38
What is your opinion on Libertarianism?
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2025
38 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
51476 readers
275 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
If you mean the Statesian, pro-capitalist kind, it's mostly a silly ideology pushed by small business owners and other highly individualist classes that are nonetheless pushed towards the working classes by competing against ever-growing monopolies.
The left wing version, I disagree with as you can't dismantle the state without removing the basis of the state, class, and you can't remove class without collectivizing production and distribution. Small, local cells loosely organized in a decentralist fashion would still result in class struggle and thus a form of state to hold one class over the others. That said, the leftists are valuable allies at times despite disagreements.
See The first “definition” doesn’t fit the group you’re trying to define. If you’re talking about American (using the US as shorthand)…they are by no means restricted to or feature small business owners, that’s but a small (albeit with outsized power) enclave in the “coalition”. ie you can’t mention small business owners without also mentioning that the largest business owners also may be “libertarians”. Their policy ideologically and thus empirically opposes the working class.
There’s no left wing version of the word, or rather, the proper definition is leftist. What you’re describing seems to be an ideological axe you have to grind with Marxism, or socialism something. Actual libertarianism is simply a school of thought - a collection of philosophies - that prioritize individual liberty (freedom). In other words…it’s a criticism - a way to moderate - a necessary capitalist system. Generally these philosophies aren’t related to American libertarianism/freedom…it’s more of a freedom from rather than a freedom to thing…to oversimplify: leftist (real) libertarians believe power structures shouldn’t impede the (not obstructive and lawful) acts of the people - it’s very conscious of power differentials, while American libertarians believe in an absolute right to individual freedom that may or may not conflict with other peoples’ freedoms - after that point of tension it comes down to functional power (thus it’s antithetical to the proper definition and why the prioritization of power pairs so well with - rather than moderates - capitalism and even fascism). Some of the groups that American libertarians welcome into their coalition are grotesque perversions of the concept - even if they put the small business owners on stage at the convention.
First off, you're a bit confused here. I'm a Marxist-Leninist, my critiques are from that framework.
As for the libertarian movement in the States, I was referring to who makes up the basis of that movement. The wealthiest capitalists are usually not libertarians, they enjoy strong state control and regulations that they can fix in their favor. The basis of libertarianism is in the small business owners, the petite bourgeoisie, who see little of the systems benefits while trying to retain their privledged positions over others.
I'm well-aware of what you define as "actual" libertarians, and my critique of them is from a Marxist point of view. I'm not an anarchist, while I enjoy working with anarchists and share a common enemy, our strategies and analysis end up in fundamentally different areas.
The reason I broke them up as I did was because OP was vague enough that they could be asking for either, so I answered both.
You’re just not accurately describing American libertarianism…it does, indeed, have wealthy people behind it, because American libertarians also loves a strong state that can fix regulations in their favour. Peter Thiel and some of the Koch’s are “libertarians”, ffs. “Freedom for me but not thee”, etc. American libertarianism is synonymous with hypocritical.
I think what’s happening here is you’re describing the Dave Smith party/partisan type libertarians, and not the movement at large. The niche that runs a presidential candidate and puts small business owners on stage at the convention is a “boutique” brand of libertarianism, and doesn’t represent the much larger group of people who, for example, Donald Trump shows up and tries to woo: yeah, he got bood in the building…but he was talking to the broader libertarian movement, some of whom were threatening to abandon his coalition - and it appears to have worked.
I mean…I stand by what I said…your definitions weren’t accurate…but knowing that you’re a Marxist now means this is likely just an “academic” issue. Your leftist definition was confusing without that context. I don’t call myself a Marxist because I don’t look at Marxism as a template for a political system, but rather an effective way to moderate capitalism. But I also think everybody who talks about economics is a Marxist to one degree or another. I’m likely preaching to the choir here…but the genius of Marx isn’t that he outlined a functioning communist state…but rather that he gave us a philosophical foundation for why capitalism cannot work, and how socialism can - full stop, end of story.
I don’t care for anarchists, really…even tho I occasionally caucus with them. I used to hate them as much as right libertarians - horse shoe theory and all - but I’ve softened because it’s time to coalesce…strategy almost doesn’t matter any more…we need action. I am super thankful they haven’t been polluting “our” protests to the degree they used to.
It isn't just academic, and the fact that you can find self-professed libertarians among the wealthiest capitalists doesn't mean they agree with the actual ideas of "small government capitalism." The wealthiest aren't libertarians, by and large, but at this moment more fascist than anything. What drives someone to be a libertarian? Someone who feels crushed by the state while also disapproving of social services, ie the small business owners.
