I am a libertarian ...

[Fantastic Anarchist]

... yes, I am. I am a socialist in the anarchist tradition.

Some of you have used the term "libertarian" as a pejorative. I'm fine with that. If you knew the word meant, you may or may not understand why I am a proud libertarian: socialist in the anarchist tradition.

Historically, and to this day, libertarianism has been (and still is in Europe) a left-wing tradition, generally, and a socialist tendency, specifically.

The modern right-wing has co-opted the term via their tenuous Rothbardian attempts to merge Proudhon with Mises to establish their private libertarian dystopia - which of course would be a corporate tyranny.

But make no mistake, actual libertarians worldwide want a free and just society where both the individual and community exist in a mutually beneficial relationship.

I could get more detailed, but frankly, I wish people would just read up on this stuff before pontificating.

When you scream about libertarianism, at least qualify it with the term "right-wing", since, we are at least talking about two different wings.

Just throwing out my two cents.

[OneGrassRoot]

1. That's actually a great point...

qualifying it with "right-wing" libertarian, as the roots of libertarianism, as I understand it, are very much about The Common Good.

Like so many things, they have co-opted and corrupted nearly everything they touch, beyond recognition.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

2. You are quite right.

But, we shouldn't let them.

Every "libertarian" I speak with (note the quotes), I engage them, and explain to them what it is historically and currently (in the rest of the world).

It is a synthesis of individual and community.

"The individual is nothing without society. Society is nothing without the individual." ~ Unattributed

[napoleon_in_rags]

3. Its like when you hear the Republican fools arguing against democracy.

Saying "this is a Republic, not a democracy". Yes, this is a Republic, a Republic which enshrined, as beyond change in the constitution, our ability to vote, which makes us a democracy. Yes we're not a pure democracy, as we can't vote away our ability to vote. But we are a democracy, and no valid party is against that.

The fools conflate small d democrat/democracy with big D Democratic party, and think voting is just advocated by one party. They look dumb, but we make an error just as dumb when we conflate small l libertarian (an advocate for liberties in some regard. Social, civil, etc.) with big L Libertarian party, which are contrary to the left in their support of deregulation of business.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

4. Oh, that irritates me, too!

Last edited Fri Jun 28, 2013, 07:40 PM - Edit history (1)

They think they're mutually exclusive or something!

Yes, a Republic is essentially a representative democracy, and many political commentators use them interchangeably.

[LWolf]

10. Democratic Republic.

Representative Democracy.

[Fuddnik]

49. When someone says this is a Republic, not a Democracy....

Ask them to define the difference.

You'll see a blank stare on their face, real quick. Then they'll say "Do you know?!?!" And I tell them yes, and they get really confused.

[magellan]

65. "we can't vote away our ability to vote"

Essentially you're right, but we can vote away that ability for certain members of society, at least indirectly. See SCOTUS Tuesday this week and any number of states run by Rethugs that now have the green light to severely restrict the ability of minorities, the elderly and the poor to vote.

My only disagreement with what you wrote.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

68. “If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal.” ~ Emma Goldman

[sabrina 1]

108. People latch on to 'catch phrases'. It seems to be a human weakness, often without having

a clue what they are talking about, but they think it makes 'look smart' because someone they admire said it before them. When you question people who use talkiing points, they respond, most of the time, by resorting to insults. That is how you know they have no idea what they are talking about.

It's all good though, for the Corporate powers who prefer to keep the 'little people' divided because if they ever were to unite against the real problems that are facing them, those Corporate Powers would be unable to control things anymore.

[BlueCaliDem]

5. I know. I had you pegged from the beginning. But this is DEMOCRATIC Underground,

not Libertarian Underground. Don't you have a Libertarian site where you can go to in order to eviscerate Democratic President Obama with abandon {however thin the evidence}? Because, you know? This is still the DEMOCRATIC Underground.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

6. What the hell?

I broke out of hiatus (of voting) to vote for Obama twice!

This site is for all progressives.

Did you even read my post?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

7. Apparently not.

They read "libertarian" and their knee jerked so hard they almost lost a kneecap.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

8. I thought I kicked her dog or something.

[Fuddnik]

47. Don't do that!

I did that this morning in reference to a post by another member who babbles aimlessly (referred to "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest&quot .

I could feel froth and spittle coming out of my monitor, along with a string of accusations of being a Paulbot, a Republican plant, and more. Actually, I'm probably to the left of Karl Marx.

