You… should really educate yourself on what libertarianism actually is. Just because the root word “liberty” is in there does not mean it is a socialist concept.
It seems to me that @dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com actually has a better grasp on the historical context of “libertarianism” than you.
“Libertarian socialist” was what you called collectivist/communist anarchists in French.
Both have their roots in anarcho-capitalist movements and the idea that The State must be abolished.
The root anarchy and libertarian aspect of that is the idea that The State must be abolished. The difference is that (libertarian flavored) socialism is largely based on the idea of small communities to replace The State (and if that sounds contradictory…). Whereas (modern) libertarianism, is that the idea is that you replace The State with individual enclaves with the remnants existing solely to protect those rights. The “libertarian” aspect fundamentally boils down to the idea of individual liberty (hence the name) at the cost of The State and the distinctions between that and anarchy is, to put it bluntly, questionable.
It would be like insisting that those in favor of socialist democracies rebrand themselves as anarcho-communists because it sounds cooler and there IS a direct line between libertarian communists/anarcho-communists and modern socialist democratic thought. Which ignores that there is a reason that said thought evolved.
Both have their roots in anarcho-capitalist movements
Lolwut? Left wing anarchism is decades older than anarcho-capitalism (which basically started with the austrian school). Do you think Mikhail Bakunin was an Ancap, too?
It was an intentional co-opt of a left wing term, as the right consistently does (steal our ideas/terms/strategies)
“One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, ‘our side,’ had captured a crucial word from the enemy. ‘Libertarians’ had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over.”
-murray rothbard (“founder” of American libertarianism)
Realistically, from an anarchist perspective, the battle on the word is lost, we simply do not have the resources to combat that in the sphere of public consciousness.
Arguably, it’s a better use of our time demonstrating and connecting our ideas (namely, opposition to hierarchy) to the working class directly rather than fret over terminology but I digress
I actually think it is incredibly important to understand these distinctions. There is an entire generation of people who grew up with “I want weed and to not pay taxes. I guess that makes me a libertarian?” just like we have a generation of people who grew up with “I think it is stupid that I will be in debt forever because of college. I guess I am a communist?”
Understanding these distinctions is important.
Just because someone aligns with socialism doesn’t mean they are a libertarian socialist or a communist. Just like how someone can also be a libertarian but not be a socialist. The reason there are two words in that term is because it is a merging of multiple ideologies.
We see it all the time. Leftists become tankies because they listened to the equivalent of a facebook post at a drum circle and don’t want to actually understand their own ideologies. So rather than being a socialist democrat or a libertarian socialist or any other flavor, they become full on tankies because “Well. I like socialism and socialism is communism so the CCP never did anything wrong”. And that is used by right wing governments because… the vast majority of communist governments were evil and corrupt fascists (also many had stopped being communist along the way but…)
And same here. You and others are insisting that it was “co-opted”. But if you actually go back to the roots of the movements and even look at how the left uses it, it is one aspect. And yeah, right wing politics did push to use the term… because the idea of “tear it all down and make it better” aligns well with youths. But… just because they “won the branding” doesn’t mean that their pseudo-anarchists aren’t libertarians.
And I also very much argue it is worth making people look themselves in the mirror to actually understand what they are advocating for with “libertarianism” regardless of if it is “polite anarchy” or not.
I actually think it is incredibly important to understand these distinctions.
From a historical perspective, absolutely. My point is that it’s not worth attempting to “out message/propagandize” literal billionaires that own the platforms in which we would attempt to do so.
And same here. You and others are insisting that it was “co-opted”.
Rothbard quite literally claims this, this isn’t an opinion lmao.
But if you actually go back to the roots of the movements and even look at how the left uses it, it is one aspect.
Yes and? What is your point even supposed to be? That it’s not an umbrella term that comprehensively covers conceivable form of socialism? I don’t think anyone is arguing that.
We are simply pointing to the historical usage of the word, it’s origins.
But… just because they “won the branding” doesn’t mean that their pseudo-anarchists aren’t libertarians
In the modern, Americanized version of the word sure. But that doesn’t change the fact that historically, and originally, it meant something entirely different.
