Sort of? Not exactly because that was the case in the late 18th century and early 19th when liberal revolutions were struggling with monarchies. Revolutionary France was most certainly the hotbed for radicalism. But well after the American and French Revolutions left wing became associated with not just against monarchy but stances against traditional hierarchies and authorities; where as right wing meant support of traditional hierarchies and authorities. Jefferson considered the Democratic-Republicans as comparable to the French republicans, and the Federalists to Orleanists. Or considered Jeffersonians as Whigs and patriots and those favoring centralized government as Tories.
In short left wing meaning for less authority and relations of dominance and right wing for more. Here Benjamin Tucker speaks of the distinction and places anarchism on the left and state socialism on the right, because left and right here are understood as less hierarchic structures of dominance vs greater hierarchies or systems of authority.
From Smith’s principle that labor is the true measure of price – or, as Warren phrased it, that cost is the proper limit of price – these three men made the following deductions: that the natural wage of labor is its product; that this wage, or product, is the only just source of income (leaving out, of course, gift, inheritance, etc.); that all who derive income from any other source abstract it directly or indirectly from the natural and just wage of labor; that this abstracting process generally takes one of three forms, – interest, rent, and profit; that these three constitute the trinity of usury, and are simply different methods of levying tribute for the use of capital; that, capital being simply stored-up labor which has already received its pay in full, its use ought to be gratuitous, on the principle that labor is the only basis of price; that the lender of capital is entitled to its return intact, and nothing more; that the only reason why the banker, the stockholder, the landlord, the manufacturer, and the merchant are able to exact usury from labor lies in the fact that they are backed by legal privilege, or monopoly; and that the only way to secure labor the enjoyment of its entire product, or natural wage, is to strike down monopoly.
It must not be inferred that either Warren, Proudhon, or Marx used exactly this phraseology, or followed exactly this line of thought, but it indicates definitely enough the fundamental ground taken by all three, and their substantial thought up to the limit to which they went in common. And, lest I may be accused of stating the positions and arguments of these men incorrectly, it may be well to say in advance that I have viewed them broadly, and that, for the purpose of sharp, vivid, and emphatic comparison and contrast, I have taken considerable liberty with their thought by rearranging it in an order, and often in a phraseology, of my own, but, I am satisfied, without, in so doing, misrepresenting them in any essential particular.
It was at this point – the necessity of striking down monopoly – that came the parting of their ways. Here the road forked. They found that they must turn either to the right or to the left, – follow either the path of Authority or the path of Liberty. Marx went one way; Warren and Proudhon the other. Thus were born State Socialism and Anarchism.
I’d disagree since as mentioned before free market anarchists already existed on the left before the advent of Austrian school and contemporary with French Liberal School. Coming from the radical Physiocratic traditions, free market anarchists radicalized classical political economy towards what I believe to be the consistent trajectory of classical liberalism which was rooted in the physiocratic school. From Adam Smith to Ricardo, Mill, Hodgskin, Paine, Jefferson, Warren, Spooner, Tucker the direction of liberalism was more in opposition to the modern understanding of capitalism as we know it today. I would say Georgism and geolibertarianism is the consistent direction of classical liberal economics; but there were more radical anarchist socialist schools going further left. What separates classical economics from subsequent liberal schools like neoclassical and other heterodox schools is that classicists distinguished land from capital and considered the Lockean Proviso towards natural and common resources.
The right libertarian tradition originates more in the French Liberal and Austrian Schools, which would find root in America with Murray Rothbard and his founding of Anarcho-Capitalism. These are schools that represent a more right wing strain of liberalism in which land is considered as capital and valid private property like any other.
Yeah it wasn’t used by capitalist thinkers until the mid 20th century. In the 19th you already had free market enterprise anarchists who were critical of capitalism and considered themselves libertarians, socialists, mutualists, and individualists. Therefore I state that far left is classical libertarianism. There’s a whole sub for it r/ClassicalLibertarians
Well is just historical record. Libertarian was coined by the anarchist-communist Joseph Dejacque and it became broadly used by anarchists (anti-authority socialists) when governments in Europe crackdowned on anarchist organizations and media. So they started employing the term libertarian more to avoid the law.
