Marxism of the Right (A paleoconservative pot pontificates on libertarian kettles)

The American Conservative ^ | March 14, 2005 | Robert Locke

[quidnunc]

Free spirits, the ambitious, ex-socialists, drug users, and sexual eccentrics often find an attractive political philosophy in libertarianism, the idea that individual freedom should be the sole rule of ethics and government. Libertarianism offers its believers a clear conscience to do things society presently restrains, like make more money, have more sex, or take more drugs. It promises a consistent formula for ethics, a rigorous framework for policy analysis, a foundation in American history, and the application of capitalist efficiencies to the whole of society. But while it contains substantial grains of truth, as a whole it is a seductive mistake.

There are many varieties of libertarianism, from natural-law libertarianism (the least crazy) to anarcho-capitalism (the most), and some varieties avoid some of the criticisms below. But many are still subject to most of them, and some of the more successful varieties — I recently heard a respected pundit insist that classical liberalism is libertarianism — enter a gray area where it is not really clear that they are libertarians at all. But because 95 percent of the libertarianism one encounters at cocktail parties, on editorial pages, and on Capitol Hill is a kind of commonplace “street” libertarianism, I decline to allow libertarians the sophistical trick of using a vulgar libertarianism to agitate for what they want by defending a refined version of their doctrine when challenged philosophically. We’ve seen Marxists pull that before.

This is no surprise, as libertarianism is basically the Marxism of the Right. If Marxism is the delusion that one can run society purely on altruism and collectivism, then libertarianism is the mirror-image delusion that one can run it purely on selfishness and individualism. Society in fact requires both individualism and collectivism, both selfishness and altruism, to function. Like Marxism, libertarianism offers the fraudulent intellectual security of a complete a priori account of the political good without the effort of empirical investigation. Like Marxism, it aspires, overtly or covertly, to reduce social life to economics. And like Marxism, it has its historical myths and a genius for making its followers feel like an elect unbound by the moral rules of their society.

-snip-

[rellimpank]

--I must be an anarcho-libertario-Vulgarian---

[free_european]

"Marxism is the delusion that one can run society purely on altruism and collectivism"

That might be true of communism,but, in fact, marxism is even more ludicrous. It posits a crazy pseudo-hegelian philosophy that leads to iron-cast historical "laws" that societies follow neatly and allows itself the conceit that it is scientific. Amusingly Marx and his followers never had anything much to say about how a socialist society would orshould be run. It is truely a worthless ideology.

[drt1]

While I'm much more of a Conservative than a Libertarian I do exalt the rights AND responsibilities of the Individual. As such, I find this writer's thesis Hogwash.

[orangelobster]

Robert Locke is the Bea Arthur of the Right.

[RKV]

Bingo. It is all about the mix. Look at how the founders granted the federal government explicit powers and protected individuals with rights. The authors argument (if it can be called such) is in fact a strawman.

[genefromjersey]

Guess I'm an Antiquarian .

Some of the Libertarians I've run across seem fairly sensible;others chant slogans that would make a Marxist feel at home.One even sings the praises of "the valiant resistance fighters in Iraq",and complains about the needless cruelty of American troops.

I wonder,at times,how many of those self-proclaimed Libertarians are really Maoists in drag ???

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

This part is brilliant:

But because 95 percent of the libertarianism one encounters at cocktail parties, on editorial pages, and on Capitol Hill is a kind of commonplace “street” libertarianism, I decline to allow libertarians the sophistical trick of using a vulgar libertarianism to agitate for what they want by defending a refined version of their doctrine when challenged philosophically. We’ve seen Marxists pull that before.

In fact, quasi-socialist "liberals" of the vulgar modern American type (ranging from Barbara Streisand to John Kerry) try to pull this maneuver. When they are pushing for freedom for perversion (or slaughtering the unborn), they invoke all of the personal freedom/"privacy of the bedroom" pieties as if they were written somewhere on stone tablets and brought down from Mt. Sinai by the Archangel Thomas Jefferson.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Ping.