Maybe I kicked Pavlov's Dog.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

48. LMAO!

[BlueCaliDem]

78. Sure, you did.

Next you'd want me to believe the moon is made out of cheese. Sorry, no sale. Peddle your snake-oil elsewhere. OOPS! Judging by the adolescent responses you only find among High School cliques, I see a few like-minded souls have already bought it by the gallons. My bad.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

81. Project much?

This whole thread has been pretty civil. In fact, I've had some great discussions with people who hold different views in this very thread.

You seem to be the only one who ... well, you're just the only one.

You're special.

[BlueCaliDem]

86. Nope. Callin' 'em as I sees 'em - as a Democrat on Democratic Underground

who actually knows that the word "Democratic" in the site's name is the capital "D" version, and who also knows the ToS of this site.

You, apparently, need reminding.

Don't be a wingnut (right-wing or extreme-fringe)

Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office. Teabaggers, Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers, and right-wingers in general are not welcome here. Neither are certain extreme-fringe left-wingers, including advocates of violent political/social change, hard-line communists, terrorist-apologists, America-haters, kooks, crackpots, LaRouchies, and the like.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

You're welcome.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

92. Yes, yes, of course you do.

Classic BlueCaliDem. Callin' 'em as she see's them.

[Eleanors38]

97. Wait till you defend the Second Amendment. Hooo-WEE!

[Fantastic Anarchist]

99. I pretty much support all amendments.

The first one is actually my favorite, and I think it is more important than the second, myself.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

12. Oh, and don't forget that it was us who got the 8 hour workday ...

... and other labor rights. It was us original libertarians (of the socialist variety) who agitated for labor rights in the US historically. It was later in the 50s and 60s when the right-wing co-opted our term for their private tyranny.

But keep looking down your nose at me with disdain. "Libertarian site" ... really? Classic BlueCaliDem.




LABOR'S MARTYRS


Haymarket
1887

Sacco and Vanzetti
1927


By Vito Marcantonio

Introduction by Wm. Z. Foster




Introduction

By William Z. Foster


On November 11, 1937, it is just fifty years since Albert R. Parsons,
August Spies, Adolph Fischer, George Engel and Louis Lingg, leaders of the
great eight-hour day national strike of 1886, were executed in Chicago on
the framed-up charge of having organized the Haymarket bomb explosion that
caused the death of a number of policemen. These early martyrs to labor's
cause were legally lynched because of their loyal and intelligent struggle
for and with the working class. Their murder was encompassed by the same
capitalist forces which, in our day, we have seen sacrifice Tom Mooney,
Sacco and Vanzetti, the Scottsboro boys, McNamara, and a host of other
champions of the oppressed.

Parsons and his comrades were revolutionary trade unionists, they were
Anarcho-Syndicalists rather than Anarchists. In the early 'eighties, when
they developed their great mass following, the mass of the workers were
just learning to organize to resist the fierce exploitation of a ruthless
capitalism. The great eight-hour strike movement led by the "Chicago
Anarchists" gave an enormous impulse to trade union organization
everywhere and it was for this that the employing interests had them
hanged. When, for example, the older Chicago unions nowadays go out on
parade on Labor Day, banner after banner bears the historic dale of 1886.
Indeed, the A. F. of L. was practically established nationally at that
time. Although the A. F. of L. had been founded in 1881, it never got a
real hold among the masses until the big strike movement of 1886, which
established the unions in man pew trades and industries and brought about
the reorganization and renaming of the A. F. of L.

In many respects 1937 bears a kinship to 1886. Once again labor is making
a vast surge forward, but on a much higher political level. In 1886, and
the years following, the best that the working class could do in the way
of organization was to produce the craft union movement, which,
notwithstanding all its failings, was an advance in liveability at least,
over the amorphous and confused Knights of Labor. But now, the working
class, grown stronger, more experienced and more ideologically developed,
has given birth to the C.I.O. movement, with its industrial unionism,
trade union democracy, organized political action and generally advanced
conception of the workers' struggle. The militant trade union movement of
today, heading towards a broad People's Front, is the direct lineal
descendant of the great strike movement of the 1886 Chicago martyrs.

Not only has labor matured very much in the fifty years that have passed
since 1886, but so also has the capitalist system that gives it birth. In
1886 American capitalism was young, strong and growing. It had before it a
long period of unparalleled expansion, during which the workers became
afflicted with many illusions about the possibilities of prosperity under
capitalism. Now, however, American capitalism, like the world capitalist
system of which it is a part, has exhausted its constructive role of
building the industries. It is now obsolete and gradually sinking into
decay. Industrial crises follow each other with increasing severity and
the masses are becoming more and more pauperized. The growth of fascism
and war is the attempt of this outworn capitalist system to keep in
existence although history has imperatively summoned it to leave the stage
and to make way for the next order, socialism.