Well as an anarchist social analysis is rights are a construct and likely not the same in any two nations, and liable to change with social attitudes. Some may view or expand rights to things such as healthcare, job guarantee, free access to natural resources etc…. This is why I’m a Georgist, Physiocracy has always been the radical wing of liberalism. American fathers like Paine, Jefferson, Franklin were physiocrats who argued for the commons of natural resources and public compensation for land rights in a ground tax. Georgists called it the Single Tax, while enterprise goes on unencumbered by taxation. Also yes freedom of movement is a core principle of economic liberalism.
If it’s far left it’s classical libertarianism then
We didn’t really fight them but Helios definitely stronger than Hermes. Being squashed by Atlas for some reason left Helios weak but I guess Titans have that strength
Lincoln was bad for increasing federal government, but abolishing slavery wins a lot of libertarian points. Like all presidents he’s a mixed record. Can’t even say Lincoln wasn’t part of an American tradition of Federalism. But at least the biggest assault on liberty in the Republic was partly ended to his administration
I agree with him there. Libertarian should remain synonymous with Anarchism. American libertarians are actually classical liberals or radical liberals. Now that libertarian is associated with veiled social conservatism and rule of corporations I expect more actual liberals or libertarians to reject the term
Organized chaos. I see anarchy as the equilibrium of order and disorder
I mean there are overlaps between libertarianism and classical liberalism so sure! Militias were some revolutionary republicans answer to standing armies which devolved into tyranny and tax oppression. Socialists advocated the armed workers into worker’s militias. The Black Panthers were advocates of 2nd amendment rights and pressed that right to open carry and protect the community from cops. But of course that ended when Ronald Reagan as governor made it illegal.
https://www.youtube.com/live/GQwbxFg7Vp0?si=0VZgF8QZ51Fa5Rty
https://www.youtube.com/live/5jw6Ync-WMw?si=-ZR_S06OpB6CLnk5
The Jötnar represent the primordial forces of Chaos to the gods order. Ymir was the first Jötnar born from the primordial elements of Muspelheim and Niflheim, hence why several of his descendants were either Frost Giants or Fire Giants with those elemental abilities. But not all Jötnar are specifically of these elements as they represent or are manifestations the primordial chaos in general. The Jötnar are chaotic in their personifications and they hold a variety of magical abilities and powers. This is why Loki is so chaotic as a Jötunn. While many confuse Jötnar with only being Frost Giants and Jötunheim as a realm of frost and snow, this is not necessarily the case with the little we do know Norse mythology. There were descriptions of Jötunheim as a icy realm and there are likely parts of it that are, but there are also earlier descriptions that say it is a golden realm, barren and vast. We can expect the realm to resemble the chaos of its denizens.
The Jötnar are not all gifted with the same magic abilities. There are/were some Frost Giants as there were Fire Giants like Surtr. Surtr’s love was a Frost Giant as well. Ymir was may have been born with both primordial elements as he originated in Gannungagap where Muspelheim and Niflheim met. Regardless the Jötnar don’t only represent the primordial elements, but really they are manifestations of the primordial chaos in general. Whereas Odin and the Aesir gods brought order to the chaos, the Jötnar are their nemesis as forces of chaos. Which is why Loki is so chaotic, he is a Jötunn. All came from Ymir in Norse mythology, all came from the primordial chaos given order by Odin. The other primordial equivalents to Ymir in other mythologies would be Apep who came from Nu in Egyptian myth, or Erebus who came from Chaos in Greek.
It’s not that simple. While I’m an anarchist with no desire to recreate the police, there is a difference between community protection from the community, and a body of patrols that are not emergent from the community. Police are an arm of the State, and not a community mutual defense organization.
Yes as a libertarian socialist I do
The protests in university while in solidarity for Palestine and demanding ceasefire, the goals are not an issue out of their control in a foreign political environment. Their demands are transparency of University funding, divestment from Israeli aiding organizations, and other measures to aid students from arrests wherever such actions were taken. Though this pertains to University issues, there is the larger political goal of protesting government from aiding Israel, and demanding the executive use their leverage to reign in Israel’s ethnic cleansing. The movement against colonialism, war, and imperialism continues well beyond campuses and we must continue to push the issue towards the political class who have the power to actually put a stop to Israeli aggressions. Agreed these are good steps into holding institutions of education accountable, for it is where minds are molded and free thought secured.
