3 ms·

>communalism and libertarian politics Aren't these two things completely mutually exclusive? (NB: Obviously, being able to choose communalism or individualism

>communalism and libertarian politics Aren't these two things completely mutually exclusive? (NB: Obviously, being able to choose communalism or individualism as you prefer makes the two semi-compatible, but not the aforementioned as a public policy...)

duairc 12y ago
No, not at all. I would argue that one implies the other. Historically, and still to this day in much of Europe, the term "libertarianism" is a synonym for anarchism, i.e., libertarian communism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism
- blueskin_ 12y ago
  Communism itself is the opposite of individualism; a centrally planned economy doesn't need innovators, it needs Citizen 647,203 to work at his assigned job in Agricultural Collective 63 and not get thoughts above his station lest he be sent to the gulag. I'm British, and I can tell you libertarianism here does not mean anarchism (or the popular US version of 'libertarianism' either, AKA conservativism with legal cannabis). Also remember why communistic economies fail - again, it's the lack of drive to innovate. If you have a dull, tedious, mind-numbing job and you get paid (or food stamps or whatever) the same value no matter whether you work hard, innovate, and improve processes or bump along at the bottom doing the bare minimum, people are going to gravitate towards the latter. As such, technological development stagnates, processes never change even when deeply flawed, and bureaucracy becomes entrenched in defending their own jobs.
  - vidarh 12y ago
    There nothing in communism that requires a centrally planned economy. In fact, a lot of communist ideologists would insist that a centrally planned economy is fundamentally incompatible with communism, as it requires a central authority to enforce decisions and many see a central authority as incompatible with a class free society. I'm in the UK, and libertarianism here most certainly does mean anarchism to a lot of people, socialism to others, though it is probably today more commonly used about factions of Thatcherites. The word itself was first used by a French anarchist and communist, and it has a long history in Europe (150 years+) of being used about left wing organisations, and only a few decades of use about the right wing. In the UK, the use of the term date at least as far back as the 1880's, when some prominent members of the Socialist League (1885), which counted people like Engels and Eleanor Marx as it's supporters, considered themselves libertarians. > Also remember why communistic economies fail No country to my knowledge have claimed to have had a communist economy. Some have claimed to be socialist, and many socialists would disagree with that as well. Your comment seems to assume that these terms are applied to just one ideology. Meanwhile there's an old joke that if you put two Marxists in a room, you will have three different opinions about what Marxism is. And Marxism again is just one of many dozens of socialist ideologies that differ widely. Even in Marx' days, Marx and Engels devoted a substantial proportion of the Communist Manifesto not to criticise capitalism, but to criticise other socialist ideologies that they saw as ranging from hopelessly utopian, to reactionary: worse than capitalism.
  - duairc 12y ago
    Communism is not the opposite of individualism, that's nonsense. Have a look at "The Right to be Greedy: Theses on the Practical Necessity of Demanding Everything". Greed in its fullest sense is the only possible basis for a communist society. https://libcom.org/library/right-be-greedy-theses-practical-necessity-demanding-everything https://libcom.org/library/right-be-greedy-theses-practical-...
vidarh 12y ago
Libertarian socialists would often argue that you can't have a genuinely right wing libertarianism. The starting point for libertarianism is to maximise individual freedom and minimise restrictions on that freedom. The big white elephant in the room for right wing libertarians is that they want a huge carve out from that: Private property rights are pretty much holy for them. While for left wing libertarians, private property right is often seen as a central contribution to restrictions on individual freedom. This goes all the way back to Proudhons famous "property is theft". My personal favourite example is the property right carve-out that is most extensive in the Nordic countries: the Freedom to Roam. To me, who grew up in Norway, it seems ludicrous that property owners should be able to prevent me from walking in a forest. Allowing them to restrict that would be an immense limitation of personal freedom, and the ability to restrict it would not confer any additional freedoms to speak of for those few property owners. Yet in most places in the world property owners can impose such rights. In Norway they can't (this is mostly true with various exceptions in the different Nordic countries; and to a much lesser extent in the UK and a few other places), though this isn't a result of some modern socialist ideal - the freedom to roam is so ingrained in Nordic culture that the right predates written laws (in Norway it was first codified relatively recently, as it was considered so obvious that it didn't seem to need to be made explicit previously). Left wing libertarian ideologies tends to take this principle much further: Except for cases where property rights confers a clear increase in individual freedoms, it is suspect. Thus most left-wing libertarian ideologies would allow personal property, including possibly limited land ownership, but would tend to see extensive land ownership, or ownership of extensive capital resources, as threat to the freedom of others.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  Thank you, that makes clear why Libertarianism is so impractical and essentially doomed. Property rights are central to the functioning of a modern society. Extreme views would cripple a nations economic and social growth. Any country that adopted draconian property views would be marginalized in the world community.
  - vidarh 12y ago
    > Any country that adopted draconian property views would be marginalized in the world community. Almost every country in the world has adopted "draconian property views", so clearly that is not true. A small subset have substantially less draconian property views (the Nordic countries freedom to roam as I mentioned), and are seeing no economic hardship that can be traced to not being as enthusiastic about harsh property rights.