The modern working class, although it has not learned all the needed
lessons of the situation in which it finds itself, is nevertheless rapidly
becoming free from capitalist illusions and is reorganizing itself
accordingly, industrially and politically. Of this renaissance, the C.I.O.
is the greatest mass expression.

The Haymarket martyrs were bold pioneer fighters for socialism and they
paid with their lives for their devotion and clear-sightedness. Although
they sleep all these years in Waldheim Cemetery, their work was not in
vain and they are not forgotten. In keeping green the memories of these
proletarian heroes, the International Labor Defense, the Communist Party
and other progressive and revolutionary organizations are preserving one
of the most glorious of all American revolutionary traditions. The lives
of Parsons, Fischer, Engel, Spies and Lingg, and Sacco and Vanzetti, must
be made more than ever the inspiration of the proletarian youth. We must
indeed realize in life the noble last words of Spies, spoken as he stood
on the gallows with the hangman's noose around his neck:

_"There will come a time when our silence will be more powerful than
the voices you are strangling today."_

[Egalitarian Thug]

33. They had to hide that statue honoring the police for 121 years.

http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=35677
Many consider the monument a deserved tribute to the men in blue, while others have criticized it for depicting only one side of the historic event. The statue has been either bombed or defaced on more than five separate occasions.

But after numerous repairs, the statue remains intact. It is a testament to the city’s efforts to honor the officers killed that day, matched only by the opposition’s attempts to destroy the commemoration of police on that tragic day.

It took over a century, but they eventually got enough Americans to forget the past.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

36. I'm going to have to read that ...

I had no idea. Abominable.

[Egalitarian Thug]

75. A fine representation of the foundations on which Chicago is built.

They murdered five men to cover up the slaughter of "an undetermined number of citizens" in yet another Chicago police riot.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

93. A slaughter that wasn't even committed by them.

Yeah, pretty shitty.

Fisher, right before he was hanged, proclaimed, "Hoorah for anarchy! Today is the happiest day of my life!"

That takes major balls.

[Fuddnik]

56. I thought the Weather Underground took care of that for good.

A precursor to "The Days of Rage".

[BlueCaliDem]

79. If your post was meant to do anything other

than make my eyes roll up to the back of my head, it failed.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

80. Typical BlueCaliDem.

[BlueCaliDem]

83. You're still failing . . .

[Fantastic Anarchist]

89. Yes, yes, of course I am.

Thanks, dear.

[BlueCaliDem]

90. Good that you know and accept it! That's the first step in healing...

...dear.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

94. Typical BlueCaliDem.

She's concerned about healing.

[BlueCaliDem]

96. Typical Libertarian Fantastic Anarchist.

Only interested in fighting with REAL Democrats on a Democratic Party supporting site.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

100. Steeeeeeeerike.

[burnodo]

27. Boy, "democratic" doesn't seem so democratic any more

Someone should petition Webster's to change the definition

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. Does that go for socialists, communists, liberals, moderates, vegetarians, and Catholics?

[Fantastic Anarchist]

35. And tulip lovers, too?

What about people who hate beets?

[Fantastic Anarchist]

91. No, supporting what those two men did is not against DU ToS.

Last edited Sat Jun 29, 2013, 11:43 AM - Edit history (1)

In fact, although I'm pretty sure you've already done so by now, I invite you to alert on any post in this thread.

If it violates the ToS as you interpret it, then I apologize.

Somehow, I think I'm okay, though.

[BlueCaliDem]

95. Did you even read the first line in the part of the ToS that I've posted??

Go back and reread it because you apparently need a refresher.

I never claimed that supporting what these men did went against DU's ToS {and either you know that or you're just acting as if you don't}. But supporting THE MEN, self-proclaimed Libertarians of the Republican kind is against DU ToS, especially when you couple that to your purely anti-Obama posts you've infested this site with, being the self-proclaimed Libertarian. So what in the hell are you doing on a Democratic Party supporting site? Sowing disruption with your failed brand of politics?

As for "alerting" on posts, there are too many of your ilk here to get a successful "Hide". Again, either you know that or you're pretending you don't.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

98. Please, I invite you to alert on any post in here.

And not only get it hidden, but to get anyone who supports what those two did, banned.

