Why Karl Marx Supported Libertarianism

tito · 20-01-2008, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akria

Both nationalists and libertarians are beyond redemption, I find.

Redemption assumes that you are correct.

Libertarianism allows for any opinion to be held and upheld by mutual consent. You do not, neither do the BNP.

Akria · 20-01-2008, 04:18 PM

Beyond redemption if I am correct in my viewpoint.
Just because a conditional is not seen it need not be thought that it is not there.

Akria · 20-01-2008, 04:19 PM

And you did not criticise EA, even though he posted such a thing before me. Why?

Smidgey · 20-01-2008, 07:42 PM

If you think Karl Marx was a libertarian, I would argue that it is you who needs educated...

Furthermore, even if this outlandish theory were true, it would have absolutely nothing to do with whether libertarianism was true or false.

This is typical of authoritarians - brush your opponents with lies in the hope that the masses will believe it, without ever actually attacking their arguments.

Mikeuk · 20-01-2008, 07:51 PM

Marx was not a libertarian but he was, in some senses, a liberal; a 'Continental liberal' anyway. It's easy to forget that the London correspondent of the New York Tribune was not quite the grim granite figure seen on Soviet May Day banners.

I'm not sure I would have welcomed him into my home, though. He was a pretty grubby, smelly, character by all accounts.

It's not as easy to categorise ideologues and ideologies as some people imagine. Mussolini kept a copy of Max Stirner's 'The Ego and his Own' by his bed. Is this classic libertarian tract 'left' or 'right'? Discuss...

tito · 20-01-2008, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akria

And you did not criticise EA, even though he posted such a thing before me. Why?

Because he's already admitted he's a little bit fascist (Though quite a likable and good intentioned fascist). You are fresh blood

MikeUK, Liberal is not something I would call myself. Largely because liberalism, at least today, means the opposite of libertarianism.

Marx was a fascist.

The "left" are fascists. The "right" are fascists. The "Centre" are fascists.

Hitler would have had much common ground with Marx, even with Stalin and Castro and our very own Gordon Brown.

The whole thing tells you that the left/right scale is first degree ********.

For_England · 21-01-2008, 03:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smidgey

If you think Karl Marx was a libertarian, I would argue that it is you who needs educated...

Was this conditional clause inspired by anything I actually wrote, or just your paranoid imagination? But let me help you out: the article is called Why Marx Supported Libertarianism. Not 'Why Marx was a Libertarian', or 'why people who can't read arguments properly are the ones needing an education' etc.

Quote:

Furthermore, even if this outlandish theory were true, it would have absolutely nothing to do with whether libertarianism was true or false.

The tin soldier, attacking what I never claimed.

Quote:

This is typical of authoritarians - brush your opponents with lies in the hope that the masses will believe it, without ever actually attacking their arguments.

Funny, I don't remember you interacting with the article I posted - only brushing your opponent with lies. Yes, funny that. But I didn't write it - I put it up for public consumption and discussion. If you have any disagreements with it (based on what it actually says), feel free to respond to it.

For_England · 21-01-2008, 04:37 AM

Marxism was very much a product of English economics; the mirror image of the free trade school. It arose with the rise of Darwinism, which was taken from the strictly biological field and applied to economics by both the Marxists and the libertarians. Hence, this economic Darwinism posited history as nothing more than economic development along lineal-progressive (i.e. “evolutionary” ) lines. Both doctrines were based upon economic determinism, upon the materialistic conception of history and human social relations. The materialistic conception is antithetical to such organic bonds as family, nation, and culture. To the Marxist these are “bourgeois” concepts. To the libertarian they are expressions of “collectivism,” and stand in the way of the individual who is complete and sovereign unto himself. While today’s libertarians see themselves and are seen by their foes as the antithesis of socialism, they have this materialistic pedigree in common with the Left.

Mikeuk · 21-01-2008, 06:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tito

Marx was a fascist.