[bkepley]

"It promises a consistent formula for ethics, a rigorous framework for policy analysis"

Got that right, they are about the most dogmatic people in the world. A set formula for everything.

Paloes are pretty dogmatic too.

Brad

[Celtjew Libertarian]

More here than I have time to respond to at the moment.... But man, there are a lot of things in here that are not my view of libertarianism. A few points though:

And libertarianism degenerates into outright idiocy when confronted with the problem of children, whom it treats like adults, supporting the abolition of compulsory education and all child-specific laws, like those against child labor and child sex. It likewise cannot handle the insane and the senile.

This is incorrect. There are some libertarians who believe that. However, most hold that children, the insane, and senile are not capable of exercising their rights. Therefore, legal protection and limits on them are appropriate.

Yet libertarianism is philosophically incapable of evolving a theory of how to use freedom well because of its root dogma that all free choices are equal, which it cannot abandon except at the cost of admitting that there are other goods than freedom.

This is incorrect. I do not believe that all free choices are equal. What I believe is that the cost of restricting free choice is, more often than not, greater than the cost of allowing an individual to freely make a poor choice.

Considering the author gets the "root dogma" of libertarianism wrong, that calls into question the rest of the piece.

[Vaquero]

I'm a Conservative with and I consider myself a 'small l' libertarian....

The Islamo-fascists attacked our country and it is my prime duty to help in any way I can to destroy the evil menace.

If that goes against some folks who say that is not libertarian, thats too friggin bad. I just wish our government would be as eager to destroy the enemy as I am.....we are way to easy on them and the stuff that goes on in abu grabe and Gitmo is just childs play compared to what we should be doing to get the scum to fess up and to 'name names'.

[RKV]

"quasi-socialist 'liberals'" are not in fact libertarians. They love Big Brother. They cannot get enough of the state to suit them. Libertarians (at least most of my big "L" Libertarian friends) want just the opposite - minimal government. People like Walter Williams (who is pretty clearly a libertarian based on his writings) are not at all on the same page as the Anarcho-capitalists (who in reality just about don't exist [statistically speaking]).

[Jibaholic]

Why don't we wait until liberalism has been officially swept into the dustbins of history before we have this debate?

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

The problem with "compulsory education" is that the state has proved itself quite incompetent to handle the operations of formal education. And it has pandered to bigotry in favoring the NEA/secular humanist totalitarian model which is absolute lunacy and has nothing to do with "freedom" or "tolerance" or any other of the usual pieties.

You don't have to be a card-carrying "libertarian" to understand that there is a problem with compulsory education along the lines of the statist monopoly/secular humanism model. An eduational system that leads to enslavement of the mind to lies is a disgrace that hardly advances either "freedom" or the "improvement of mankind" as boasted by its banal propagandists. Intelligent Americans have a moral duty to oppose that kind of statist tyranny.

[libertarianben]

The author is a complete idiot and has no clue what he is talking about. I am a libertarian (couldn't tell could ya) and I have a clue what I believe in. Marxism and Libertarianism (sp?) are totally opposite of each other. Marxist believe in the state controlling almost everything, while Libertarians believe in the state controlling a little as possible. In other words Marxism is to have no personal or economic freedoms, while Libertarians believe in a lot of personal and economic freedom. Can't explain it simpler than that.

I wonder if the author would explain the different forms of conservatism as well. I will admit some people who call themselves libertarians are not. They have no idea what it really is. They call themselves that because they don't want to be labeled liberal or anarchist. If they don't believe in small limited government (big tax cuts, sending cuts, etc.) and government not getting in the way of your personal life unless you violate someone's rights are not a Libertarian.

[soundandvision]

Just let Karl Hess, Ayn Rand and me be..

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

"quasi-socialist 'liberals'" are not in fact libertarians.

They pick and choose where they would like "freedom" to be applied. Hypocrites. STUPID hypocrites.