If that's the case, then so be it.

But you and I both know you are wrong. And so ...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

102. No, what I'm saying is the obvious. That there are Democrats who are Communists, Socialists, etc.

It might be against the rules if Snowden/Greenwald were to run for office as Libertarians, Republicans, Communists, (however, DU has supported a Socialist and an Independent), etc. Neither of them is running for office, but if they did, the could run as Democrats and be perfectly acceptable. What Greenwald and Snowden have is support for what they're doing or have done in the NSA case.

Just as this isn't CommunistUnderground, it also isn't ObamaUnderground.

[BlueCaliDem]

105. Unlike Ron Paul (the candidate that Snowden and GiGi support and voted for - a Repub in Libertarian

clothing}, Obama is A DEMOCRAT. You didn't see that when he ran for office all these years? Really?

It's clear in the ToS that this site SUPPORTS DEMOCRATS and that "Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office."

Neither Snowden nor GiGi are pro-Democratic Party nor do they have any inclination to "work withing the system" to elect more Democrats. They HATE Democrats. If you don't know that, then you haven't been paying attention. Maybe it's time you do.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

106. Loyalty oaths? Purist oaths?

No thanks.

[BlueCaliDem]

107. Then why are you here?

The DU ToS demands such loyalty oaths - in support of Democratic Party candidates. You, on the other hand, are content with trying to push your Lefty-Libertarianism crapola on Democrats against Democrats who will never conform to the Libertarian fringe. That's because we actually live in the REAL world. You know? The one where there are actually people hijacking planes to crash them into tall buildings. That one.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

109. I'm a Democrat. This is Democratic Underground.

I'm not pushing anything but what I think is right. I do live in the "real" world. One in which the Democratic Party has been hijacked by centrists, New Democrats, and 3rd Way sell outs.

Why are you here?

A couple of Democrats said this:

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." John Quincy Adams

[BlueCaliDem]

110. Then act and post like one! I've read your posts. Nary a good word for the head of the

Democratic Party - Obama. I've seen precious little support by you of either the President or Democratic Congress critters, but PLENTY of kvetching and criticism.

Then you have the temerity to turn around and hail the likes of Libertarian Snowden and Bush-luvin'/Libertarian GiGi {who's recanted his 100% support of Bush when he discovered his cover was being blown and no Liberal would take him seriously} as if they're the next best thing since sliced bread.

Nice quotes. But this isn't the 1700's. This is the Democratic Underground. And DU has it's terms of service, which I've provided to you but what you continue to ignore because it proves that your behavior on this board is wrong. A RightwingTroll can come back with your same quotes to hide behind, but it doesn't change the fact that this site is to support Democrats, "who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office."

Tell me, do you believe undermining President Obama, Holder, Democrats in office with baseless and disproven attacks while passionately defending seriously flawed Libertarians help toward DU's purpose?

Again, look up the ToS.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

111. In a democracy, it is the responsibility of the people to hold public servants accountable.

Even Democrats. Even Democratic presidents. I don't believe in the Father Knows Best wing of my party. Didn't when I joined in 1965, still don't. I'm married to my wife not to the Democratic Party.

So, alert on my posts if you find them so reprehensible.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

113. Stalin, is that you?

[Whisp]

9. Thankyou for this.

and I apologize for that post to you up there. I think it was just a misunderstanding tho. We are so marinated in the Paul type of libertarianism, it is kind of hard to shift gears on that.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

13. Paul type of libertarianism (misnomer if there ever was one)

Sure, we (anarchists) agree on some civil liberties aspects with the Paulites (I would hope everyone would). It ends there. They are no allies. They believe in capitalism, but not just capitalism - they believe in corporate socialism. Their "liberty" is unregulated corporate hegemony.

Capitalism and corporate socialism (i.e. fascism) are anathema to any libertarian socialist.

[flamingdem]

11. How do you feel about Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, Ron Paul?

That's the reality of what we're dealing with on the political landscape.

Plus, some people have pot as their number one issue, they would vote based on that for instance.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

14. I don't smoke pot anymore ...

... but I do believe it should be legal.

You can see how I feel about Paulites in this post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3123172

They are not libertarians, but fascists in libertarian clothing.

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. How do you feel about Udall and Wyden? They are Civil Libertarians.

Need I mention Bernie Sanders?