The fact that libertarianism is primarily driven by small business owners doesn't mean they are the only libertarians. Marxism-Leninism is a proletarian ideology, but also has class traitors. The boutique libertatianism you speak of isn't just the conventions, but people you run into in real life from time to time, and they usually are in that sole proprietor/small business owner class.
As for Marxism, Marx outlined the law of value, dialectical and historical materialism, as well as scientific socialism. He didn't create a model, correct, but he did arm us with how we should go about creating a socialist state. Marxism has been put into practice by groups like the bolsheviks, creating Marxism-Leninism, which then has been put into practice around the world. Marx was helpful not just for the why of capitalism being bad, but how to end it and begin socialism.
Yeah…we’re just characterizing them differently. It’s all mud…because they’re all dishonest. Whether they’re MAGA or fascist or libertarian depends on the lens/forum etc. I’d imagine half of the people who call themselves libertarians just like the word because they want to own the word liberty and own the definition of “freedom”. It’s like that bullshit “we’re not a Democracy we’re a Republic” stuff - they don’t know what any of these words mean, they just want to sound like they’re smart and principled when they’re really just bigoted, selfish and hypocritical.
I mean…I’m never going to agree that “small business owners” are the core of the libertarian movement…because small business functionally doesn’t even exist. Most of these idiots calling themselves small business owners or entrepreneurs are just glorified employees or franchise managers. We know the entire movement has big big money behind it…and the small business fantasy is what they’re using as window dressing. Late stage capitalism, baby: just in my lifetime I’ve seen small business functionally disappear…even if you technically own one, you’re still a slave to your suppliers.
As for Marx…you well know that if you put any two leftists in a room they’re going to disagree on what’s important from all of Marx’s and his associated philosophers and economists’ writings. Marx was a visionary…and I almost liken him more to Gene Roddenberry, than I do a practical economist. Like…he gets into the nitty gritty about transitional social credits and all that, but it’s a type of fiction. I, like I said before, view Marxism and it’s offshoots as a necessary lens to view capitalism through. I think it was really cool what came out of Germany after reunification, and it’s sad to see the capitalists chip away at what they achieved. I’d love to see the day where we reach a critical mass and socialism is attempted in earnest…we just haven’t really seen that and I know I won’t (I’m 53).
Libertarianism isn't driven by the haute bourgeoisie though, that's currently more neoliberalism and fascism. Libertarianism is primarily driven by people that own HVAC companies with a dozen people, and these people can be steered by Thiel types but ultimately by numbers its the small business owners pushing it.
As for Marxism, Germany post-reunification was a return to fascism, not socialism. The gains achieved by the socialists in the East were erased, officials excised in show trials, and erased. Socialism has been achieved already, in the former USSR, and today in the PRC, Cuba, Vietnam, and more. Public ownership is the principle aspect of their economies, and the working classes are in control of the state. I think you're dramatically misanalyzing socialism right now.
I think maybe we can agree that we’re talking about different thing re libertarianism. But I will say…show me one of these supposed small business owners, and I’ll show you an employee or a liar that’s speaking on behalf of shadowy wealth. I look at American libertarianism as a well funded and organized appendage of the fascist movement that functions to validate and control poor people who might turn against their coalition.
Yes, I predicted we’d have a different view of the world…like I said…two leftists can always be trusted to radically disagree about everything. I look at early reunification Germany as a “victory” for the moderation of capitalism…but I will agree that the fascists put what they needed to in place to destroy the socialists that the “liberals” accepted, at first.
I’ll never agree that Russia was socialist…nor will I agree that China is. They had/have very heavy socialist elements…but Russia was ultimately an oligarchical kleptocracy and China is a weird hybrid that celebrates capitlmalism at the party level…and uses socialism to control the masses. If I were to view a state as a socialist success…I’d need to see the party/power apparatus less entrenched, and the leaders of the day living like the people. I believe that Latin American socialism could have been great…had it not been perpetually obfuscated and corrupted by the US.
Libertarianism often arises organically, though, not just from the outside. It arises due to class interests. People can manipulate this, and do, but the origins are ultimately petty bourgeois ideology.
As for the USSR, it was a socialist economy, not an "oligarchical kleptocracy." The economy was democratically run and centrally planned, with public ownership as the principle aspect of the economy. This is straightforwardly socialist.
The PRC does not celebrate "capitalism." The usage of markets and mixed forms of ownership for small and medium firms subservient to the public sector is a form of socialist market economy. Public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, and the working classes democratically control the state.
Latin American socialism is great. Cuba is a standout example, and Venezuela and Nicaragua are increasingly socializing. They are under constant siege, but are nevertheless rising.
Ultimately, I'm not sure what you think socialism is for you to have this view so contrary to Marxism.
