please compare 'anarchism' and 'classical liberalism' and 'libertarianism'
please compare 'anarchism' and 'classical liberalism' and 'libertarianism'
i know only a little bit about each philosophy. they seem so similar, and i wonder, are they really just the same thing in spirit? or would you make certain distinctions? i'm seeking more understanding. i know that each has a different history, but i am asking about the philosophies themselves, separate from their manifestations.
additionally, are there other titled philosophies that are more or less the same as these?
i have read some definitions of so-called "classical liberalism" and they vary. some say that it is a philosophy that isn't attached to any political agendas, but other definitions bind it to certain political agendas. i presume that so-called anarchism and libertarianism are also defined in different ways depending on who you ask.
it seems to me that many of the terms people use to categorize each other are too ambiguous, over-simplify, become perverted over time, and cause too much misunderstanding. maybe we should rid ourselves of these category conventions altogether, but that's a conversation for another time; my primary question is enough of a topic for this post's discussion.
You're viewing a single thread.
Classical liberalism, libertarianism, and anarchism are absolutely not interchangeable.
Liberalism is a group of related ideologies that descend from (or claim to draw from) Western Enlightenment thinkers. Classical liberals are people who claim to represent the views of those thinkers, in contrast with the modern generation of liberals who will pay lip service to modern notions of social welfare. Classical liberals typically advocate for free markets, low/no taxes especially for the wealthy, and "limited" government in the sense that it is only limited in their authority to help the poor and downtrodden [1].
Libertarianism is a term used for several movements and ideologies. Without qualification, I feel like it has little use. The original usage of the word was in relation to early libertarian leftism [4]. However, the current usage of the word is for """libertarian""" capitalists. Their ideology retains private property, but calls for the nominal abolition or reduction of government power.
Anarchism is, in my view, the label applying to those ideologies and movements that oppose all forms of authority and hierarchy. In my opinion, a consistent anarchist ought to oppose liberal democracy and liberal political systems in general. Liberals are creatures of the right because they don't oppose capitalism and usually don't oppose hierarchy on principle. Liberals have a historical tendency to betray movements that are too hostile towards their status quo, even if that means siding with obvious bigots who would kill them if given the chance. "Scratch a liberal, and a fascist bleeds." [2]
Some people use the term "libertarian socialist" (or "communist" depending on their economic beliefs) to denote those socialists (or communists) who believe in opposing authority and hierarchy, but believe that full abolition of the state is impractical. We otherwise draw from the same thinkers. Basically, all anarchist socialists [3] are libertarian socialists, but some libertarian socialists may not strictly be anarchists (but many are).
In my view, the error that "rank and file" liberals make is in taking the words of Enlightenment philosophers out of context (assuming they're arguing in good faith, which is usually a generous assumption). This causes them to inherit the biases of those philosophers, and this is especially true about classical liberals who distinctly seek out an outdated liberal perspective that doesn't challenge their bigotry. This "useful idiot" property of liberals is exploited by capitalists to create ideologues who apologize for capitalism, and by fascists who exploit liberals' aversion to change to oppose socialist movements.
Make no mistake: liberalism is the ideology of capital, and liberal writings from at least the previous century onward should be regarded as obvious capitalist propaganda. That being said, I'm not of the opinion that we need to dispose of all Enlightenment thought, but we must read into these ideals with a great deal of skepticism and context.
[1] This is not meant to imply that the State is even designed to help the poor, or that state welfare is the be-all end-all solution to poverty. However, as a stopgap measure, government welfare is better than literally nothing, although not equivalent to genuine mutual aid or building communities.
[2] I don't mean that liberals are all outright fascists. What that expression really says is that in times of distress, liberals will side with fascists before liberation movements. However, even in comfort, liberal perspectives are...kinda wack, because they're so obviously trying to justify oppression.
[3] For various reasons, including historical atrocities committed by self-identified socialists and arguments that socialist frameworks, even those that guarantee freedom, are themselves hierarchies that need to be dismantled, not every anarchist identifies as a socialist or even a leftist. Personally, I don't think that socialist frameworks are inherently hierarchical, but I understand that even supposedly "anarchist" societies have the possibility to develop hierarchies and injustice if we become complacent, and that we should be continuously re-evaluating our relationship with the rest of the Left.
[4] EDIT: replaced "communism" with "leftism", removed "e.g. direct transition to stateless, classless, moneyless society".
regarding libertarianism, you said,
The original usage of the word was in relation to early libertarian communism, e.g. direct transition to stateless, classless, moneyless society.
mambabasa said,
Classical or left-libertarianism is the same as anarchism. When the French government outlawed anarchism in the late 19th century, anarchists in France developed a new word to describe themselves and their political philosophy. They began to call themselves libertarians instead of anarchists.
these seem to be contrary claims. or are you both saying the same thing?
I think mambabasa is more correct here, and I'll change my comment in a minute. The point I was really trying to make was that the term "libertarian" "belonged" to the left instead of the right as is typically assumed.
That being said, I still think that libertarian leftism is a superset of anarchism.
thanks for your input. i honored your request to ignore the content of your earlier mis-post but was sure to read all of this one.
I will get at the end about liberalism/social-democracy as it deserves not much discussion. Historically though the core of liberalism was groups of ideas against monarchy/oligarchy and by doing so it promoted an equality among the people to rule instead of inheriting political power. In this respect, even Marxists and anarchists are part of historic liberalism. With the defeat (US 1776 France 1789) of monarchy and conversion of other states to keep royalty as ornaments (costly ornaments) and as guarantors of democracy, and as a club for elites, liberalism in this sense lost its goal. The modern state was modeled after the US/French model, and in particular the French seemed to take for ever to form.