[burnodo]

28. And no one would vote based solely on, say, abortion

For instance

[arely staircase]

15. then you are what is called a civil libertarian

libertarian without the modifier is a right winger who believes in no gov. regulation of personal activity or economic activity like polluting a river.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

17. I know we are a long way from getting there ...

But I am both against the state and capitalism as they are intertwined and can't exist without each other.

I believe in community. I believe that we can all freely associate and build a better society.

By the way, Oscar Wilde (from your sig) was an anarchist.

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/ws98/ws53_wilde.html

"I think I am rather more than a Socialist. I am something of an Anarchist, I believe..."

"Socialism itself will be of value because it will lead to individualism."

[Whisp]

20. what are your thoughts on Snowden and his idea of libertarianism.

by what he is doing.

Also on Greenwald and his support of Snowden.

How would they fit in to your description of it?

[Fantastic Anarchist]

22. I support Snowden and Greenwald ...

... and think that Greenwald and Snowden are irrelevant to the large issue at hand. State/Corporate power would like nothing better than for us to focus on Greenwald and Snowden.

I think we should be more concerned with state/corporate power. I think we should be more concerned with a state (colluded corporate power) that would keep secrets from us, while droning people out of existence on the other side of the planet.

I think NSA having information on key figures in the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, is the worst idea in the world. It's a recipe for tyranny.

I wonder if Citizens United had anything to do with the NSA having anything on Kennedy (the typical swing vote). That's something to ponder. They might not have, but they could in future Supreme Courts.

Or if they have anything on congressmen/women.

Or ...

[Whisp]

25. I think I am more concerned about corporate power

and the hold they have on our governments and on our personal lives. They are far more intrusive on a lot more people with the modern gadgetry of peeking.

I think that is being glossed over and the mistrust of government is overplayed. I can't help hearing Norquist - the drowning of the government.

The government is us. Getting 'rid' of it scares me a whole lot more than trying to fix it. To fix it, you have to get rid of the leeches but their teeth are sunk in so deep, it doesn't seem possible sometime.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

26. You're quite right ...

In fact, I'm going to edit my post to include corporate power, too.

It's both, in my book.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

18. I am also a "libertarian" --

I believe there should be minimal unnecessary interference from the government in a person's life. I believe people should be able to do whatever they wish to themselves/with their bodies so long as it doesn't interfere with another person's rights. I believe strongly in freedom of speech and freedom of the press. I believe in the decriminalization of drugs. I believe in the rights of all minorities to full and equal access to all benefits our country and laws allow.

I am also a "conservative". I strongly believe in the necessity of conserving the planet so that it will continue to support our and other species.

I am also a "liberal". I believe in the New Deal, the common good, the importance of Labor, public education and healthcare, diplomacy over warfare, a fair tax system, a knee on the throat of Wall Street, and the social safety net.

I think we are ALL shades of political variations that are far more complex and nuanced than a simple Party label. To see "Democrats" shit on the idea of "libertarianism" without acknowledging that Democrat should be "libertarians" on many, many issues is just embarrassing.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

21. I agree ...

... and as long as capitalism exists, I'll definitely support the New Deal, and agitate against the attempts to repeal it.

But, and here's the rub, FDR enacted the New Deal to save capitalism from itself. He usurped a lot of socialist rhetoric in order to get elected.

So, it's sort of a conundrum .

[Hell Hath No Fury]

45. I don't think we will ever be rid of...

capitalism in this country -- it is just to deeply embedded in our culture/mythology and too many in power that will do anything it takes to keep it going. I think a form of democratic socialism will be about the best we will do on a national level.

[JoePhilly]

46. How would "minimal unnecessary interference from the government" fit with ...

single payer health care or federally funded public education?

Libertarians on the right denounce these forms of government "interference".

They ask ... "Why should I pay for some one else's medical care or education?" And "Why does the government force me to participate?"

[Fantastic Anarchist]

52. I am for single payer, public education ...

... and publically financed elections. The reactionaries don't have a clue.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

55. As you said -

those views are on the right spectrum and really are more about economics, IMO. I am a leftist. I believe "life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness" is often accomplished most effectively collectively.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

61. Well said!

"Socialism itself will be of value because it will lead to individualism."

Quoted for truth.

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. And we have civil libertarians in this board too

hell, the Democratic party has a looooonnnngggg tradition of Populist politicians who were also (and are also) civil libertarians.

This is much older than the Democratic Party.

[b.durruti]

23. Me too -- I stand with Chomsky. Great post. ~nt~

[Fantastic Anarchist]

24. Durruti!

Another anarchist from Civil War Spain.

Dig the handle.