duairc 12y ago

No, not at all. I would argue that one implies the other. Historically, and still to this day in much of Europe, the term "libertarianism" is a synonym for anarchism, i.e., libertarian communism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism

blueskin_ 12y ago
Communism itself is the opposite of individualism; a centrally planned economy doesn't need innovators, it needs Citizen 647,203 to work at his assigned job in Agricultural Collective 63 and not get thoughts above his station lest he be sent to the gulag. I'm British, and I can tell you libertarianism here does not mean anarchism (or the popular US version of 'libertarianism' either, AKA conservativism with legal cannabis). Also remember why communistic economies fail - again, it's the lack of drive to innovate. If you have a dull, tedious, mind-numbing job and you get paid (or food stamps or whatever) the same value no matter whether you work hard, innovate, and improve processes or bump along at the bottom doing the bare minimum, people are going to gravitate towards the latter. As such, technological development stagnates, processes never change even when deeply flawed, and bureaucracy becomes entrenched in defending their own jobs.
- vidarh 12y ago
  There nothing in communism that requires a centrally planned economy. In fact, a lot of communist ideologists would insist that a centrally planned economy is fundamentally incompatible with communism, as it requires a central authority to enforce decisions and many see a central authority as incompatible with a class free society. I'm in the UK, and libertarianism here most certainly does mean anarchism to a lot of people, socialism to others, though it is probably today more commonly used about factions of Thatcherites. The word itself was first used by a French anarchist and communist, and it has a long history in Europe (150 years+) of being used about left wing organisations, and only a few decades of use about the right wing. In the UK, the use of the term date at least as far back as the 1880's, when some prominent members of the Socialist League (1885), which counted people like Engels and Eleanor Marx as it's supporters, considered themselves libertarians. > Also remember why communistic economies fail No country to my knowledge have claimed to have had a communist economy. Some have claimed to be socialist, and many socialists would disagree with that as well. Your comment seems to assume that these terms are applied to just one ideology. Meanwhile there's an old joke that if you put two Marxists in a room, you will have three different opinions about what Marxism is. And Marxism again is just one of many dozens of socialist ideologies that differ widely. Even in Marx' days, Marx and Engels devoted a substantial proportion of the Communist Manifesto not to criticise capitalism, but to criticise other socialist ideologies that they saw as ranging from hopelessly utopian, to reactionary: worse than capitalism.
- duairc 12y ago
  Communism is not the opposite of individualism, that's nonsense. Have a look at "The Right to be Greedy: Theses on the Practical Necessity of Demanding Everything". Greed in its fullest sense is the only possible basis for a communist society. https://libcom.org/library/right-be-greedy-theses-practical-necessity-demanding-everything https://libcom.org/library/right-be-greedy-theses-practical-...

vidarh 12y ago

Libertarian socialists would often argue that you can't have a genuinely right wing libertarianism. The starting point for libertarianism is to maximise individual freedom and minimise restrictions on that freedom. The big white elephant in the room for right wing libertarians is that they want a huge carve out from that: Private property rights are pretty much holy for them. While for left wing libertarians, private property right is often seen as a central contribution to restrictions on individual freedom. This goes all the way back to Proudhons famous "property is theft". My personal favourite example is the property right carve-out that is most extensive in the Nordic countries: the Freedom to Roam. To me, who grew up in Norway, it seems ludicrous that property owners should be able to prevent me from walking in a forest. Allowing them to restrict that would be an immense limitation of personal freedom, and the ability to restrict it would not confer any additional freedoms to speak of for those few property owners. Yet in most places in the world property owners can impose such rights. In Norway they can't (this is mostly true with various exceptions in the different Nordic countries; and to a much lesser extent in the UK and a few other places), though this isn't a result of some modern socialist ideal - the freedom to roam is so ingrained in Nordic culture that the right predates written laws (in Norway it was first codified relatively recently, as it was considered so obvious that it didn't seem to need to be made explicit previously). Left wing libertarian ideologies tends to take this principle much further: Except for cases where property rights confers a clear increase in individual freedoms, it is suspect. Thus most left-wing libertarian ideologies would allow personal property, including possibly limited land ownership, but would tend to see extensive land ownership, or ownership of extensive capital resources, as threat to the freedom of others.

JoeAltmaier 12y ago
Thank you, that makes clear why Libertarianism is so impractical and essentially doomed. Property rights are central to the functioning of a modern society. Extreme views would cripple a nations economic and social growth. Any country that adopted draconian property views would be marginalized in the world community.
- vidarh 12y ago
  > Any country that adopted draconian property views would be marginalized in the world community. Almost every country in the world has adopted "draconian property views", so clearly that is not true. A small subset have substantially less draconian property views (the Nordic countries freedom to roam as I mentioned), and are seeing no economic hardship that can be traced to not being as enthusiastic about harsh property rights.