3 ms·

>Does "socialism" ever mean "free-market capitalism"? I would say no. >It often seems that libertarians are on the receiving end of the "Nazi" label because t

>Does "socialism" ever mean "free-market capitalism"? I would say no. >It often seems that libertarians are on the receiving end of the "Nazi" label because they object to socialism or government intervention in markets. I think this happens mainly for three reasons. 1) Some people support socialism so furiously that they genuinely think pretty much everyone who opposes socialism is part of the same group of "reactionaries", etc. 2) Some people dislike libertarians and try to smear them by calling them Nazis. 3) A certain subset of self-identified libertarians has had, historically, and continues to have now, an involvement with populist conservatism and with right-wing regimes such as Pinochet's. There is also a subset of self-identified libertarians who promote racism, a subset who lean socially conservative, etc. Some self-proclaimed libertarians oppose socialism so furiously that they view right-wing dictatorship as being a better option. Personally, I'd say that people like that are not libertarians at all, but they continue to self-identify as libertarians nonetheless.

sparkie 6y ago
> Some self-proclaimed libertarians oppose socialism so furiously that they view right-wing dictatorship as being a better option. Personally, I'd say that people like that are not libertarians at all, but they continue to self-identify as libertarians nonetheless. Wholeheartedly agree here. Libertarianism is by essence, anti-authoritarianism. You can't be a libertarian and at the same time, want an authority to dictate the rulebook. For me, socialism and fascism are two sides of the same coin, that Horseshoe Theory is a real phenomenon. Of course, the two sides both vehemently disagree that they are alike (which is certainly the case if you specifically consider the ethno-nationalism of the Nazi's for instance), but the overall framework of both socialism and fascism is the centralized rule of a population through a dogmatic ideology with force or threat of force for noncompliance. There's an interesting phenomena in reverse of the "authoritarian libertarian" too, which is the "restricted speech liberal" - those self-labelling as liberals who are opposed to free speech.
- vidarh 6y ago
  > Wholeheartedly agree here. Libertarianism is by essence, anti-authoritarianism. You can't be a libertarian and at the same time, want an authority to dictate the rulebook. Libertarianism started on the far left for exactly this reason. The term was coined by the anarcho-communist Joseph Dejacque in a letter where he criticised Proudhon, the founder of anarchism, for not going far enough. For a century libertarianism was inherently tied to anarchism and anarcho-communism and other forms of libertarian socialism that sees private property rights as inherently in conflict with liberty (Dejaque, already in his initial criticism of Proudhon, did call out Proudhons famous "property as theft" as something he agreed with) > but the overall framework of both socialism and fascism is the centralized rule of a population through a dogmatic ideology with force or threat of force for noncompliance. Centralized rule of any kind is inherently in conflict with a long range of socialist ideologies. Enough so that the Bolsheviks murdered a huge amount of socialists that opposed their coup.

sparkie 6y ago

> Some self-proclaimed libertarians oppose socialism so furiously that they view right-wing dictatorship as being a better option. Personally, I'd say that people like that are not libertarians at all, but they continue to self-identify as libertarians nonetheless. Wholeheartedly agree here. Libertarianism is by essence, anti-authoritarianism. You can't be a libertarian and at the same time, want an authority to dictate the rulebook. For me, socialism and fascism are two sides of the same coin, that Horseshoe Theory is a real phenomenon. Of course, the two sides both vehemently disagree that they are alike (which is certainly the case if you specifically consider the ethno-nationalism of the Nazi's for instance), but the overall framework of both socialism and fascism is the centralized rule of a population through a dogmatic ideology with force or threat of force for noncompliance. There's an interesting phenomena in reverse of the "authoritarian libertarian" too, which is the "restricted speech liberal" - those self-labelling as liberals who are opposed to free speech.

vidarh 6y ago
> Wholeheartedly agree here. Libertarianism is by essence, anti-authoritarianism. You can't be a libertarian and at the same time, want an authority to dictate the rulebook. Libertarianism started on the far left for exactly this reason. The term was coined by the anarcho-communist Joseph Dejacque in a letter where he criticised Proudhon, the founder of anarchism, for not going far enough. For a century libertarianism was inherently tied to anarchism and anarcho-communism and other forms of libertarian socialism that sees private property rights as inherently in conflict with liberty (Dejaque, already in his initial criticism of Proudhon, did call out Proudhons famous "property as theft" as something he agreed with) > but the overall framework of both socialism and fascism is the centralized rule of a population through a dogmatic ideology with force or threat of force for noncompliance. Centralized rule of any kind is inherently in conflict with a long range of socialist ideologies. Enough so that the Bolsheviks murdered a huge amount of socialists that opposed their coup.