Libertarianism and Communism: two sides of the same coin.

Yes, I know the two are rather diametrically opposed although you can see some linkage in the duality of the two that's not what I'm talking about.

If you look at how followers of the two ideologies talk and argue its kind of obvious how while the ideologies are vastly different the mentality behind them are more or less identical. Followers of both have a rather poor grasp of history and economics. Communists tend to ignore or downplay the fact really only happened in agrarian societies, already industrial societies rejected communism almost whole sale. Libertarians ignore the robber barons and gilded age, down playing the level of oppression toward the lower classes during the era via the expression of economic power. You see it in both ideologies love of the "no true scotsman" fallacy. When debating with either group its almost a given some form of this fallacy will be used to defend their pet ideology. Both groups have the belief that their pet ideology can only be viewed as failing if it happened in a "pure" form of the ideology, since their both inherently idealistic fantasies which will never exist nor can not exist in reality it they are thus saved from ever having to admit flaws. I've also as a corollary of this belief they have vastly different standards for anything outside of their ideologies purview. In other words while their favored view can only be judged in its 100% pure form if what they dislike is even the smallest way involved anything that goes wrong must be from that little bit of what they oppose. Both have a thing for cults of personality, personalities who invaribly show the flaws in the ideology. Communism has Mao, kim jong il, castro, they all used communism to create societies where they benefitted at the expense of others. Libertarianism has people like Rand and von mises who preached the glories of libertarians while being in a situation where they would benefit from unrestricted economic power. Rand came from a wealthy background when achieved wealth again in the states acted like one "entitled to such things. von mises of course was aristocrat. all of these people have/ had followers that essentially treated their words as gospel.


The question than is there something about extremist idealistic ideologies that promote the same kind thinking or than is it that the people who act in such a manner predisposed to such ideologies?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Michael, our resident perpetual libertarian advocate, and I have had this discussion many times before at Sciforums. Below is a piece co-written by a venture capitalist and published in Bloomberg that sums it up fairly well.

"Most people would consider radical libertarianism and communism polar opposites: The first glorifies personal freedom. The second would obliterate it. Yet the ideologies are simply mirror images. Both attempt to answer the same questions, and fail to do so in similar ways. Where communism was adopted, the result was misery, poverty and tyranny. If extremist libertarians ever translated their beliefs into policy, it would lead to the same kinds of catastrophe.

Let’s start with some definitions. By radical libertarianism, we mean the ideology that holds that individual liberty trumps all other values. By communism, we mean the ideology of extreme state domination of private and economic life.

Some of the radical libertarians are Ayn Rand fans who divide their fellow citizens into makers, in the mold of John Galt, and takers, in the mold of anyone not John Galt.

Some, such as the Koch brothers, are economic royalists who repackage trickle-down economics as “libertarian populism.” Some are followers of Texas Senator Ted Cruz, whose highest aspiration is to shut down government. Some resemble the anti-tax activist Grover Norquist, who has made a career out of trying to drown, stifle or strangle government.

Yes, liberty is a core American value, and an overweening state can be unhealthy. And there are plenty of self-described libertarians who have adopted the label mainly because they support same-sex marriage or decry government surveillance. These social libertarians aren’t the problem. It is the nihilist anti-state libertarians of the Koch-Cruz-Norquist-Paul (Ron and Rand alike) school who should worry us.

Human Nature

Like communism, this philosophy is defective in its misreading of human nature, misunderstanding of how societies work and utter failure to adapt to changing circumstances. Radical libertarianism assumes that humans are wired only to be selfish, when in fact cooperation is the height of human evolution. It assumes that societies are efficient mechanisms requiring no rules or enforcers, when, in fact, they are fragile ecosystems prone to collapse and easily overwhelmed by free-riders. And it is fanatically rigid in its insistence on a single solution to every problem: Roll back the state!

Communism failed in three strikingly similar ways. It believed that humans should be willing cogs serving the proletariat. It assumed that societies could be run top-down like machines. And it, too, was fanatically rigid in its insistence on an all-encompassing ideology, leading to totalitarianism.