The "left" are fascists. The "right" are fascists. The "Centre" are fascists.

Hitler would have had much common ground with Marx, even with Stalin and Castro and our very own Gordon Brown.

This promiscuous use of the term 'fascist' renders the word meaningless.

You seem to be applying it to any political indviidual whose position is, in some respect, 'authoritarian', including people born decades and perhaps centuries before the word was coined. Recently a poster here suggested that Neville Chamberlain was a fascist!

Imprecise use of such terms invites derision.

For_England · 21-01-2008, 06:32 AM

"Marxism was very much a product of English economics ..." etc above - I should have noted this was a quote from the article linked to in the OP.

20-01-2008, 04:18 PM	#12 (permalink)
Akria Uber Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Grimsby, NELincs Posts: 2,457 Party: None	Beyond redemption if I am correct in my viewpoint. Just because a conditional is not seen it need not be thought that it is not there. __________________ I am getting very tired of people not reading my posts properly. Please do not reply to me unless you are sure you have not missed out the key points I am making and key words I am using. http://real-democracy.co.uk \| Admin and proud The commonality of mankind: If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?

20-01-2008, 04:19 PM	#13 (permalink)
Akria Uber Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Grimsby, NELincs Posts: 2,457 Party: None	And you did not criticise EA, even though he posted such a thing before me. Why? __________________ I am getting very tired of people not reading my posts properly. Please do not reply to me unless you are sure you have not missed out the key points I am making and key words I am using. http://real-democracy.co.uk \| Admin and proud The commonality of mankind: If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?

20-01-2008, 07:42 PM	#14 (permalink)
Smidgey Uber Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Edinburgh Posts: 2,169 Party: Libertarian Party	If you think Karl Marx was a libertarian, I would argue that it is you who needs educated... Furthermore, even if this outlandish theory were true, it would have absolutely nothing to do with whether libertarianism was true or false. This is typical of authoritarians - brush your opponents with lies in the hope that the masses will believe it, without ever actually attacking their arguments. __________________ How vain is man, who boasts in fight the valour of gigantic might! -Georg Friedrich Händel

20-01-2008, 07:51 PM	#15 (permalink)
Mikeuk Uber Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Fareham Posts: 5,658 Party: Conservatives	Marx was not a libertarian but he was, in some senses, a liberal; a 'Continental liberal' anyway. It's easy to forget that the London correspondent of the New York Tribune was not quite the grim granite figure seen on Soviet May Day banners. I'm not sure I would have welcomed him into my home, though. He was a pretty grubby, smelly, character by all accounts. It's not as easy to categorise ideologues and ideologies as some people imagine. Mussolini kept a copy of Max Stirner's 'The Ego and his Own' by his bed. Is this classic libertarian tract 'left' or 'right'? Discuss... Last edited by Mikeuk; 20-01-2008 at 07:55 PM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

21-01-2008, 04:37 AM	#18 (permalink)
For_England Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 1,696	Marxism was very much a product of English economics; the mirror image of the free trade school. It arose with the rise of Darwinism, which was taken from the strictly biological field and applied to economics by both the Marxists and the libertarians. Hence, this economic Darwinism posited history as nothing more than economic development along lineal-progressive (i.e. “evolutionary” ) lines. Both doctrines were based upon economic determinism, upon the materialistic conception of history and human social relations. The materialistic conception is antithetical to such organic bonds as family, nation, and culture. To the Marxist these are “bourgeois” concepts. To the libertarian they are expressions of “collectivism,” and stand in the way of the individual who is complete and sovereign unto himself. While today’s libertarians see themselves and are seen by their foes as the antithesis of socialism, they have this materialistic pedigree in common with the Left.

21-01-2008, 06:32 AM	#20 (permalink)
For_England Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 1,696	"Marxism was very much a product of English economics ..." etc above - I should have noted this was a quote from the article linked to in the OP.