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

Libertarian Left

Expand Messages
  • Dan Clore
    News & Views for Anarchists & Activists: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo http://www.amconmag.com/blog/libertarian-left/ Libertarian Left Free-market
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 6, 2011
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

      http://www.amconmag.com/blog/libertarian-left/
      Libertarian Left
      Free-market anti-capitalism, the unknown ideal
      By Sheldon Richman

      Ron Paul’s 2008 presidential campaign introduced many people to the word
      “libertarian.” Since Paul is a Republican and Republicans, like
      libertarians, use the rhetoric of free markets and private enterprise,
      people naturally assume that libertarians are some kind of quirky
      offshoot of the American right wing. To be sure, some libertarian
      positions fit uneasily with mainstream conservatism—complete drug
      decriminalization, legal same-sex marriage, and the critique of the
      national-security state alienate many on the right from libertarianism.

      But the dominant strain of libertarianism still seems at home on that
      side of the political spectrum. Paeans to property rights and free
      enterprise—the mainstream libertarian conviction that the American
      capitalist system, despite government intervention, fundamentally
      embodies those values—appear to justify that conclusion.

      But then one runs across passages like this: “Capitalism, arising as a
      new class society directly from the old class society of the Middle
      Ages, was founded on an act of robbery as massive as the earlier feudal
      conquest of the land. It has been sustained to the present by continual
      state intervention to protect its system of privilege without which its
      survival is unimaginable.” And this: “build worker solidarity. On the
      one hand, this means formal organisation, including unionization—but I’m
      not talking about the prevailing model of ‘business unions’ … but real
      unions, the old-fashioned kind, committed to the working class and not
      just union members, and interested in worker autonomy, not government
      patronage.”

      These passages—the first by independent scholar Kevin Carson, the second
      by Auburn University philosophy professor Roderick Long—read as though
      they come not from libertarians but from radical leftists, even
      Marxists. That conclusion would be only half wrong: these words were
      written by pro-free-market left-libertarians. (The preferred term for
      their economic ideal is “freed market,” coined by William Gillis.)

      These authors—and a growing group of colleagues—see themselves as both
      libertarians and leftists. They are standard libertarians in that they
      believe in the moral legitimacy of private ownership and free exchange
      and oppose all government interference in personal and economic
      affairs—a groundless, pernicious dichotomy. Yet they are leftists in
      that they share traditional left-wing concerns, about exploitation and
      inequality for example, that are largely ignored, if not dismissed, by
      other libertarians. Left-libertarians favor worker solidarity vis-à-vis
      bosses, support poor people’s squatting on government or abandoned
      property, and prefer that corporate privileges be repealed before the
      regulatory restrictions on how those privileges may be exercised. They
      see Walmart as a symbol of corporate favoritism—supported by highway
      subsidies and eminent domain—view the fictive personhood of the
      limited-liability corporation with suspicion, and doubt that Third World
      sweatshops would be the “best alternative” in the absence of government
      manipulation.

      Left-libertarians tend to eschew electoral politics, having little
      confidence in strategies that work through the government. They prefer
      to develop alternative institutions and methods of working around the
      state. The Alliance of the Libertarian Left encourages the formation of
      local activist and mutual-aid organizations, while its website promotes
      kindred groups and posts articles elaborating its philosophy. The new
      Center for a Stateless Society (C4SS) encourages left-libertarians to
      bring their analysis of current events to the general public through op-eds.

      These laissez-faire left-libertarians are not to be confused with other
      varieties of left-wing libertarians, such as Noam Chomsky or Hillel
      Steiner, who each in his own way objects to individualistic
      appropriation of unowned natural resources and the economic inequality
      that freed markets can produce. The left-libertarians under
      consideration here have been called “market-oriented left-libertarians”
      or “market anarchists,” though not everyone in this camp is an anarchist.

      There are historical grounds for placing pro-market libertarianism on
      the left. In the first half of the 19th century, the laissez-faire
      liberal economist Frederic Bastiat sat on the left side of the French
      National Assembly with other radical opponents of the ancien régime,
      including a variety of socialists. The right side was reserved for
      reactionary defenders of absolute monarchy and plutocracy. For a long
      time “left” signified radical, even revolutionary, opposition to
      political authority, fired by hope and optimism, while “right” signified
      sympathy for a status quo of privilege or a return to an authoritarian
      order. These terms applied even in the United States well into the 20th
      century and only began to change during the New Deal, which prompted
      regrettable alliances of convenience that carried over into the Cold War
      era and beyond.