Radical libertarianism, if ever put into practice at the scale of something bigger than a tiny enclave, would also be a disaster.

We say the conditional “would” because radical libertarianism has a fatal flaw: It can’t be applied across a functioning society. What might radical libertarians do if they actually had power? A President Paul would rule by tantrum, shutting down the government in order to repeal laws already passed by Congress. A Secretary Norquist would eliminate the Internal Revenue Service and progressive taxation, so that the already wealthy could exponentially compound their advantage, as the programs that sustain a prosperous middle class are gutted. A Koch domestic policy would obliterate environmental standards for clean air and water, so that polluters could externalize all their costs onto other people.

Radical libertarians would be great at destroying. They would have little concept of creating or governing. It is in failed states such as Somalia that libertarianism finds its fullest actual expression.

Extreme Positions

Some libertarians will claim we are arguing against a straw man and that no serious adherent to their philosophy advocates the extreme positions we describe. The public record of extreme statements by the likes of Cruz, Norquist and the Pauls speaks for itself. Reasonable people debate how best to regulate or how government can most effectively do its work -- not whether to regulate at all or whether government should even exist.

The alternative to this extremism is an evolving blend of freedom and cooperation. The relationship between social happiness and economic success can be plotted on a bell curve, and the sweet spot is away from the extremes of either pure liberty or pure communitarianism. That is where true citizenship and healthy capitalism are found.

True citizenship enables a society to thrive for precisely the reasons that communism and radical libertarianism cannot. It is based on a realistic conception of human nature that recognizes we must cooperate to be able compete at higher levels. True citizenship means changing policy to adapt to changes in circumstance. Sometimes government isn’t the answer. Other times it is.

If the U.S. is to continue to adapt and evolve, we have to see that freedom isn’t simply the removal of encumbrance, or the ability to ignore inconvenient rules or limitations. Freedom is responsibility. Communism failed because it kept citizens from taking responsibility for governing themselves. By preaching individualism above all else, so does radical libertarianism.

It is one thing to oppose intrusive government surveillance or the overreach of federal programs. It is another to call for the evisceration of government itself. Let’s put radical libertarianism into the dustbin of history, along with its cousin communism.

(Nick Hanauer is a founder of Second Avenue Partners, a venture capital company in Seattle specializing in early-stage startups and emerging technology. He has founded or financed dozens of companies, including aQuantive Inc. and Amazon.com. Eric Liu is the founder of Citizen University and a former White House speechwriter and deputy domestic policy adviser to President Bill Clinton. They are co-authors of “The Gardens of Democracy.” Follow them on Twitter at @NickHanauer and @EricPLiu.) "


http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-09-05/libertarians-are-the-new-communists

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But they both look so good on paper!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

not really. they both present as rigid with out real world answers to real world problems. their followers when confronted with reality choose rhetoric over real solutions

 

Hence the "look good on paper" part rather than the "work well in the real world" part.

 

A book I read (many years ago) by Eric Hoffer entitled "The True Believer" analyzes this concept very well.

 

Though i think some of the differences between the mentality between Communists and Libertarians are telling to in the way extremist ideologies arise. I haven't seen in communism the tendency to manipulate language that you see in Libertarianism which tries to redefine many words and phrases to try and make them selves look better. that seems to be a conceit of Libertarians alone.

I'll have to look into.

 

pjdude1219,

You'll need to define what you mean by the words libertarian and communism.

 

I still don't see a definition of what exactly is meant by libertarian-ism and communism.