That the NAP doesn’t include state property because it is by definition not valid property it is theft paid by coerced taxes, it is the product of NAP violation therefore it is justified and not violation of NAP to destroy state property. Confiscation and the Homestead Principle Murray Rothbard
This is a Libertarian sub that’s what
Pretty sure cop cruisers are state property
Ironic that capitalism has always meant anything but free markets genuinely. In my Latin American heritage capitalism is synonymous with imperialism and financial exploitation. To the black diaspora it is a system of capital that began with their use as capital and ongoing financial inequality. For the early political economists it meant a statist system of class rule where capital owners legalized their affairs by state institutionalized privilege over the laboring masses. Politicians and media of capitalist systems agree that what we have now is more or less a desirable economy they deem capitalism, with the only issue being the welfare state limiting the promise of capitalism. In early classic political economy (liberalism) Smith rallied the productive forces of capital and labor against the landlords. David Ricardo was the forerunner of Ricardian liberal socialism. John Stuart Mill clarifies that a liberal society could only persist through socialist relations in production and not the capitalist mode.
“The form of association, however, which if mankind continue to improve, must be expected in the end to predominate, is not that which can exist between a capitalist as chief, and work-people without a voice in the management, but the association of the labourers themselves on terms of equality, collectively owning the capital with which they carry on their operations, and working under managers elected and removable by themselves.” - JS Mill; Principles of Political Economy
Thomas Hodgskin, writer on political economy, critic of capitalism and defender of free trade and early trade unions, wrote against the claims of capital’s due over labor. There is a rich history of radical liberalism and libertarian socialism tracing back to the Physiocratic school and into classical economics. Geoism as part of the left libertarian tradition
This is a lineage of radical thought and economics from liberalism to libertarianism/anarchism/anti-authoritarian/government socialism. Whatever you’re thinking capitalism as a term is associated with, the institutions in power, business leaders, and people globally under this system do not define it as a free market, but as a market economy structured by institutionalized monopolies protected by the State, starting with private property. Property here not being the occupancy and use of mutualist definition, but exclusive ownership protected by force and title of the government and law. There are 4 monopolies the Individualist Benjamin Tucker recognized: the money monopoly, the land monopoly, the tariff monopoly, and the patent monopoly. Discussed here Anarchism and State Socialism
Historically socialists who actually coined this term “capitalism” did not refer to free markets but the specific mode of production structured by specific conditions of institutional private property rights and wage work exploitation. It was not until the Austrian economists like Hayek or Mises that these economists associated the term with a liberal economic doctrine of radical free enterprise; albeit of a more regressive character in associating land as capital as opposed to the classical factors of production of the Geoist classical economics tradition where land and natural resources are commons and compensated for privatization rights. In the mid 20th century Murray Rothbard boasted about taking the term libertarian or anarchist from the tradition of socialists and even admits to capitalists having no historical context to using such radical terminology.
"We must therefore turn to history for enlightenment; here we find that none of the proclaimed anarchist groups correspond to the libertarian (capitalist) position, that even the best of them have unrealistic and socialistic elements in their doctrines . . . we find that all of the current anarchists are irrational collectivists . . . We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical."
“One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, ‘our side,’ had captured a crucial word from the enemy . . . ‘Libertarians’ . . . had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over...” Murray N. Rothbard, The Betrayal Of The American Right
There’s also the French Liberal School of radical free market anarchist predecessors such as Gustave De Molinari and Frederic Bastiat. I highly recommend the liberal historian David M Heart and the work he’s done on radical liberal economists like Dunoyer and Comte who anticipated socialist labor exploitation and class struggle theory on their own liberal economic and industrial analysis, one you may find superior as it is fundamentally a liberal critique distinct from Marx’s communist critique. Class Analysis, Slavery and the Industrialist Theory of History in French Liberal Thought, 1814-1830: The Radical Liberalism of Charles Comte and Charles Dunoyer (1990, 2013)
This was to clarify my historical position and will resume to attempt to answer your questions when possible.