For the record, libertarianism till 50s-60s. when US anti-communism spread like a disease, is, was, and will be, a specific part of anarchism/anarcho-communism, a proposal on how people/workers can organize according to libertarian principles. Libertarian principles are such that seek to protect and maintain all forms of equality in decision making among the members of the body that is making the decision. Emma Goldman, Luigi and Luce Fabri, Errico Malatesta, are among the most essential writers where libertarian principles are described.
This other monstrosity of an ideology associated as libertarianism is pure propaganda for the masses to diffuse interest from the original, to the extent that it is diametrically opposed to true libertarianism. It only appeals to the uneducated and to those who lack any form of critical ability. Capitalism, unleashed from the constrains of the superstructure of state (dialectically formed between the upper class and working class struggle for better conditions) is a short lived dead end situation and the quickest way to ultimate fascism, where the wealthiest can control every aspect of the lives of the lower class. In other words, under such proposals or this other form of anti-communism called anarcho-capitalism (yet another manufactured ideology from the depths of US state agencies), capitalism implodes to its final state, fascism and totalitarianism.
[The true essence of fascism is anti-communism, it is why fascism was created, to control and suppress communism. An earlier form of a manufactured propaganda to counter what is a threat to capitalism. Fascism evolved from para-military groups protecting scabs (strike busting mechanism) after late 1800s mass struggles. Such groups did the dirty work that official cops and soldiers couldn't do in defense of industrialists. A manufactured ideology to fit the profile of those thugs evolved into the monsters of Germany, Italy, Turkey, Japan.]
The support for what I am talking about is simple logic. It takes enormous political power or brutal force to maintain inequality for a long time (state) and this is all the capitalist state is; the maintainer and enforcer of inequality. A powerful state knows well enough what it takes to prolong its own existence, how far to take things, when to take a step back, to maintain social integrity and prevent uprising and revolt. Without a state, or with a lesser state, capitalists as individualistic as they are, they will suck it all in, and leave everyone else hungry and miserable. Then they have nobody to sell to (economic crisis), but it is too late to realize it. It happened in the US in the 30s and spread across the industrialized western world like a fire. Since then they decided social democracy was necessary "to the capitalists" to maintain this great inequality, where 2% have/control 98% of land and resources. Private property can only be maintained by a state (laws, judicial system, police/army) otherwise it is just an immaterial idea.
Outside the US, and its puppets of English speaking world (a small minority of earth) where propaganda spreads the most, people only laugh at US libertarianism as a silly joke. It is also the US that gave birth to distinguishing labels such as libertarian-left or libertarian-socialist etc. True libertarians are true anti-capitalists to the core. Libertarians oppose all forms of social inequality, not just economic but beyond economics. Race, gender, age, physical condition, certificates of education, do not matter, all participants are equal and have an equal right of self representation, expression, and decision power.
There are 2 proposals against capitalism, the so called (in the US tankie) m-l authoritarian proposal, and the libertarian proposal. The one is pro-vanguard revolutionary the other is anti-vanguard social-revolution oriented. The one mandates economic only equality while building an enormous political inequality (similar or worse than the one in capitalism), the other builds on political equality where economic equality is the obvious logical result (we can't collectively agree on our own economic inequality). Some will also argue that a powerful modern state can not help but reproduce capitalist relations in society, as the modern state itself is a fabrication of capitalists. Pre-capitalist states have significant differences and organization.
Both proposals (m-l and libertarian) though differ on values and principles, not on content or logical explanation, although there has been enormous debate on whether that is true or not. The synthesis of the two can only be found on the necessity of a vanguard organization but not to rule and govern but to serve, protect, and obey those who choose to exit capitalism (zapatistas). It therefore promotes collective/communal autonomy organized by a communal assembly as the highest form of authority, which serves the members and not the other way around. The vanguard protects the uprising and the process of autonomy construction, does not intervene and does not act without the decisions of the communities. The antithesis of lib/m-l can not survive too long (1.5 centuries) without a possible synthesis.
To take it a step further, the most vicious and dangerous defenders of capitalism are reformist liberals and pseudo-socialists, who project some fake liveable-sustainable capitalism that is easy on the "losers" of their gambling game. They will always be the best friends to capitalists who feel threatened by the class they exploit and suppress. A large part of the state apparatus is there not due to necessity but due to class insecurity (the ruling class).
Religion, sports, entertainment, ethnicity, are all aspects of the state as a mechanism to prevent uprising and revolution. It pre-occupies people with non-problems so they don't seek a collective solution to their true problems.
That is my take on the fragmentation of working class ideologies. As for neo-liberalism, the ideology of the upper-class, it appears to have formed as an ideology after the evolutionary step for recreating or postponing the end of capitalism of the 1930s. The collective measures capitalists undertook to evade the "communist threat" and the attempt to harness the state and its ability to create a social democracy, are what mattered. The propaganda for it, what is rhetoric is, and what capitalist federations do are different things. It is as if an ideology was created to serve the interests of the ruling class after the fact, even though it is perceived as having inspired those that employed neo-liberal reforms. Up until the 70s few people used the term neo-liberal (the Chile experiment did broadcast it), then Reagan and Thatcher came and placed it in the political discourse. Withit there is the fallacy that the evolution of capitalism and neo-liberal state can revert to a social democracy, which is impossible.
Classical Marxist theory fails to interpret or theorize upon neo-liberalism for various reasons, so strict Marxists hate to speak about it or even acknowledge it. Anarchists who have little theoretical foundations for the same reason Marxists deny it, they don't speak much about it.