Also: The Truth About the "Robber Barons"

Well, thanks to millions and millions and millions-more regulations (to keep us safe), a labor-tax and debased currency - that sort of entrepreneurial American is long dead and gone. And thanks to Government Schools, 1 in 5 Americans are functional illiterates who worship the State in the same manner they used to worship the Church. Superstitiously they venerate their idiotic crackpot Senators and POTUS, just as they would have the Bishops and Popes of ole. While they'll happily pay a Tax on their Labor to the State (and have come to hate almost all aspects of civil liberty and personal freedoms) the very LAST thing most Americans want, is to start a small business.
And why would they?
Why deal with the millions of miles of paper work, fickle functional illiterate sue-happy litigious population of workers and the burden of taxes and meeting the billions of regulations?
Screw it.
Get on the dole or a Government job. Done and Done.
Or, maybe, buy a Mc-Franchise, let Corporate deal with the paperwork and continue the great American tradition of turning the nation into one poop-smear of retail chain-stores and fast-food outlets.

Land of the Brown Smear
Home of the "Brave" value Meal Deal.

Pfffff.....LOL, what a joke that average Amoorikkkan has turned out to be.


Yes indeed, out of one side of our American Patriot's mouths they complain there are no jobs and those that are around are low paying Mc-Grocery-Bagger, and the other side complain they want trillions more regulations, much more "free" government services - and a whole hell of a lot more debt. Oh, and maybe more War, that's always good for the economy (just ask a Government Schooled economic sociopath, like this one writing over at the NY Times) - oh, and they want a much much higher minimum wage to make up for the debased monetary units our Central Planner's Central Bank forces us to purchase to pay our Labor-tax to our Owners in. And more vacation time - paid. And more Union safety nets. And free Healthcare. And free University. And etc...


The role of Amoorikkkan is that of Tax Chattel and Property of the State (and the Bankers who own it). So, get used to a hyper-regulated life in our little Tax Pen. Get used to having less privacy, less civil liberty, more 'Check Points' (got to look out for scary Terrorists) and all in all, living much, much, poorer.

You wanted a bunch of sociopathic Central Planners to rule your lives/State - that's exactly what we're getting.
Do enjoy it.

 

and your not going to.

thank you for proving my point.

 

Of course not, that'd require some thought. Why think when you can whine about big bad Libertarians (which make up less than 0.5% of the voting public).

You're welcome, now back in your Tax Pen you go. Moo moo little Amoorikkkan.

 

Six years of Central Planners at our Central Bank bailing out the Banking oligarchs.
Over ten years of Central Bankers monetizing more phony Wars in the ME - that our incompetent Central Planners lost, and continue to lose.

Let's see what our Hyper-Regulators and Central Planners and Political Masters have in store for us over the next 60 years.

Welcome to Social Progressivism
That's what you want, that's what we have.

Enjoy the New Economy where a Record 1 in 5 households are now on food stamps (2013) (another stellar achievement for POTUS Obama and his economic miracle policies). Yes, thank the Gods we have the State, such that in the midst of bailing out the richest 0.01% to the tune of unknown trillions, oh, I mean "Recovery" from the "Great Recession" - there was an increase of nearly 3/4 of a MILLION MORE households on food stamps in 2013 compared to 2012.

Yeah, so lets whine about the 0.5% of Americans smart enough to lean Libertarian (scary 'fruitloops' like Fraggle Rocker who was a voting Libertarian member for decades) and Communists - which would pretty much only be tenured Professors at Government Universities and the students they con into buying in to Marxism while taking on $120,000 worth of lifetime debt for a Anthropology degree studying Inner City Chalk Art.

Yes, do be very scared of the Fraggle Rocker's - yes, they're they problem!
Not you. It's all Them! The Libertarians!!!


Note: I just thought I'd mention, Karl Marx cheated on his wife with (or possibly raped) his housekeeper, Helene Demuth, got her pregnant and left his own son, Frederick Lewis Demuth, in a working class foster home in London - just to give you the character of this piss ant of a person the "GREAT" Social Progressive Karl Marx was. Yes, he really cared about the 'common' person, so much so he left his son to a foster home to raise him.

 

Oh and where is the evidence for that assumption?