      At the risk of oversimplifying, there are two wellsprings of modern
      pro-market left-libertarianism: the theory of political economy
      formulated by Murray N. Rothbard and the philosophy known as “Mutualism”
      associated with the pro-market anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon—who sat
      with Bastiat on the left side of the assembly while arguing with him
      incessantly about economic theory—and the American individualist
      anarchist Benjamin R. Tucker.

      Rothbard (1926-1995) was the leading theorist of radical Lockean
      libertarianism combined with Austrian economics, which demonstrates that
      free markets produce widespread prosperity, social cooperation, and
      economic coordination without monopoly, depression, or inflation—evils
      whose roots are to be found in government intervention. Rothbard, who
      called himself an “anarcho-capitalist,” first saw himself as a man of
      the “Old Right,” the loose collection of opponents of the New Deal and
      American Empire epitomized by Sen. Robert Taft, journalist John T.
      Flynn, and more radically, Albert Jay Nock. Yet Rothbard understood
      libertarianism’s left-wing roots.

      In his 1965 classic and sweeping essay “Left and Right: The Prospects
      for Liberty,” Rothbard identified “liberalism”—what is today called
      libertarianism—with the left as “the party of hope, of radicalism, of
      liberty, of the Industrial Revolution, of progress, of humanity.” The
      other great ideology to emerge after the French revolution “was
      conservatism, the party of reaction, the party that longed to restore
      the hierarchy, statism, theocracy, serfdom, and class exploitation of
      the Old Order.”

      When the New Left arose in the 1960s to oppose the Vietnam War, the
      military-industrial complex, and bureaucratic centralization, Rothbard
      easily made common cause with it. “The Left has changed greatly, and it
      is incumbent upon everyone interested in ideology to understand the
      change… . [T]he change marks a striking and splendid infusion of
      libertarianism into the ranks of the Left,” he wrote in “Liberty and
      the New Left.” His left-radicalism was clear in his interest in
      decentralization and participatory democracy, pro-peasant land reform in
      the feudal Third World, “black power,” and worker “homesteading” of
      American corporations whose profits came mainly from government contracts.

      But with the fading of New Left, Rothbard deemphasized these positions
      and moved strategically toward right-wing paleoconservatism. His
      left-libertarian colleague, the former Goldwater speechwriter Karl Hess
      (1923-1994), kept the torch burning. In Dear America Hess wrote, “On the
      far right, law and order means the law of the ruler and the order that
      serves the interest of that ruler, usually the orderliness of drone
      workers, submissive students, elders either totally cowed into loyalty
      or totally indoctrinated and trained into that loyalty,” while the left
      “has been the side of politics and economics that opposes the
      concentration of power and wealth and, instead, advocates and works
      toward the distribution of power into the maximum number of hands.”

      Benjamin Tucker (1854-1939) was the editor of Liberty, the leading
      publication of American individualist anarchism. As a Mutualist, Tucker
      rigorously embraced free markets and voluntary exchange void of all
      government privilege and regulation. Indeed, he called himself a
      “consistent Manchester man,” a reference to the economic philosophy of
      the English free-traders Richard Cobden and John Bright. Tucker
      disdained defenders of the American status quo who, while favoring free
      competition among workers for jobs, supported capitalist suppression of
      competition among employers through government’s “four monopolies”:
      land, the tariff, patents, and money.

      “What causes the inequitable distribution of wealth?” Tucker asked in
      1892. “It is not competition, but monopoly, that deprives labor of its
      product. … Destroy the banking monopoly, establish freedom in finance,
      and down will go interest on money through the beneficent influence of
      competition. Capital will be set free, business will flourish, new
      enterprises will start, labor will be in demand, and gradually the wages
      of labor will rise to a level with its product.”

      The Rothbardians and Mutualists have some disagreements over land
      ownership and theories of value, but their intellectual
      cross-pollination has brought the groups closer philosophically. What
      unites them, and distinguishes them from other market libertarians, is
      their embrace of traditional left-wing concerns, including the
      consequences of plutocratic corporate power for workers and other
      vulnerable groups. But left-libertarians differ from other leftists in
      identifying the culprit as the historical partnership between government
      and business—whether called the corporate state, state capitalism, or
      just plain capitalism—and in seeing the solution in radical laissez
      faire, the total separation of economy and state.