They also claim that moral values are completely unknowable. If that were true, any preferences for "freedom" or human "rights" wouldn't matter. They're just stupid a-holes.

The most insane ones get more upset about tobacco smoking or hunting wild animals than about slaughtering unborn humans.

"You want to kill a baby? Well, I feel like a steak now. Contemplate that."

[freepatriot32]

Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.

[traviskicks]

then libertarianism is the mirror-image delusion that one can run it purely on selfishness and individualism.
---

The fallacies in this person's thinking is exposed in this sentence. People are most generous when they get to keep and spend their own money on what they choose. Governmental theft most often results in the money being spent in the wrong places, inefficiently and, on top of all of this, severely inhibits economic growth. A voluntary society not government tyrannically is exponentially more efficient at charity.

From 'Tsunami Tyranny'
http://www.neoperspectives.com/tsunami_tyranny.htm

Do you now see the reason for the disparity between the US public and private giving and that of the other countries of the world? The US has the highest per capita GDP of all those countries listed because we still respect the property of our citizens the most, which is reflective in our 'low' public Tsunami aid. However, the most interesting part of this entire analysis, and the key point of this paper, is that by respecting the property of our citizens the most we also assure that the largest and most important aid contributor in the Tsunami relief effort are the private citizens of the United States of America and their military.

[traviskicks]

whoops. I mean 'governed tyrannically'.

[Capitalism2003]

Yes, freedom can be a radical idea.

[redgolum]

Libertarian is a tricky definition. It means radically different things to different people. Some view libertarianism as the "classic" conservatism. Small government, which is mainly local.

However many more tend to the libertine view. All is permitted, no matter what the cost.

Pure Marxism is similar to Libertarianism in that there is no government per se. The difference is that a Marxist state first needs a totalitarian system to "reeducate" the people.

[traviskicks]

Pure Marxism is similar to Libertarianism in that there is no government per se. The difference is that a Marxist state first needs a totalitarian system to "reeducate" the people.
---

Have you read 'the black book of communism'? I'd say in theroy Marxism is all government because no one owns anything, everything belongs to the state.

libertarianism is different then anarchy in that a vast majority of libertarians believe in the need for some government, or at least an elected force to enforce the basic laws. Libertarians generally believe in at least a partial governmental role at the county or township level, with only loose oversight at the federal level.

In fact, our country was founded on Libertarian principles and remained libertarian until the great depression (or perhaps a bit before WWI).

This isnt taught in public schools.

[FreeKeys]

Free spirits, the ambitious, ex-socialists, drug users, and sexual eccentrics often find an attractive political philosophy in libertarianism, the idea that individual freedom should be the sole rule of ethics and government.

So do serious philosophers.

This clown's package deal amounts to a variant of argumentum ad hominem: Since I really, really, CAN find some REALLY DESPICABLE people who are attracted to certain variations of this philosophy, therefore I can go about sloppily smearing all decent people who are attracted to other variations of this philosophy.

[Grut]

No movement is either perfect or perfectly consistent, so the 'ills' of libertarianism don't prevent it from being a serious political force. What does is that the Libertarian Party is pure amateur hour and has no idea of how to win elections or even of how to build itself up to the point where it could win enough elections to matter.

If libertarianism is ever to get a foothold in politics, concerned libertarians are going to have to create a new Libertarian party to chase the old one away. This means volunteering for party work with the 'pubbies or Dems to learn about the nuts and bolts of political organization, building a membership base and running candidates - successfully! - for state and local offices. Only after building up an infrastructure like the other parties have will the LP be able to take on the big boys.

[Reactionary]

Libertarianism is the same Benthamite nonsense Kirk spoke against in the 50s. The fact that Libertarians have yet to address the question of ordered liberty or the importance of ends shows, I think, how unserious it is as a political "philosophy."

