la-vie-est-politiques replied to your post: Hello goldfish! You’re a pretty nice guy, so I hope you’ll be patient with me when I ask this: why is your political alignment the way it is, and what, on principle levels, makes you anti-libertarian? Are you anti- all libertarians (including the left libertarians) and what made you interested in politics?
Personally I see free-marketeers appropriation of “anarchy” to be the most problematic. Libertarian I make a point of associating as left or right, never libertarian on it’s own. It’s really not a term that gets used that often though.
Well, I think maybe that’s true objectively, but it seems like choosing “Libertarian” has allowed them to obscure their real beliefs. Anarchocapitalism at least tells you exactly what they are, and anyone who knows anything about anarchism will see that and know it’s a prima facia absurd belief.
Also, I don’t like the “left/right libertarian” typology because I believe left/right to be a less useful, it not outright destructive lens to view political ideologies. If it wasn’t for the fact most people’s entire concept of political ideology is based around a left/right dichotomy, I would purge any mention of it from my vocabulary. It’s an inaccurate, obsolete, misleading typology that favors the existing power political power structure.
That’s fair. I suppose more depth should be gone to in the reason I use the phrasings that I do. Right/left I use as meanings purely the economic stance.
Right wing I use to refer to a fully capitalist/privatised/corporation based economy with an acceptance of property and the only perceived proper functioning of a business is hierarchal, with owners, CEOs, managers and so on. With money used as a function of exploitation for profit.
Left wing I use to refer to an economic system with fully collectivised means of production, where there is no notion of private property. Where hierarchal positions as exist are democratically selected, or selected by lot, and have a fixed term and the capacity for recall and where pay is based on labour value.
Through the middle of these two extremes you have varying levels of what should and shouldn’t be privatised (for example expecting public healthcare and education, but all other services privatised) along with different means through which these are provided (namely the format through which democratic control takes place, whether people are directly democratically involved or they elect representatives to make the decisions for them).
I completely agree with you that left versus right wing in terms of it’s original meaning, the radicals versus the conservatives, is bunk in modern political discourse. I don’t think that means we shouldn’t use them at all, but I think we should be working to reinforce a clearer distinction of how those terms should be used.
The reason that I prefer to use libertarian to refer to the stance on statism (where libertarian refers to a no-state, or completely devolved power within the state, society) is because I find it most useful to use anarchism solely to refer to left-libertarians. It follows from the etymology of the word (without ruler, whereby any capitalist that thinks a boss is not equatable to a ruler is lying to themselves) and also follows from the history of the use of the word (Proudhon, to Kropotkin, to the first international and all that). ”Anarcho-capitalists”, especially those that term themselves simply anarchists, are just hitching a ride on the “down with the state, yeah!” band wagon to try and gain themselves credibility amongst other people with an anti-state stance, whilst their vision of a post-state society is completely at odds. Voluntaryists are, to a tee, either lying to themselves or lying to others.
The way I envisage the political spectrum would probably be a three dimensional space. The north/south axis would represent libertarian versus authoritarian values, east/west axis would represent economic “left versus right” values, up/down axis would represent values of social liberty, along with a colour transition to represent the totality of the application of the ideology.
In this sense I take totality to mean the breadth of the application, so for example whether or not the ideology must be applied globally or if the ideology believes that it can co-exist with other ideologies for neighbouring societies. This distinction of a more abstract form of totality than would be connected to totalitarianism/authoritarianism is important because it doesn’t carry the same instant negative connotations. For example a totalist ideology within an authoritarian state would be completely different in terms of oppression compared to a totalist ideology within a libertarian society.
Of course if anyone actually got around to trying to plot something such as this it would end up a complete clusterfuck and be practically unreadable. But that’s the vague basis for the way in which I use political terminology. If any of that even made sense and wasn’t just general rambling.