“Anarchist Communism maintains that most valuable of all conquests — individual liberty — and moreover extends it and gives it a solid basis — economic liberty — without which political liberty is delusive; it does not ask the individual who has rejected god, the universal tyrant, god the king, and god the parliament, to give unto himself a god more terrible than any of the preceding — god the Community, or to abdicate upon its altar his independence, his will, his tastes, and to renew the vow of asceticism which he formerly made before the crucified god. It says to him, on the contrary, ‘No society is free so long as the individual is not so! ...’”
— Peter Kropotkin, The Place of Anarchism in Socialistic Evolution
— Peter Kropotkin, The Place of Anarchism in Socialistic Evolution
When I assert that Libertarianism is fundamentally left-wing and that right-wing libertarianism doesn't exist (it should be called Propertarianism instead of libertarianism), it's not because I think that language is objective or universal or that words are static with objective, concrete meanings.
On the contrary, it's precisely because I understand how language is flexible and how it's manipulated by the ruling class, that I reject the right-wing attempts at manipulating language for their propaganda... especially of a word that has left-wing origins and history.
I consider the right-wing usage of the term as only a fringe part of the history of the term and concept, as cunning right-wing attempts to (mis)appropriate our term for their stupid propaganda, as they themselves admitted indeed.
Yes, I gatekeep terms, especially certain terms that I like, if reactionaries attempt to appropriate them.
That's how language works, that's how power dynamics work in society.
If you concede that a right-wing version of libertarianism exists, you give it a certain legitimacy even if you disagree with it.
Right-wing libertarianism doesn't exist. Right-wing anarchism doesn't exist. Libertarianism, aka anarchism, is fundamentally anti-capitalist.
In terms of my political views, I usually describe myself as an anarchist, sometimes as a libertarian, which is just a synonym for anarchist.
But when I sometimes use the phrase "libertarian socialism" it's only as an attack against that ugly ideology of Propertarianism, to emphasize that libertarianism is socialist, not because I think there's a non-socialist (i.e., capitalist, exploitative) form of libertarianism; or to specify that I'm referring to a libertarian version of socialism, as opposed to authoritarian "socialism" (which I don't consider legitimate either, but that's a discussion for another day).
On the contrary, it's precisely because I understand how language is flexible and how it's manipulated by the ruling class, that I reject the right-wing attempts at manipulating language for their propaganda... especially of a word that has left-wing origins and history.
I consider the right-wing usage of the term as only a fringe part of the history of the term and concept, as cunning right-wing attempts to (mis)appropriate our term for their stupid propaganda, as they themselves admitted indeed.
Yes, I gatekeep terms, especially certain terms that I like, if reactionaries attempt to appropriate them.
That's how language works, that's how power dynamics work in society.
If you concede that a right-wing version of libertarianism exists, you give it a certain legitimacy even if you disagree with it.
Right-wing libertarianism doesn't exist. Right-wing anarchism doesn't exist. Libertarianism, aka anarchism, is fundamentally anti-capitalist.
In terms of my political views, I usually describe myself as an anarchist, sometimes as a libertarian, which is just a synonym for anarchist.
But when I sometimes use the phrase "libertarian socialism" it's only as an attack against that ugly ideology of Propertarianism, to emphasize that libertarianism is socialist, not because I think there's a non-socialist (i.e., capitalist, exploitative) form of libertarianism; or to specify that I'm referring to a libertarian version of socialism, as opposed to authoritarian "socialism" (which I don't consider legitimate either, but that's a discussion for another day).
Liberalism ≠ Libertarianism
These two terms may sound similar to many but they are distinct and fundamentally different.
One is concerned with the economy; the other with the individual — the individual's freedom and wellbeing.
Liberalism's end is the economy — economic growth etc; it's all about the economy, the economy is its "fundamental reality". The individual is regarded only as a means for this end. Liberalism is a spook, it is based on spooks. “Private property lives by grace of the law.… it is not a fact…but a fiction, a thought.”
