Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

leftists for a free economy?

Expand Messages
  • libertarianlawyer
    Pretty much any leftist I have heard, read or encountered takes the position that central planning and statism is the way to go. If they don t, then they
    Message 1 of 117 , Apr 1, 2010
      Pretty much any leftist I have heard, read or encountered takes the position that central planning and statism is the way to go. If they don't, then they aren't "genuine" leftists, but libertarians or anarchists. And ask most "progressive" or comtemporary leftists (either Democrats, Socialists or Communists), and they will tell you the biggest nutcases are libertarians and anarchists.

      Your position is that no "genuine" leftist favors state control and central planning of the economy?

      If so, that is a preposterous statement.

      --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Marja Erwin <merwin@...> wrote:
      > I don't know of any genuine leftist who would take that position. Maybe some Marxist-Leninists if you consider them leftists, but even they claim to desire human freedom, including economic freedom, in the long run.
      > On Mar 31, 2010, at 12:09 PM, libertarianlawyer wrote:
      > > I think many leftists despise free markets not because they believe people are subject to forces beyond their control, but because they don't believe there should be free markets or individual, voluntary economic decision making. They believe in central planning, common good etc and freedom is not a value they have.
      > >
      > > They may scream "freedom" when it comes to aborting fetus's or something, but they don't see freedom as relevant in commmerce and economics, and they certainly believe central planning and utilitarianism, as dictated by political elite, trumps any notions of freedom that do exist in these areas.
      > >
      > > If by "priviliged status for capital", you mean state granted priviliges, I agree. If you mean something else by that phrase then it would have to be explained further.
    • MikeHolmesTX@cs.com
      In a message dated 5/9/2010 4:41:48 PM Central Daylight Time, ... I think you are on to something here. Bookchin s rhetoric seems very classically
      Message 117 of 117 , May 11, 2010
        In a message dated 5/9/2010 4:41:48 PM Central Daylight Time,
        feedback@... writes:

        > I could be mistaken, but my suspicion is that the valence of
        > "individualism" here is mainly supposed to be caught up with the thing that Marxists are
        > criticizing when they complain about "individualism" in, e.g., bourgeois
        > liberal or utopian socialist politics -- roughly, the notion that revolution
        > can be brought about through the accumulation of so many individual acts
        > of personal emancipation, resistance or withdrawal, without a concerted
        > effort at organizing or making structural changes. (There is something similar
        > going on in, e.g., the Redstockings' critique of what they call "cultural
        > feminism," which is again taken to be a form of individualism, in something
        > like the Marxian sense.) Anyway, while Bookchin's critique does conflate
        > like crazy, I think the core meaning he attaches to "individualism" is really
        > neither something directly entailed by, nor something that directly
        > entails, either philosophic egoism or political individua lism in the
        > Spooner-Tucker-Yarros sense.
        > For whatever that's worth.
        > -C

        I think you are on to something here. Bookchin's rhetoric seems very
        classically Marxist/Leninist in theory anyway, so the terms are not to be taken at
        normal face value.

        "Individualism" was usually a sin of some kind, depending upon who it was
        describing. Generally going against the class analysis and class approach to
        whatever was supposed to be done. The connotation was of selfishness and
        unwillingness to sacrifice (or follow orders) for the collective good.
        Generally when not following the Party Line on something, and not doing so under
        some recognizable leader/theory variant, the accusation was usually about
        pernicious individualism.

        This was one of the weakest theoretical sins however, because individualism
        is inherent in human nature. Explaining why it is bad is a tough sell.

        The entire shift of the Left to the politics of the personal (gay rights,
        anti racism, feminism, et. al.) tended to be labeled as an individualist
        deviation, though classic Marxists also would claim that "true" Marxism would
        also take care of these issues as part of the reformation of Man. That didn't
        sell since it was obviously untrue.

        Bookchin seemed definitely old school, so his critique of then contemporary
        anarchism is hardly understandable today without translation into that
        specialized vocabulary.

        When a self proclaimed anarchist is accusing other anarchists of
        individualism, that is highly presumptuous. Most would take that as a compliment


      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.