And I also very much argue it is worth making people look themselves in the mirror to actually understand what they are advocating for with “libertarianism” regardless of if it is “polite anarchy” or not.
Again, not sure who your arguing with here. The problem isn’t that it’s “polite” anarchism (whatever that even means), it’s that they stole and corrupted terms, ideas, etc, the very bastardization itself.
It seems to me that @dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com actually has a better grasp on the historical context of “libertarianism” than you.
“Libertarian socialist” was what you called collectivist/communist anarchists in French.
Both have their roots in anarcho-capitalist movements and the idea that The State must be abolished.
The root anarchy and libertarian aspect of that is the idea that The State must be abolished. The difference is that (libertarian flavored) socialism is largely based on the idea of small communities to replace The State (and if that sounds contradictory…). Whereas (modern) libertarianism, is that the idea is that you replace The State with individual enclaves with the remnants existing solely to protect those rights. The “libertarian” aspect fundamentally boils down to the idea of individual liberty (hence the name) at the cost of The State and the distinctions between that and anarchy is, to put it bluntly, questionable.
It would be like insisting that those in favor of socialist democracies rebrand themselves as anarcho-communists because it sounds cooler and there IS a direct line between libertarian communists/anarcho-communists and modern socialist democratic thought. Which ignores that there is a reason that said thought evolved.
Lolwut? Left wing anarchism is decades older than anarcho-capitalism (which basically started with the austrian school). Do you think Mikhail Bakunin was an Ancap, too?
You’re simply misrepresenting anarchism, homie.
It was an intentional co-opt of a left wing term, as the right consistently does (steal our ideas/terms/strategies)
“One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, ‘our side,’ had captured a crucial word from the enemy. ‘Libertarians’ had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over.”
-murray rothbard (“founder” of American libertarianism)
Realistically, from an anarchist perspective, the battle on the word is lost, we simply do not have the resources to combat that in the sphere of public consciousness.
Arguably, it’s a better use of our time demonstrating and connecting our ideas (namely, opposition to hierarchy) to the working class directly rather than fret over terminology but I digress
I actually think it is incredibly important to understand these distinctions. There is an entire generation of people who grew up with “I want weed and to not pay taxes. I guess that makes me a libertarian?” just like we have a generation of people who grew up with “I think it is stupid that I will be in debt forever because of college. I guess I am a communist?”
Understanding these distinctions is important.
Just because someone aligns with socialism doesn’t mean they are a libertarian socialist or a communist. Just like how someone can also be a libertarian but not be a socialist. The reason there are two words in that term is because it is a merging of multiple ideologies.
We see it all the time. Leftists become tankies because they listened to the equivalent of a facebook post at a drum circle and don’t want to actually understand their own ideologies. So rather than being a socialist democrat or a libertarian socialist or any other flavor, they become full on tankies because “Well. I like socialism and socialism is communism so the CCP never did anything wrong”. And that is used by right wing governments because… the vast majority of communist governments were evil and corrupt fascists (also many had stopped being communist along the way but…)
And same here. You and others are insisting that it was “co-opted”. But if you actually go back to the roots of the movements and even look at how the left uses it, it is one aspect. And yeah, right wing politics did push to use the term… because the idea of “tear it all down and make it better” aligns well with youths. But… just because they “won the branding” doesn’t mean that their pseudo-anarchists aren’t libertarians.
And I also very much argue it is worth making people look themselves in the mirror to actually understand what they are advocating for with “libertarianism” regardless of if it is “polite anarchy” or not.
From a historical perspective, absolutely. My point is that it’s not worth attempting to “out message/propagandize” literal billionaires that own the platforms in which we would attempt to do so.
Rothbard quite literally claims this, this isn’t an opinion lmao.
Yes and? What is your point even supposed to be? That it’s not an umbrella term that comprehensively covers conceivable form of socialism? I don’t think anyone is arguing that.
We are simply pointing to the historical usage of the word, it’s origins.
In the modern, Americanized version of the word sure. But that doesn’t change the fact that historically, and originally, it meant something entirely different.
Again, not sure who your arguing with here. The problem isn’t that it’s “polite” anarchism (whatever that even means), it’s that they stole and corrupted terms, ideas, etc, the very bastardization itself.