On edit: Welcome to DU. I assume that you are an anarchist, as well, given your handle?

[b.durruti]

114. Thank you

Some days I am anarchist, some days I am Trotskyist, I'm still figuring it out. But I am always anti-capitalist

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

30. Emma Goldman, Alexander Berkman, Big Bill Haywood, and Mohandas Gandhi.

Left Libertarians (aka: Anarchists) all.

Me too.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

32. Henry David Thoreau, Walt Whitman, Ernest Hemmingway, Leo Tolstoy

... Howard Zinn, George Orwell, Alan and Lucy Parsons, Noam Chomsky, Voltairine de Cleyre, Prince Peter Kropotkin, et al.

We're in good company.

Both MLK, Jr. and Gandhi were inspired by Tolstoy, by the way. The Christian anarchist really influenced their tactics.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. Yep. Tolstoy and Gandhi were friends who communicated often.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

38. You know, I didn't know that!

I thought Gandhi read Tolstoy, but now considering, they did live at the same time, so it makes sense.

Wow. Pretty fucking cool.

[leveymg]

103. I'll stand with the greatest political minds of the modern era against the apparachiks

and their indiscriminate attack on the entire Libertarian tradition. Just because Rand Paul calls himself one, doesn't make it so.

[LuvNewcastle]

31. K&R

I love to see posts that educate people on the political terminology they use. We could use a lot more posts like this one.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

34. Thank you very kindly.

I'm not sure if I educated anyone, but I did want to put it out there.

[Whisp]

50. You educated me, and thanks.

Last edited Fri Jun 28, 2013, 10:05 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm not so proud of lumping all into the Paulite pigtroughs,

but I'm also not too proud to be embarrassed about it.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

60. Thanks for keeping an open mind.

You should be proud about that.

[ucrdem]

39. Hoo boy. You seem very nice and I don't want to spoil your evening

but will you please keep in mind the possibility that Noble Noam is leading you down the primrose path? Nearly every post in this thread is packed with confused thinking but suffice it to say that libertarianism, however you want to dress it up, is a reactionary form of conservatism and is in no way compatible with New Deal democracy or civil rights advocacy in any way, shape, or form.

I'm not going to interfere with your thread as it seems civil enough but I do want to make it clear that some here very strongly object to Chomksy's line as a form of RW propaganda.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

40. Historical libertarianism ....

... required no New Deal to "save capitalism from itself." The people agitated for a classless, stateless society where people were free from want or need.

Like I said upthread, it was in the 1950s and 1960s where libertarianism became a term for reactionaries.

And Chomsky is not the only libertarian-socialist. In fact, ironically speaking, many anarchists are in conflict with Chomsky specifically because Chomsky supports the New Deal type of government because otherwise, in a capitalist world, there is no other alternative. He's not "all or nothing."

I agree with Chomsky on this sentiment.

Ideally, I'd like to have no state nor capitalism. But I understand the realities as they exist today, and under capitalist society, a New Deal type of government that provides a safety net is a necessity. But it is a paradox because holding up the New Deal, just keeps bourgeois capitalism on life-support.

Though, I believe in revolutionary politics, I am not a revolutionary (there is no revolution yet, and until then, I am not a revolutionary). So, either capitalism continues and we help the poor and working classes, or we affect revolution. To me, the former is the more possible of the two alternatives. And so, as with Chomsky, I support the New Deal.

Edit to add: Even in this country, historical libertarianism agitated for labor rights and the eight hour work day (Haymarket Martyrs). FDR pushed the New Deal precisely because of agitation from the various socialists.

The reactionaries are the charlatans for even using the word. They are the fascists. We are the libertarians.

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. You were shown the history already

What? The New Canaan and the yeomanry are too hard to get?

Trust me on this, both precede present day Chomsky by 500 years.

[mick063]

42. I am for the ideology

that benefits the greatest amount of people.

I still have much to learn when it comes to differentiating the specifics.

Whenever a small group of people benefit at the expense of many others, I have cause for concern. On the other hand, I believe those that contribute to help not only themselves, but to help others as well, should be rewarded for their effort.

I do fully understand this much:

Take any given government, organization, corporation, cooperative, or group, apply the human elements of greed, fear, hate, envy, and those elements will utterly destroy the social fabric no matter how well the social structure was originally conceived or intended.

From that previous statement, I believe there is no perfect format. Any conceivable social system will work if ethically applied. There have been cases where feudal monarchy has served the citizens well. There have been cases where representative government has not served the citizens well.