Socialism Defined
“Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,[1][2] as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.[3][4] "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.[5] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[6] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[7]

A socialist economic system is based on the organisational precept of production for use, meaning the production of goods and services to directly satisfy economic demand and human needs where objects are valued based on their use-value or utility, as opposed to being structured upon the accumulation of capital and production for profit.[8] In the traditional conception of a socialist economy, coordination, accounting and valuation would be performed in kind (using physical quantities), by a common physical magnitude, or by a direct measure of labour-time in place of financial calculation.[9][10] On distribution of output there have been two proposals, one which is based on the principle of to each according to his contribution and another on the principle of from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. The advisability, feasibility and exact methods of resource allocation and valuation are the subject of the socialist calculation debate” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

By all accounts, most Americans like Social Security and Medicare. As evidenced by the recently passed changes to the VA Administration, they like the Veterans Administration. Most Americans like their socialist programs, though they may not like the term socialism. Most people seem to like the military, the roads, public education, unemployment insurance, emergency services (e.g. FEMA) and all the many other socialistic benefits they receive from their government. If you don’t think socialism works in larger and more diversified states, how do you explain the US military, the largest and most power military on Earth? The United States and several large countries are almost and in some cases more socialistic than their European counterparts. And the United States is neither small nor homogeneous. Europe has always been fairly diversified ethnically, but with immigration it is increasingly more and more diversified. Scandinavia was much less diversified a century ago than it is today, thanks to immigration.

The truth is the Scandinavian countries are not that much more socialistic than larger countries like Canada and the United States and Scandinavian countries are not as homogeneous as many believe them to be. The truth is Scandinavian countries, like the US, Canada, and all developed economies are "mixed economies" incorporating elements of socialism and capitalism because that is the system which works best - getting back to the Bloomberg article.

“Sweden is a richly diverse country with roughly 15% of its population having a foreign background, and the country is much more than Thai take-away kiosks and kebab pizza joints run by PhD holders and medical doctors that many would like to reduce its diversity to.” http://www.thelocal.se/20120813/42586

Well that makes a nice conservative meme, but reality is a bit more complicated than that. There are certainly government regulations, but those are usually ironed out before construction begins. Years ago, most of those building projects were new construction. It is a bit more difficult to do additions or make repairs when you have to keep the structure functional while under construction. In the case of roadways, instead of building all lanes at one time, they have to build one lane at a time multiple times.

It isn’t only government; it is private industry as well. In fact private industry is probably guiltier than government when it comes to collecting personal information about individuals. They track whenever you go to the store. The track what you buy and what you spend. They know your age, your personality, your birthday and many other details about you. There is a whole industry centered on gathering and analyzing that information - your information. There are cameras in every store and on most stores and every ATM too. Welcome to the information age. It will only get worse. It is part of the price we pay for the benefits of our increasingly powerful and ubiquitous technology.

I too was once a libertarian for a brief period many decades ago. Not because I believed the ideology, because the ideology never made any ideological sense other than as a protest to the Republican and Democratic Parties. But it was a political statement. It was a protest against the excessive liberalism of the late 70’s and the perpetual economic royalism of the Republican Party.

 

There's the question then of what is a 'tax', what is a State, what is self-ownership, what is morality, civil rights, personal freedom, Law, voluntary action, positive vs negative rights, sound money, etc...

(1) You stated 'Communism' doesn't 'work' because it's not compatible with the development of civilization. I'm not really sure what this means. Could you give me a specific concrete single example of communism not being compatible with the development of civilization. You may need to clarify what you mean by 'compatible' and 'civilization'.

If I say: Humans are not compatible with flying. What am I saying? That humans cannot fly? Well, this is true. If you flap your arms, you're not 'flying'. But, through the use of a technology, humans can fly. So it's not very clear what is being said. It'd be better if I said: Humans, unlike birds, currently lack the ability to flap their arms up and down to move about in the air on Earth. This is demonstratively true.


(2) You stated the flaw in Communism was its demeaning of the "power" and "importance" of the individual. Again, I'm not quite sure what this sentence means. Communism was demeaning of the individual? How so? There's plenty of functioning Communes (example: a Monastery). Monastery's demean the individual? Of course, unlike States, people are free to voluntarily leave or remain within a Commune.