I don’t think liberal democracy is the effective means of change you’re implying as someone from a liberal republic. It is in fact in process, we are seeing in real time the occupation agenda and expansion. The current far right Likud Zionists in power won’t rest until Palestine is a historical artifact and Israel is all there is. I think the anti-colonialist radical activist Kwame Ture says it well in this video https://youtu.be/RakEPolGKlQ?si=-KasFwZ1J_4hd0Um (notwithstanding his Lenin appraisal or statist views). The modern reality however is decolonization and making a better community and society in the lands known as Israel-Palestine. Some Abrahamic nation hopefully will come from this tragedy, where all Abrahamic cultures can share this land as a diverse family
It’s not it just happens to be a settler-colonial project in process, while most others are post-colonial states that need to be deconstructed and revolutionized. Others exist as a colonial state, Israel can be altered from that path of ethnic cleansing and forced subjugation, can be prevented from establishing a settler-colonial state. For the record I think the best case scenario to achieve in the now is a tense but bitter “peace” in the vein of Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Troubles is where this conflict can best be heading in this time. It’ll be up to future generations to build something better where the predecessors failed.
Free market anarchism is a school of philosophy and economics rooted in anti-capitalist critique and sociological analysis, and radicalization of classical political economy, Marx has nothing to do with this tendency as a market abolitionist communist. Key figures are the Mutualist Proudhon, and individualists Warren and Tucker. Or contemporary writers like Kevin Carson: The Iron Fist Behind the Invisible Hand
I’ve argued this point and argument many times before. As used by right-wing apologists for “free market capitalism” (an oxymoron if ever there was one), capitalism is the source of everything good in the world — but also something that never existed. And it switches repeatedly back and forth from one to the other, every couple of sentences, in the same argument. I learned this from interacting with the right-libertarians who’ve been using the “anticapitalists with iPhones LOL” meme to troll the #ResistCapitalism hashtag on social media.
I cited Arthur Chu’s observation that “Capitalism didn’t make your iPhone. Workers did. Capitalism just determines how the rents are distributed.” In response, someone said “Capitalism created the freedom that allowed people to invent the iPhone.” I pointed out to them all the ways that Apple’s profits from the iPhone depend on the use of the state to restrict freedom, both directly by using “intellectual property” to impede free cooperation and replication of technology outside their corporate framework, and indirectly through state subsidies to the offshoring of production to countries where workers are easier to exploit. The would-be defender of capitalism immediately piped up “What do subsidies have to do with capitalism? That sounds more like government to me.”
Aha. So the iPhone demonstrates the wonders and productivity of “free market capitalism,” but all the state-enforced monopolies, subsidies and other government intervention that Apple’s actual profit model depends on are “government.” Gotcha.
Sorry, but you can’t have it both ways. You can use “capitalism” as the name either for an idealized free market system that has never existed in practice, or for the actually existing historical system that you’re an apologist for. You can’t do both. If you start with the corporate capitalism that Apple is part of, and then take away the historical legacy (and ongoing process!) of peasant land enclosure, colonialism and neo-colonialism, slavery, land and resource grabs, “intellectual property” and other monopolies, and restrictions on the free movement and association of labor… well, you don’t have much left.
If you want to argue that “real capitalism has never existed,” and repeat “That’s not capitalism, that’s corporatism!” like a broken record, fine. But you can’t turn around then and use the products of a transnational corporation like Apple as an example of capitalism. If you do, you’re either stupid or a liar. It’s that simple.
And when you get right down to it, “capitalism” is a really bad term for a free market system. The word originated in the early 19th century as a name for the real-world historical system of capitalism, that emerged from the late Medieval economy from about 1500 or so on. And the state was absolutely integral to the emergence of that system of political economy, and to the form it took. It was a system in which the state actively intervened in the market.
The use of “capitalism” by self-styled “free market” advocates only came later. It was a word that already had a long history — a history written in letters of blood and fire — and was clearly identified with specific class interests. So when Mises and Rand chose that word, a word with those bloody associations and class identifications as their name for the “free market” — and named their ideal system after capital, one particular factor of production, at that! — you damn well better believe they had an agenda, and knew exactly what they were doing.
Corporate capitalism is not the free market, no more than was Soviet state communism. Both capitalism and state communism are coercive systems of power that parasitize on the creativity and cooperative labor of freely interacting human beings, so that those in power — whether CEOs and coupon-clippers or commissars — can live off the products of ordinary people’s efforts and ingenuity.
Yeah ultimately the left-right spectrum is kind of superfluous since it fails to capture the reality of complex ideals. The compass is better but it still has its flaws. Me personally I try not to go for labels but sometimes feel a conversation may have need of it
The comments section went exactly as well as I expected.
LibertarianUncensored