Libertarianism is concerned with the individual — their freedom, autonomy and wellbeing. The economy is not seen as an end or even as a reality in itself, but rather as a result of the interactions between individuals with respect to production and consumption; and the desirable sort of "economy" is the interactions between free people — i.e., socialism/communism; no longer seen as a separate entity in itself.
The Propertarians, who falsely call themselves libertarians, are actually liberals, which they too acknowledge, but since the term "liberal" became vague, acquiring a meaning somewhat different from what they wanted, they tried to appropriate our term "libertarian". Their ideology is a variant of classical liberalism.
Libertarianism and liberalism are, again, fundamentally different and, in this sense, diametrically opposed.
These two terms may sound similar to many but they are distinct and fundamentally different.
One is concerned with the economy; the other with the individual — the individual's freedom and wellbeing.
Liberalism's end is the economy — economic growth etc; it's all about the economy, the economy is its "fundamental reality". The individual is regarded only as a means for this end. Liberalism is a spook, it is based on spooks. “Private property lives by grace of the law.… it is not a fact…but a fiction, a thought.”
Libertarianism is concerned with the individual — their freedom, autonomy and wellbeing. The economy is not seen as an end or even as a reality in itself, but rather as a result of the interactions between individuals with respect to production and consumption; and the desirable sort of "economy" is the interactions between free people — i.e., socialism/communism; no longer seen as a separate entity in itself.
The Propertarians, who falsely call themselves libertarians, are actually liberals, which they too acknowledge, but since the term "liberal" became vague, acquiring a meaning somewhat different from what they wanted, they tried to appropriate our term "libertarian". Their ideology is a variant of classical liberalism.
Libertarianism and liberalism are, again, fundamentally different and, in this sense, diametrically opposed.
The eulogists of work.
Behind the glorification of 'work' and the tireless talk of the 'blessings of work' I find the same thought as behind the praise of impersonal activity for the public benefit: the fear of everything individual. At bottom, one now feels when confronted with work – and what is invariably meant is relentless industry from early till late – that such work is the best police, that it keeps everybody in harness and powerfully obstructs the development of reason, of covetousness, of the desire for independence. For it uses up a tremendous amount of nervous energy and takes it away from reflection, brooding, dreaming, worry, love, and hatred; it always sets a small goal before one's eyes and permits easy and regular satisfactions. In that way a society in which the members continually work hard will have more security: and security is now adored as the supreme goddess...
— Friedrich Nietzsche, The Dawn of Day
Behind the glorification of 'work' and the tireless talk of the 'blessings of work' I find the same thought as behind the praise of impersonal activity for the public benefit: the fear of everything individual. At bottom, one now feels when confronted with work – and what is invariably meant is relentless industry from early till late – that such work is the best police, that it keeps everybody in harness and powerfully obstructs the development of reason, of covetousness, of the desire for independence. For it uses up a tremendous amount of nervous energy and takes it away from reflection, brooding, dreaming, worry, love, and hatred; it always sets a small goal before one's eyes and permits easy and regular satisfactions. In that way a society in which the members continually work hard will have more security: and security is now adored as the supreme goddess...
— Friedrich Nietzsche, The Dawn of Day
“If one awakens in men the idea of freedom then the free men will incessantly go on to free themselves; if, on the contrary, one only educates them, then they will at all times accommodate themselves to circumstances in the most highly educated and elegant manner and degenerate into subservient cringing souls. What are our gifted and educated subjects for the most part? Scornful, smiling slave-owners and themselves slaves.”
— Max Stirner, The False Principle of Our Education
— Max Stirner, The False Principle of Our Education
🔥1
“Whoever is a complete person does not need to be an authority.”
— Max Stirner, The False Principle of Our Education
— Max Stirner, The False Principle of Our Education
🔥2
“Today as always, people fall into two groups: slaves and free people. Whoever does not have two-thirds of their day for themself, is a slave, whatever they may be: a statesman, a businessman, an official, or a scholar.”
— Friedrich Nietzsche,
Human, All Too Human
— Friedrich Nietzsche,
Human, All Too Human