It all boils down to the human element.

As of now, our formerly great, well conceived nation is corrupt and does not serve the citizens well. Not because of the government format, but because our "representative" leaders, as a whole, do not intend to serve our citizens well.

[stevenleser]

43. I think in general, people have the right to be labeled the way they want to be labeled.

I find your definition of Libertarianism and the historical basis for it very interesting. I will have to read up more on it.

I think if DUers stopped labeling each other using labels people didn't choose for themselves and stopped using straw-men (not to mention other logical fallacies), this place would become much more civil in a hurry.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

44. I appreciate your post.

Historical libertarianism in the US and in Europe are fascinating. I'm sure you'll enjoy reading up on it.

[jazzimov]

51. But there is a huge difference between libertarian and Libertarian.

A libertarian (small l) tends to describe beliefs toward social liberties. A Libertarian (capital L) in the USA means that someone aligns themself with the beliefs of the Libertarian Party - which doesn't always align with libertarian beliefs.

It is simply a matter of semantics. But it is an important matter. Since this is a US based website, I would say that it's safe to say that anyone who criticizes a Libertarian is criticizing the hypocritical positions of the Libertarian (capital L) party and it's adherents.

Now, if you want to argue economic policies, we can do that. But you need to realize that those are different from social policies. NOW, if you want to argue the interaction of the two, that's another matter entirely!

And I feel that I am more than capable of discussing any of the three - at least, I am willing to discuss them.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

53. Me too.

[jazzimov]

70. So now that we admit semanitcs can be an issue,

can we discuss your interpretation as an anarchist/socialist? I like to describe myself as a capitalist/socialist - which I suspect we may agree on more than we disagree.

Personally, I think that economic policies are a subset of social policies - although economics affect social policies to the extent that some would put it first. So the two are intertwined.

I prefer to think of myself as outside of modern labels. People like to pigeon-hole others; I refuse to be pigeon - holed.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

71. That's a great question.

Unfortunately, I'm at a bar and texting from a phone. I'm assuming you are referring to some form of Mutualism. I will give you an answer tomorrow when I'm hungover. I'm interested in discussing this with you.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

88. I'm back and really hungover ....

... but I want to talk about this ... but probably not right now.

Anyway, I'm assuming that you are speaking of Mutualism, and not even Proudhon's Mutualism, but Mutualism as it is interpreted by Kevin Carson? His website is amazing, and he did attempt a anarchist, Marxist, Rothbard and Mises lense on some of his articles. Look I don't agree with everything he's written (or even understand some of it), but it is fascinating. Especially when he talks about cartelization of capital (and government intervention).

I'm wondering when you use the term such as capitalist/socialist, if you are referring to Proudhon or Carson and mutualism in general.

[rdharma]

54. Black block? nt

[cheapdate]

57. I think you're fighting an uphill battle.

Language is largely, if not entirely, defined by usage. In American usage "Libertarianism" has been widely and generally used for more than 50 years to describe the "right-wing", free-market kind of libertarianism. I sympathize with you, I'm just saying I think a battle over who "owns" the term libertarianism will be a long one.

And I think it's a bit misguided to get irritated at people for criticizing "libertarianism" -- when in fact they're almost certainly criticizing American style, free-market libertarianism and not your political beliefs, which are markedly different.

It's very possible that major political and societal changes are coming. It's good to be considering alternatives to the status quo. I'm curious how well you think organizing principles of the socialist-anarchist tradition would actually work, in practical terms, in a very large, diverse country such as our with a population of more than 300 million people living in densely populated cities, large suburban sprawl zones, and rural countryside.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

63. Obviously, I think that the country would no longer exist as a state-entity.

But, once we evolve a bit more, I don't see why we couldn't be an association of freely federated communities.

There's a wonderful online book called Anarchism: From Theory to Practice by Daniel Guerin. It's quite good. Highly recommended.

Sorry for the short answer, but I'm getting ready to go out soon.

[DonCoquixote]

58. I hear you..

I mean, I am Puerto Rican, and I have to deal with the image most people have of Puerto Ricans, which is NOTHING like the real thing.

However, here is an issue. Because the Oligarchs control their Media, they get to the point where they can attack LANGUAGE itself. See how few "progressives" call themselves liberals, or even how the term Liberal has been taken by conservatives. The one strength the GOP has is that they are very, very tight on the idea of their brand. The only real fight is that the Libertarians (ala Paul) want to kick the Holy Rollers out. We on the other hand, have to fought to define liberal.