      Thus behind the political-economic philosophy is a view of history that
      separates left-libertarians from both ordinary leftists and ordinary
      libertarians. The common varieties of both philosophies agree that
      essentially free markets reigned in England from the time of the
      Industrial Revolution, though they evaluate the outcome very
      differently. But left-libertarians are revisionists, insisting that the
      era of near laissez faire is a myth. Rather than a radical freeing of
      economic affairs, England saw the ruling elite rig the social system on
      behalf of propertied class interests. (Class analysis originated with
      French free-market economists predating Marx.)

      Through enclosure, peasants were dispossessed of land they and their kin
      had worked for generations and were forcibly turned into rent-paying
      tenants or wage-earners in the new factories with their rights to
      organize and even to move restricted by laws of settlement, poor laws,
      combination laws, and more. In the American colonies and early republic,
      the system was similarly rigged through land grants and speculation (for
      and by railroads, for example), voting restrictions, tariffs, patents,
      and control of money and banking.

      In other words, the twilight of feudalism and the dawn of capitalism did
      not find everyone poised at the starting line as equals—far from it. As
      the pro-market sociologist Franz Oppenheimer, who developed the conquest
      theory of the state, wrote in his book The State, it was not superior
      talent, ambition, thrift, or even luck that separated the
      property-holding minority from the propertyless proletarian majority—but
      legal plunder, to borrow Bastiat’s famous phrase.

      Here is something Marx got right. Indeed, Kevin Carson seconds Marx’s
      “eloquent passage”: “these new freedmen became sellers of themselves
      only after they had been robbed of all their own means of production,
      and of all the guarantees afforded by the old feudal arrangements. And
      the history of this, their expropriation, is written in the annals of
      mankind in letters of blood and fire.”

      This system of privilege and exploitation has had long-distorting
      effects that continue to afflict most people to this day, while
      benefiting the ruling elite; Carson calls it “the subsidy of history.”
      This is not to deny that living standards have generally risen in
      market-oriented mixed economies but rather to point out that living
      standards for average workers would be even higher—not to mention less
      debt-based—and wealth disparities less pronounced in a freed market.

      The “free-market anti-capitalism” of left-libertarianism is no
      contradiction, nor is it a recent development. It permeated Tucker’s
      Liberty, and the identification of worker exploitation harked back at
      least to Thomas Hodgskin (1787-1869), a free-market radical who was one
      of the first to apply the term “capitalist” disparagingly to the
      beneficiaries of government favors bestowed on capital at the expense of
      labor. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, “socialism” did not
      exclusively mean collective or government ownership of the means or
      production but was an umbrella term for anyone who believed labor was
      cheated out of its natural product under historical capitalism.

      Tucker sometimes called himself a socialist, but he denounced Marx as
      the representative of “the principle of authority which we live to
      combat.” He thought Proudhon the superior theorist and the real champion
      of freedom. “Marx would nationalize the productive and distributive
      forces; Proudhon would individualize and associate them.”

      The term capitalism certainly suggests that capital is to be privileged
      over labor. As left-libertarian author Gary Chartier of La Sierra
      University writes, “[I]t makes sense for [left-libertarians] to name
      what they oppose ‘capitalism.’ Doing so … ensures that advocates of
      freedom aren’t confused with people who use market rhetoric to prop up
      an unjust status quo, and expresses solidarity between defenders of
      freed markets and workers—as well as ordinary people around the world
      who use ‘capitalism’ as a short-hand label for the world-system that
      constrains their freedom and stunts their lives.”

      In contrast to nonleft-libertarians, who seem uninterested in, if not
      hostile to, labor concerns per se, left-libertarians naturally
      sympathize with workers’ efforts to improve their conditions. (Bastiat,
      like Tucker, supported worker associations.) However, there is little
      affinity for government-certified bureaucratic unions, which represent
      little more than a corporatist suppression of the pre-New Deal
      spontaneous and self-directed labor/mutual-aid movement, with its
      “unauthorized” sympathy strikes and boycotts. Before the New Deal Wagner
      Act, big business leaders like GE’s Gerard Swope had long supported
      labor legislation for this reason.

      Moreover, left-libertarians tend to harbor a bias against wage
      employment and the often authoritarian corporate hierarchy to which it
      is subject. Workers today are handicapped by an array of regulations,
      taxes, intellectual-property laws, and business subsidies that on net
      impede entry to potential alternative employers and self-employment. As
      well, periodic economic crises set off by government borrowing and
      Federal Reserve management of money and banking threaten workers with
      unemployment, putting them further at the mercy of bosses.