I think you’re an idealist :)
Contrary to Marxism? I think you misread what I’ve said. I think Marx was a visionary, and I’d like to live in his world…I think I’m just more practical than you are.
It's the opposite, I'm a dialectical materialist, and am focused on pragmatism. Your assessment of the USSR, PRC, etc is idealist in nature and looks at the state not as by its class character, but as something beyond class. This confusion leads you to see administration in a socialist economy as "kleptocracy." Same with your analysis of the PRC, conflating the presence of private property with the absence of socialism. Erasure of dialectical materialism, and looking at components of an economy outside of their context within said economy is closer to metaphysics and a rejection of Marxism.
Yeah…I just don’t see either state like you do. Both states feature(d) too many wealthy/powerful people for me to consider them entirely socialist. They’re both hybrids…like every state. The USSR heavily featured oligarchs who stole from the people, and who worked against the peoples’ interest on a mass scale. China features a party system that does the same, to a lesser degree.
I think Cuba is a pretty good example of what I’d like to see in a socialist state, minus the ongoing American “meddling”. I wish they didn’t have to rely on tourism to survive, tho…don’t like the classes it creates. Would be much better if they could trade efficiently.
Socialism is not the absence of wealth. Every state has mixed forms of ownership, but the principle aspect is what's dominant. The USSR did not have "oligarchs who stole from the people," they had a socialist economy oriented towards satisfying the needs of everyone. Free education and housing, healthcare, dramatic improvements in infrastructure, huge increases in living standards, all came from the socialist system. Same for the PRC, though their safety nets aren't as strong. This idea that socialism is about equalitarianism is exactly why you're being anti-Marxist, Marx railed against equalitarians.
Cuba has a very similar structure and economy to the USSR and PRC, with their own characteristics. The main difference is that they are much smaller and much more cut off.
The USSR absolutely had oligarchs, don’t be absurd. I’m not strictly talking about the Politburo…who stole plenty and took the fall, I’m talking about the oligarchs - who didn’t blink into existence out of the ashes of the USSR - but rather came to be because of what they amassed at the expense of the people during the USRR. The savvy middle managers, the smugglers, the entire KGB. The Art of the Bribe is an excellent book that methodically outlinines how these proto-oligarchs came to be and how they destroyed and corrupted socialism. Telling me about the idealistic version of the USSR isn’t interesting…I’m more interested in reality.
Meh…save the “Marx wasn’t an egalitarian” stuff for the people who aren’t socialists. There absolutely was a very large wealth and power class in the USSR as there is in China now…both would be abhorrent to Marx. There’s a difference between being somewhat better off because you work harder and/or are responsible for administering a novel concept…and literally never working because you have so much power and influence you don’t need to: those people were lousy in the USSR, and exist to a lesser extent in China.
It’s an apples and oranges conversation because it can be argued that the Chinese billionaires hurt their people less than the oligarchs/kleptocrats did in the USSR…but you first must acknowledge they exist - if you want to move past the mass intentions of their systems and have the conversation about how the classes in communism were/are bad and why.
The reason I prefer Cuba isn’t because their system is a superior application of socialism…but rather because Cuba is so small and their rich people tend to be more enmeshed in the population and steal less/have less to steal.
I’m not saying all this because I don’t like socialism and dismiss The USSR and China as failures out of hand - quite the contrary - I’m saying it because socialism is a project that we need to achieve and we have to learn from what’s been done/being tried to achieve it.
I'm not being absurd, you are. You're defining the mode of production of a majority collectivized and planned economy that was oriented towards satisfying the needs of everyone as a "kleptocracy." This is ridiculous and requires an extreme level of evidence explaining why such a focus was both put on satisfying everyone's needs, and on this "kleptocracy" you claim. You're confusing the capitalists that rose from the ashes of the USSR with the USSR's mode of production. I'm aware that China has billionaires, and again, you seem to be under the impression that Marxism is about equalitarianism and not about gradually collectivizing production and distribution to satisfy the needs of everyone.
Good reading for you would be China has Billionaires. Marxists don't deny the struggles of the USSR and PRC, we do learn from them, what we don't do is dismiss their successes or take liberal perspectives on them like you're doing here.
I'm aware that you consider yourself a socialist, but your analysis is far from that of a socialist.
I gave you evidence…and you ignored it. I can provide additional evidence beyond ‘54, if you acknowledge those archives.
You believe Marxism allows for the billionaire and political classes in China that control the means of production? Bold.
You don’t “own” Marxism, btw. Most Marxists I know at least acknowledge and criticize the very large problems in the USSR and China. I mean…I also could be considered a Marxist…but I consider myself a post-Marxist because he’s been improved on. I also think we can do better than Marx the man as a foundation - don’t get me started on Lenin, lol. The weird thing is I like Stalin (but Che all the way).