Given that Communism results in the total loss of self-ownership, that could be considered a flaw. But, I wouldn't use the word 'flaw', but use the word immoral instead. If one defines immoral as initiating force against innocent people. State Communism would therefor be 100% immorality. Voluntary Communism would be 0% immorality.

That aside, Communism is inherently flawed in that it is economically inefficient. Which is why most Communes live frugal and sell something easily harvested and value added to (like wine or beer). Communes also take donations, thus, religion often makes up for it's inherent economic inefficiencies. Lastly, keeping the numbers of people small, that also helps. It'd say, if the numbers are small enough, many of the inefficiencies vanish. Which is why Communes don't use internal moneys.


(3) Why do you think we (humans) perform better when being responsible for our 'little bit' of civilization? As opposed to, say, when a "bureaucracy" gives us rules with no exceptions? Why is this true? What's the underlying difference between being responsible and legally losing that responsibility? Isn't this really a question of self-ownership? Humans do better when they aren't Slaves. When they own their own bodies and own the actions of those bodies?




(4) "The government knows best" is no more appropriate a philosophy for our species than "every man for himself."

Do you really think Libertarianism is 'every man for himself'?

Perhaps the Libertarian Political Party takes that platform. I wouldn't know, I'm not a Libertarian. I was under the impression that libertarian ideology strongly supports free-markets and voluntary trade with one another? Isn't trading with other's (offering value in exchange for value) the exact opposite of 'every man for himself'? Free markets are more akin to: "Every man for another". Free markets ARE civilization. Free association IS civility.

Governments, that is to say: obligated force employed against innocent people, is a return to the Jungle. It doesn't matter which kind of government: Republic, Democratic, Monarchy, Communist, etc... the defining characteristic of a Government is that it's a group of humans with the legal obligation to initiate force against another group of humans within a geographically defined land area, often referred to in the current age as a State. But, make no mistake, Government IS a return to the Jungle.
A return to tribalism (see: any Flag Waving "Citizen")
A return to Might makes right (see: any of the Wars the State wages, War on Communism, War on Terror, War on Literacy, War on Drugs, War on Privacy)

A Government is just a nice way of saying A Gang - because that's what it is.

 

someone who gets it. balance is key

 

What would you say is the right 'balance' for rape? Just how much rape is 'good for society'? How about the correct 'balance' for Slavery? What are we at now? Around 35% forced Labor "Transaction" Tax. How about 99.99%? Is that the right "balance"? What about getting the right 'balance' of corporal punishment? Yes, just how much "should" you hit a small defenseless child 'for the their own good - and the good of society'? The median frequency rate of spanking children in America is 18 times a week — or 936 times a year. Enough to cause PTSD. And 80% of Americans hit their children. So? What is the right 'balance'?

There is no right 'balance' in terms of initiating force against innocent people.
What's so hard to get here?


Didn't you get it when your mother told you not to hit and steal - that she meant: DO NOT HIT OR STEAL.
Jesus H Christ, a child I could excuse as they're still learning. But an adult? No.


Yeah, you keep blaming the 0.3% of Americans who are voting Libertarians if that makes you feel like 'you've gotten it all figured out'. Meanwhile, plan on economic prosperity plunging as Amooooorikkkan's cheerlead the loss of more civil liberties and personal freedoms. If there's one thing Amoorikkkan's love, it's living in a Police State as Tax Chattel. That makes them happy. Yes, believing a hulking strong and powerful POTUS, like Hitlary Clinton, is going to magically turn the economy around and, at the same time, protect them from goat-f*ckers in some cave somewhere.


Oh, yes, if only we could elect a 'true' Social Progressive, like O-blah-ma or Hitlary (oh wait...) then all the Government Schooled functional illiterates will magically create enough jobs for everyone and we'll all walk on water to the magic basket with endless fish and bread to play with our iPhones and eat till our hearts content as iMana falls from the skies.