      Competition-inhibiting cartelization diminishes workers’ bargaining
      power, enabling employers to deprive them of a portion of the income
      they would receive in a freed and fully competitive economy, where
      employers would have to compete for workers—rather than vice versa—and
      self-employment free of licensing requirements would offer an escape
      from wage employment altogether. Of course, self-employment has its
      risks and wouldn’t be for everyone, but it would be more attractive to
      more people if government did not make the cost of living, and hence the
      cost of decent subsistence, artificially high in myriad ways—from
      building codes and land-use restrictions to product standards, highway
      subsidies, and government-managed medicine.

      In a freed market left-libertarians expect to see less wage employment
      and more worker-owned enterprises, co-ops, partnerships, and single
      proprietorships. The low-cost desktop revolution, Internet, and
      inexpensive machine tools make this more feasible than ever. There would
      be no socialization of costs through transportation subsidies to favor
      nationwide over regional and local commerce. A spirit of independence
      can be expected to prompt a move toward these alternatives for the
      simple reason that employment to some extent entails subjecting oneself
      to someone else’s arbitrary will and the chance of abrupt dismissal.
      Because of the competition from self-employment, what wage employment
      remained would most likely take place in less-hierarchical, more-humane
      firms that, lacking political favors, could not socialize diseconomies
      of scale as large corporations do today.

      Left-libertarians, drawing on the work of New Left historians, also
      dissent from the conservative and standard libertarian view that the
      economic regulations of the Progressive Era and New Deal were imposed by
      social democrats on an unwilling freedom-loving business community. On
      the contrary, as Gabriel Kolko and others have shown, the corporate
      elite—the House of Morgan, for example—turned to government intervention
      when it realized in the waning 19th century that competition was too
      unruly to guarantee market share.

      Thus left-libertarians see post-Civil War America not as a golden era of
      laissez faire but rather as a largely corrupt business-ruled outgrowth
      of the war, which featured the usual military contracting and
      speculation in government-securities. As in all wars, government gained
      power and well-connected businessmen gained taxpayer-financed fortunes
      and hence unfair advantage in the allegedly free market of the Gilded
      Age. “War is the health of the state,” leftist intellectual Randolph
      Bourne wrote. Civil war too.

      These conflicting historical views are well illustrated in the writings
      of the pro-capitalist novelist Ayn Rand (1905-1982) and Roy A. Childs
      Jr. (1949-1992), a libertarian writer-editor with definite leftist
      leanings. In the 1960s Rand wrote an essay with the self-explanatory
      title “America’s Persecuted Minority: Big Business,” which Childs
      answered with “Big Business and the Rise of American Statism.” “To a
      large degree it has been and remains big businessmen who are the
      fountainheads of American statism,” Childs wrote.

      One way to view the separation of left-libertarians from other market
      libertarians is this: the others look at the American economy and see an
      essentially free market coated with a thin layer of Progressive and New
      Deal intervention that need only to be scraped away to restore liberty.
      Left-libertarians see an economy that is corporatist to its core,
      although with limited competitive free enterprise. The programs
      constituting the welfare state are regarded as secondary and
      ameliorative, that is, intended to avert potentially dangerous social
      discontent by succoring—and controlling—the people harmed by the system.

      Left-libertarians clash with regular libertarians most frequently when
      the latter display what Carson calls “vulgar libertarianism” and what
      Roderick Long calls “Right-conflationism.” This consists of judging
      American business in today’s statist environment as though it were
      taking place in the freed market. Thus while nonleft-libertarians
      theoretically recognize that big business enjoys monopolistic
      privileges, they also defend corporations when they come under attack
      from the left on grounds that if they were not serving consumers, the
      competitive market would punish them. “Vulgar libertarian apologists for
      capitalism use the term ‘free market’ in an equivocal sense,” Carson
      writes, “[T]hey seem to have trouble remembering, from one moment to the
      next, whether they’re defending actually existing capitalism or free
      market principles.”

      Signs of Right-conflationism can be seen in the common mainstream
      libertarian defensiveness at leftist criticism of income inequality,
      America’s corporate structure, high oil prices, or the healthcare
      system. If there’s no free market, why be defensive? You can usually
      make a nonleft-libertarian mad by comparing Western Europe favorably
      with the United States. To this, Carson writes, “[I]f you call yourself
      a libertarian, don’t try to kid anybody that the American system is less
      statist than the German one just because more of the welfare queens wear
      three-piece suits… . [I]f we’re choosing between equal levels of
      statism, of course I’ll take the one that weighs less heavily on my own
      neck.”