[libertarianben]

You are correct in some aspects. The LP (which I am a member of) needs to raise money for candidates and such, instead of just trying to get new members. One of the reason The LP went to CPAC was to learn what you just said, to learn how to organize and win more elections. It is bigger than all the other "third" parties (600 offices held, I believe) but it still has a ways to go. They have local offices but not big state and federal ones. Libertarians are very smart at presenting ideas but not so well in running for offices.

[libertarianben]

Explain "Ordered Liberty" to me. I'm curious as to what you mean.

[FastCoyote]

"While I'm much more of a Conservative than a Libertarian I do exalt the rights AND responsibilities of the Individual. As such, I find this writer's thesis Hogwash."

I'm to weak to call it Hogwash. Therefore, instead of becoming too libertarian, I've decided to become a limp wristed, big government, globalist, talk-big-no-action, CFR loving, conservative Republican. Now I feel better.

Actually, the BillO'Rights is the libertarian part of the republican form of government embodied in the Constitution. But we all know this by now, don't we?

[jackbob]

Pure horse crap. Having just completed the long read of the rest of the article at The American Conservative link, I found it to be as inaccurate as the first three paragraphs of it posted here.

Mr. Robert Locke mixes some half truths with a lot of verbage about that which he does not comprehend. For example, he is quite right in pointing out that "free spirits, the ambitious, ex-socialists, drug users, and sexual eccentrics often find an attractive political philosophy in libertarianism. But not because it offers them a "clear conscience" as he proclaims, but rather because it offers them freedom. Libertarianism offers no approval to any honest, nonviolent, human action, be it beneficial or not beneficial. If a "clear conscience" is what is sought, libertarians (including atheists), would tell such a seeker to go see a minister, and not the local LP organizer.

There are many varieties of libertarianism, from natural-law libertarianism (the least crazy) to anarcho-capitalism (the most)...

It is true there are many varieties, but his above example demonstrates a complete ignorance of who and what they are. First off, his "from... to..." range is completely wrong. Had he understood what he was writing about he would have said '...from natural-law libertarianism to utilitarian libertarianism...' As far a "crazy" goes, he has got that completely wrong. It is "natural-law libertarianism" that is fanatical, uncompromising, and often way out in the extremes of left and right field. Where as utiltiarianism, is for the most part grounded in the theory and practice, as to what will work and not work, regardless of Libertarian principle. Many Libertarians, myself included, view both as having advantages as well as disadvantages.

In as far as Anarcho-capitalism goes, it is not at the opposite end from natural-law libertarianism as he pontificates. It in reality is found under the natural law umbrella, as it is pretty much monopolized by the natural-law libertarians, and thereby may be seen as more crazy than some other varieties. There are however utilitarian anarcho-capitalists, who present very good utilitarian arguments (ie International Society for Individual Liberty, formerly known as the Society for Individual Liberty).

At any rate, his entire article is full of specific errors that point to a broad ignorance of the topic on which he has written.

[jackbob]

Why don't we wait until liberalism has been officially swept into the dustbins of history before we have this debate?

Because without this debate, and others like it, you won't have the capability to even sweep something as small as our highly regressive income tax into the dustbins of history. Imagine a boxer saying to his sparring partner, why don't we wait to spar until after I win the match in a couple of months.

[jackbob]

The LP... needs to raise money for candidates... and... to learn how to... win more elections. It is bigger than all the other "third" parties (600 offices held, I believe)... Libertarians are very smart at presenting ideas but not so well in running for offices.

The LP has money coming out of its ears. Last thing it needs is more money. It has no need to learn how to win more elections, as Americans are not libertarian, and will never vote for them until Libertarians are willing to have their party fight the hard fight to gain popularity for their principles and not for the party and candidate with out principles. Libertarians have done very poorly in presenting their principles for the past twenty years. Running for office with the purpose of winning elections is a pure day dream that is so far out of touch with reality, that they might as well be dreaming about setting up Libertarian space colonies, for all the good it does. And this says nothing about the harm such campaigns do to both the nation as well as the LP itself.