This isn’t zero sum: I’m not saying either is all bad because they have kleptocrats and billionaires. We haven’t even broached the topic of what I think about the USSR and China as a whole (because you’re so hung up on denying their systematic problems in favour of focusing on the positives?) in contrast to what we see in the western democracies (for example) you’re typing as if i condemn them and I prefer the USA, or something…not a thing.
Yes, you indeed linked a US Federally funded liberal historian that is paid to present a certain view of the USSR. If you want sources on the socialist economy of the USSR, and how it was run, here are some great ones:
Is the Red Flag Flying? The Political Economy of the Soviet Union Today
Soviet Democracy
Russian Justice
This Soviet World
Blackshirts and Reds
All much better sources.
I don't own Marxism, correct. I also study it a great deal, organize in real life with a communist party. I do acknowledge real faults with the USSR and PRC, but I don't acknowledge fake ones. You should read the essay I linked called China Has Billionaires, it explains China's position as an early socialist economy and its process of gradually collectivizing production and distribution. The class that controls the state and holds the principle aspects of the economy in China is the proletariat, as it was in the USSR, as it is in Cuba.
You defining Cuba as more correctly socialist because its rich people are poorer is what I mean by you being anti-Marxist, this poverty fetishism isn't Marxist in the slightest.
That’s a ridiculous way to frame a public university employee…but I’m just going to declare an impasse and drop it if we can’t agree on facts.
Talk about virtue signalling and purity testing, yikes. Still, thank you for the conversation, I will admit I’m a little amused at you trying to “out socialist” me, but I don’t feel I need to list my credentials in return…I’m comfortable with how militantly virulent I am on the subject of socialism ;)
Like I said: put two leftists together, and they’ll find a way to argue. I’ve been guilty of it too…it is what it is.
Not just any public university employee:
There's a concerted effort within western academia to keep demonizing socialism, and funding is one of the ways the state keeps that going. I provided more than plenty sources given an alternative view. None of this is about me trying to "out-socialist" you, nor virtue signal nor purity test. It's about trying to come to a consistent understanding grounded in reality, from a proletarian point of view, rather than accepting liberal framing of socialism.
Seem like he’s a typical academic. I get it…you prefer to muddy the waters and shoot the messenger then engage with the content. Alternate view to…something you didn’t read? I assure you it doesn’t “demonize socialism”…it just chronicles events according to disclosure/a “data dump” of declassified files. It’s not ideological…it’s for eggheads who don’t want to read thousands of documents. When I read it it just helped me understand the playing field better.
The problems with the USSR weren’t with socialism, you’re missing my message. They were with capitalists corrupting it from within. There’s certainly an argument to be made that too much control was allocated to regional bureaucrats - when targeted positive/idealistic authoritarianism was more appropriate while socialism was in its infancy. But this in the context of just Russia, because I don’t agree with the expansion that created the USSR: my opinion is it created an unmanageably large state with too many “distracting” regional issues that were ripe for capitalists to exploit. Those faithful to the cause were simply stretched too thin and they couldn’t deliver a meaningful improvement to enough people, largely because the guilty regional bureaucrats weren’t loyal to the cause and they created systematic exploitation of the people they were tasked to help. Obviously I’m being unrealistic…just trying to get closer to 20/20 hindsight.
You haven't read the sources I linked either. We have a western academic, state funded, and based on your arguments here there's what you believe evidence that causes you to describe the USSR not as socialism, but a kleptocracy. This is why I'm heavily skeptical, because I have read on the structure of the USSR, I know how it functioned, and it was unquestionably socialist. I'm not saying no corruption ever existed, I'm saying that corruption was nowhere near relevant enough to be the base mode of production, because that's an absurd statement to begin with.
The advent of socialism in Russia democratized the economy, doubled life expectancy, dramatically reduced poverty, provided free, high quality healthcare and education, had assured jobs and free or low cost housing, over tripled literacy rates, and turned a feudal backwater into a spacefaring nation in just a few short decades. Wealth disparity, which you seem to place an over-emphasis on, was dramatically lowered as compared to the Tsarist era and the capitalist era. The economy was based on collectivized production and distribution, and fulfilling the needs of everyone.
When you have all of that undeniably true, then statements like "Russia wasn't socialist, it was a kleptocracy" become silly. Of course there was some degree of corruption, every country has some level of corruption. The USSR wasn't a perfect utopia, as the first socialist state there were missteps and struggles. However, it was absolutely socialist, and because of that it delivered incredible results for the working classes.