      True to their heritage, left-libertarians champion other historically
      oppressed groups: the poor, women, people of color, gays, and
      immigrants, documented or not. Left-libertarians see the poor not as
      lazy opportunists but rather as victims of the statemyriad barriers to
      self-help, mutual aid, and decent education. Left-libertarians of course
      oppose government oppression of women and minorities, but they wish to
      combat nonviolent forms of social oppression such as racism and sexism
      as well. Since these are not carried out by force, the measures used to
      oppose them also may not entail force or the state. Thus, sex and racial
      discrimination are to be fought through boycotts, publicity, and
      demonstrations, not violence or antidiscrimination laws. For
      left-libertarians, southern lunch-counter racism was better battled
      through peaceful sit-ins than with legislation in Washington, which
      merely ratified what direct action had been accomplishing without help
      from the white elite.

      Why do left-libertarians qua libertarians care about nonviolent,
      nonstate oppression? Because libertarianism is premised on the dignity
      and self-ownership of the individual, which sexism and racism deny. Thus
      all forms of collectivist hierarchy undermine the libertarian attitude
      and hence the prospects for a free society.

      In a word, left-libertarians favor equality. Not material equality—that
      can’t be had without oppression and the stifling of initiative. Not mere
      equality under the law—for the law might be oppressive. And not just
      equal freedom—for an equal amount of a little freedom is intolerable.
      They favor what Roderick Long, drawing on John Locke, calls equality in
      authority: “Lockean equality involves not merely equality before
      legislators, judges, and police, but, far more crucially, equality with
      legislators, judges, and police.”

      Finally, like most ordinary libertarians, left-libertarians adamantly
      oppose war and the American empire. They embrace an essentially economic
      analysis of imperialism: privileged firms seek access to resources,
      foreign markets for surplus goods, and ways to impose
      intellectual-property laws on emerging industrial societies to keep
      foreign manufacturers from driving down prices through competition.
      (This is not to say there aren’t additional, political factors behind
      the drive for empire.)

      These days left-libertarians feel vindicated. American foreign policy
      has embroiled the country in endless overt and covert wars, with their
      high cost in blood and treasure, in the resource-rich Middle East and
      Central Asia—with torture, indefinite detention, and surveillance among
      other assaults on domestic civil liberties thrown in for good measure.
      Meanwhile, the historical Washington-Wall Street alliance—in which
      recklessness with other people’s money, fostered by guarantees,
      bailouts, and Federal Reserve liquidity masquerades as deregulation—has
      brought yet another financial crisis with its heavy toll for average
      Americans, additional job insecurity, and magnified Wall Street influence.

      Such nefariousness can only hasten the day when people discover the
      left-libertarian alternative. Is that expectation realistic? Perhaps.
      Many Americans sense that something is deeply wrong with their country.
      They feel their lives are controlled by large government and corporate
      bureaucracies that consume their wealth and treat them like subjects.
      Yet they have little taste for European-style social democracy, much
      less full-blown state socialism. Left-libertarianism may be what they’re
      looking for. As the Mutualist Carson writes, “Because of our fondness
      for free markets, mutualists sometimes fall afoul of those who have an
      aesthetic affinity for collectivism, or those for whom ‘petty bourgeois’
      is a swear word. But it is our petty bourgeois tendencies that put us in
      the mainstream of the American populist/radical tradition, and make us
      relevant to the needs of average working Americans.”

      Carson believes ordinary citizens are coming to “distrust the
      bureaucratic organizations that control their communities and working
      lives, and want more control over the decisions that affect them. They
      are open to the possibility of decentralist, bottom-up alternatives to
      the present system.” Let’s hope he’s right.

      Sheldon Richman blogs at Free Association.

      --
      Dan Clore

      New book: _Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon_:
      http://tinyurl.com/yd3bxkw
      My collected fiction: _The Unspeakable and Others_
      http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0035LTS0O
      Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
      http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
      News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

      Skipper: Professor, will you tell these people who is
      in charge on this island?
      Professor: Why, no one.
      Skipper: No one?
      Thurston Howell III: No one? Good heavens, this is anarchy!
      -- _Gilligan's Island_, episode #6, "President Gilligan"
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.