As far as your 600 offices held, almost all of them are nothing more than town and city, mayor appointed memberships, on non-partisan advisory board, having to do with town beautification, city clean up, county irrigation and drainage, etc. And most them Libertarians never mentioned they were libertarian prior to getting appointed.

Libertarians need to stop fooling themselves. Most people see right through them and laugh, because most Libertarians haven't got a clue as to what most people are seeing.

[secretagent]

Most people see right through them and laugh, because most Libertarians haven't got a clue as to what most people are seeing.

And then the Libertarians will nervously start laughing, too.

[secretagent]

The LP went to CPAC was to learn what you just said, to learn how to organize and win more elections.

I'd like to see libertarians learn from the left how to do effective protest.

[Always Right]

The author is a complete idiot and has no clue what he is talking about. I am a libertarian (couldn't tell could ya) and I have a clue what I believe in. Marxism and Libertarianism (sp?) are totally opposite of each other.

I thought that is kind of what the author said, they are at complete opposite ends. Maxism is the delusion beleif in total collectivism, while Libertarinism is the delusion beleif in total individualism.

[jmc813]

Editorializing thread titles is against FR guidelines.

[libertarianben]

Libertarians don't believe in total individualism. That's what an anarchist believes in. I do have a question; when should we stop being individuals and become part of the collective?

[libertarianben]

The LP went to CPAC was to learn what you just said, to learn how to organize and win more elections.

I'd like to see libertarians learn from the left how to do effective protest.

I'd like to see Libertarians teach "Conservative" Republicans the constitution and what small government is.

[secretagent]

I'd like to see Libertarians teach "Conservative" Republicans the constitution and what small government is.

Not me. The real conservatives can teach us about the Constitution and how government could have stayed small.

Libertarians can push the proper boundaries of freedom into new areas with a new vision, independent of the Constitution.

[libertarianben]

Libertarians can push the proper boundaries of freedom into new areas with a new vision, independent of the Constitution.

How so?

[Nataku X]

Does a hippie commune have a government?

[traviskicks]

Does a hippie commune have a government?
---

Sure. They have rules how they accept new people and rules of conduct, distribution etc... Certain individuals, like the founders, or those with leadership traits have more sway then others. I guess you could call their form of government communist. However, what is important is the size of the network. Familes are 'communist', but there is a level of trust that enables them to function normally.

This is where sociology breaks down into psychology. If everyone was a good person and everyone was trusting then socialism/communism looks fairly attractive. The problem is that a majority of people will not work their fair share for people they don't know and will take advantage of the fact that 'everything is everyones'. People don't
trust strangers and those who wield raw power the harshest begin to take control. Morality soon breaks down. Also, the advantages of a market for increasing productivity and selecting out good and bad companies becomes more apparent in larger populations.

Small communist groups can sometimes succeed. Even small socialist countries like Sweden have survived for a remarkably long time, with 'relative' prosperity in a socialistic system.

What would your answer be to your question?

[secretagent]

Libertarians have the vision of every sovereign individual living their own life as they please, as long as they let others live their lives as they please.

This libertarian vision or principle has an enabling rule: don't assault people physically or steal their property.

This stands independent of, and expands the zone of freedom beyond, the federal constitution.

[libertarianben]

Libertarians have the vision of every sovereign individual living their own life as they please, as long as they let others live their lives as they please.

This libertarian vision or principle has an enabling rule: don't assault people physically or steal their property.

And this is wrong?

[hosepipe]

Ummmmm...
The Marxism of the right... pretty good analysis I think...
Materialism,,, done individually on the right and collectivly on the left..
Something to think about there. Money is at the root of all materialism practically..
Pity too, The love of money does waste much shopping time..

As gardening wastes time when stealing your neighbors veggies is easier individually, or taxing him collectivly.. or chargeing him rent as the top of the food chain..