The problem is, from BOTH the Democrats and Republicans, there is this group calling themselves the Libertarians. They want all the privileges of a state, but none of the obligations. Yes, I realize that the left wing "anarchists" do imagine different groups replacing what states did, but what the Paul right and the Clinton left want is a world where rich people can still do whatever the Hell they want, however they want it, just without all that religious baggage.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

66. I hear you, too.

Another thing is the Left tends to fracture very easily (and I'm not talking about the Democratic Party, I'm talking about actual Leftists). The Right are unified when in conflict with the Left.

Sometimes, we are our own worst enemy.

[rdharma]

59. Black Block?

[Fantastic Anarchist]

62. Are you referring to Black Bloc?

There is no "Black Block."

And as with socialism and anarchism, there are different strands promoting differing tactics. Some Black Bloc anarchists are dumbasses. Some use Black Bloc tactics (of which there are a rich variety) to affect change.

There's no single answer to your question.

Then of course, there's the use of state/corporate agents provocateur who intentionally discredit the movement. Black Bloc is a very old and diverse element of anarchism. And the state's use of tactics to counter it is equally as old.

[rdharma]

64. Spelling error..... Black Bloc

I was not very impressed with any of the self-proclaimed Black Bloc or 'Libertarians' that I met at occupy. Counter-productive agent provocateurs in my opinion!

[Fantastic Anarchist]

67. Yes, I agree. Some are total numbskulls.

But, Black Bloc is not a catch-all. There are times and tactics to use that are very effective.

[rdharma]

69. Tactics that discredited the occupy movement.

But what especially pissed me off was the Ron Paul "libertarians" who tried to co-op the movement!

[magellan]

72. Thanks for this, it's got me wondering...

Generally I consider myself a liberal, but whenever I've taken the political compass test over the years I score in the lower left part of the lower left quadrant. Just took it again:

Economic Left/Right: -8.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.74



It's really no wonder to me that I'm so out of step with the current Third Way Democratic Party:



But what am I? Where or who should I start reading?

[sibelian]

73. K+R

[Catherina]

74. Whatever you are, I am proud to call myself your sister n/t

[Fantastic Anarchist]

84. And I your brother, Catherina!

Good to see you here!

[Scootaloo]

76. And Randian libtertarians call themselves "classic liberals"

And today's liberals call themselves progressives, while that was a term used for conservative-leaning centrists (as opposed to the radical left and the proto-fascism of the times) back at the turn of the 20th century.

Political labels grow and change with time. They are among the least static parts of our language, and could very well be considered a highfalutan sort of slang.

Arguing over who is or isn't an "actual libertarian" is a fruitless exercise, since hte gneeral meaning of hte term has changed.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

85. Classical Liberalism ...

... since the Enlightenment has evolved, and yes, conservatives use it, too.

And you are right about language. But it is precisely political language that should be guarded because of the implications of usage. Look at the Democratic Republicans vs. Federalists!

We are all Democratic Republican Federalists now!

[LeftishBrit]

77. In the UK, 'libertarian' used to mean 'civil libertarian' ...

and economic libertarianism was called 'laissez faire economics'.

Nowadays, there is a tendency here too to use the term libertarian in its right-wing sense; and also by too many to swallow the myth that civil libertarianism and economic libertarianism go together.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

87. That is true.

I'm here to say that's not the case.

[Eleanors38]

104. In future discussions on anarchism, socialism, and libertarianism

it would be interesting to touch on anarcho-syndicalism. This was practiced in a twisted way in Yugoslavia, and IIRC still is in the Basque regions.

[BlueToTheBone]

101. Libertarians in the US are republicans who

don't want to admit they are. Libertarians closed all the public libraries in southern Oregon...Ron Paul's web master died from lack of insurance...Libertarians don't feel that we should have insurance and health care for all. The only thing that attracts people is that they don't think drugs should be outlawed.

BTW this is a DEMOCRATIC discussion board.

[felix_numinous]

112. Thank you for initiating this

vital conversation. I admired Howard Zinn and many others mentioned here.

This Party has been dragged to the right because the movers and shakers have been successfully marginalized. Socialists, union organizers and civil libertarians are a direct threat to the MIC/ prison/ surveillance state so we can expect their paid media representatives to vilify them-- and condition people even within our own party to fear and loathe these concepts, it has been done already.

Which is why we need to encourage independent thought-- if we are to declare independence from corporate rule-- we need to be aware of how they work to profoundly change the national dialogue to serve their best interests.