have sided with the offended student and against Hoppe (and against his future UNLV employed-self, and even against our esteemed blog overlord):
Murray Rothbard: Vandarchist!
I think Hoppe just doesn’t like gay people and wants to live in a community that excludes them, and presumes that any functional community would share his preferences. I am reminded though of how many non-Western countries make a big distinction between homosexual behavior and being openly gay. Ahmadenijad and some Arab scholars have on that basis said there are no gays in their countries (in Iran they all have to get sex changes!). At NYU Thio Li-ann, a visiting professor from Singapore has used that to argue against repealing an anti-gay law. My favorite part of that hubbub is when she tried to claim special immunity from criticism because she’s an asian woman!
As for Hoppe’s “tolerance, sweetness and gentleness of soul,” here is what he had to say about the motives of left-libertarians, in the infamous footnote 23 that was shoved down the memory hole after generating too much controversy:
Tolerant, sweet, and gentle indeed.
You may be done with this issue, Kinsella, but I am not. I will continue to remind people of the ugly things Hoppe has written, and that you in turn have defended, for as long as I care to do so. I’m sure you haven’t forgotten that you originally started this feud, by getting me disinvited/purged from the Mises Institute for daring to call Hoppe’s bigoted statements for what they are: homophobia. Had you not picked up on what would have otherwise been inconsequential comments I made in a long-forgotten comment thread on no-treason.com and then taken them to Jeffrey Tucker and Lew Rockwell, demanding my immediate removal from a panel you and I were to share, I probably wouldn’t have made it my personal mission to remind people of Hoppe’s uglier side whenever it comes up. I don’t regret the decisions I have made. Do you?
Micha-
I’m very pleased to hear that you have “made it [your] personal mission to remind people of Hoppe’s uglier side whenever it comes up”. More people need to do this.
I have similar interests. I would very much appreciate if you would email me at jeanine_ring – at – riseup.net.
Aster
It’s wonderfully refreshing to see a person defending revenge as a valid form of motivation, and even as a virtue. 🙂
Well Micha, I’m surprised to learn you were excluded from the Mises Institute (or just being on a panel?) for disagreeing with Hoppe’s views. I’m reminded of a talk Walter Block gave about lefties like Yunus, where he started out by saying that although Yunus’ ideas were “compatible” with libertarianism that nonetheless there is “our team” and “their team” and that certain individuals are “on the other team”.
Anon73, you’ve piqued my curiosity. Can we gt some context? Did Block just mean that Yunus, while offering ideas that could be implemented in a stateless society, unreflectively assumed the existence and value of the state? Or was something else going on when he declared Yunus a member of “the other team”?
It’s webbed on the Mises media section, it was called “Yunus and his Microfinance” I believe. I didn’t get the impression that Block meant that Yunus was a statist; rather, it sounded like Block was indirectly endorsing thick libertarianism and saying that free enterprise is an important aspect of liberty (his team) and that communism, while compatible in a logical sense with liberty, would tend to undermine it in practice (the other team). He has attacked thick libertarianism in the past, so I’m not 100% on this though.
I once asked Walter whether he essentially embraces a version of thick libertarianism according to which libertarianism is thickly bound up with a commitment to avoid all forms of thick libertarianism besides that one. He said yes.