Libertarians are bizaaro "Marxists"... What a concept.....

[Nataku X]

Good answer. Perhaps we're debating semantics here, e.g. the definition of a government. Here's my answer (and also why I asked that question).

Strictly speaking, the definition of socialism is for the state to take control of all wealth and restribute it to their owners as they deem fit. In communism, there is no ownership. In that way, USSR, Cuba, et al, were socialist whereas Sweden is an uber welfare state.

Pure Marxism means no government, no economical control. Everyone takes what they need and provides for those who need it. As you say, the only true Marxism occurs in hippie comunes and families. This is because the effort it takes to maintain this system without an enforcing body scales exponentially to a point that it is unsustainable beyond a few dozen people.

My point in asking the question was that classical Marxism doesn't require a government as defined by a military, an elected body, and so forth. In an anarcho-capitalist system, I would imagine that people would corral themselves into tribes as a matter of survival: the only difference between such a system and classic Marxism would be the degree of a concept of ownership. You can see this by the fact that anarchists very closely associate themselves with communists.

This isn't to say that libertarianism doesn't have a lot of good points either; I am a small-l libertarian, after all.

[traviskicks]

hmmm... yea, I think we are mostly dancing around definitions. Let me try it this way:

In pure Marxism everyone takes what they need and provide for those who need it - the Communist utopia. What people need and what people should provide those in need is not defined - there is no need to define it because 'whatever the perfect answer is' will already be known by the 'educated masses'. The people ARE the state and since none of them disagree with the state then there is no need for any enforcing body etc... If no one committed any crime then there would be no need for police. So whether I say everything is owned by the state, or you say everything is owned by the people - is a bit of a moot point, cuz the people are all sheep and all think the same (hence the bloody, hellish attempts to brainwash entire populations through terror and doublethink). If everyone was a policeman, there would not be a need for what we think of as an official police force, but the line between saying there is NO police force and that there is a TOTAL police force is almost non existent.

In extreme (and not the kind that a vast majority of Libertarians subscribe to) Libertarianism, more accurately described, as you put it, as Anarchist Capitalism, all (or almost all) needs will be met and those that need will be provided. Indeed, a society will form that is very similar to the pure Communist one. A key difference is that the giving and providing is 'voluntary' (a Communist utopia is ‘voluntary’ too, but everyone 'chooses' the same thing - as soon as one person doesn't conform then the masses must pounce on him/her and a ‘state’ forms and the society reverts to Socialism). In an Anarchist Capitalist society it is unknown what % of people will give, but assumed that the prosperity will be so great that there will be more then enough for all. So there are no sheep. People will think and act differently with varying shades of 'generosity'.

The differences are most glaring between these two ideologies in the beginning, Communists have to fight for more state control and anarchy capitalists have to fight for less state control. So, it is a bit curious to me that the Communists and Anarchists have allied together as much as they have.

After the Russian revolution I believe the Communists were initially allied with the Anarchists, but soon brutally purged them. A similar event occurred in the Spanish civil war. I think the historical Anarchists were a bit different in ideology then what we consider Capitalist Anarchists or extreme Libertarians. Or? It is a bit ironic that, in reality, Communists could get closest to their goal by doing the exact opposite of what Marx suggests.

The author of the original piece is full of it because the actual results and pathways of the two different ideologies are so different that it is absurd to even compare them. Movement in the Libertarian direction yields only goodness, while movement in the socialistic direction yields only evil. IF such a utopia as the Communists and extreme Libertarians strive for really exists, it can certainly only be reached by the Libertarian path. And I have yet to see any historical example where government progressed so far towards the Libertarian extreme as to become hurtful.

I dunno... It this is all a bit confusing to think about for too long. :)

btw that site on your tag line is a neat site, I read the entire thing through a year or two ago.

[Liberal Classic]

Walter Williams kicks commie butt!

[jackbob]

And then the Libertarians will nervously start laughing, too.

How true... But lets not go there.(:-)