Why Karl Marx Supported Libertarianism

Smidgey · 21-01-2008, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by For_England

"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.

I don't see how this connects him to libertarianism though. Although English economics spawned from Smith, that doesn't make English economics equal to Smith. Smith had a great influence on Marx, for obvious reasons, it caused him to construct a system distinct from Smith.

The vast majority of libertarians take their economic beliefs from Smith, the Austrian school and the Chicago school.

Not you mention that I believe you are falsely characterising libertarianism when you say we neglect human nature, specifically what you term collectivist attitudes (family, society, etc). This is simply not the case. Remember this maxim: Society, not state.

tito · 21-01-2008, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeuk

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.

Of course there are degrees of fascism. Fascism isn't always authoritarian, it is the combination of the two that is the killer.

For_England · 22-01-2008, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smidgey

I don't see how this connects him to libertarianism though.

It doesn't - the article is arguing (effectively in my opinion) that Marx supported libertarianism because it shared many of the same presuppositions that he shared, and because he saw the damage it would do to the traditional order, and how it would prepare the way for world socialism. Considering history and our present situation, I am personally quite amazed. Obviously, judging from the lack of response, not many others share that sense of amazement. Also this links in quite well with the thread on the Perestroika Deception on the book review section.

Smidgey · 22-01-2008, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by For_England

It doesn't - the article is arguing (effectively in my opinion) that Marx supported libertarianism because it shared many of the same presuppositions that he shared, and because he saw the damage it would do to the traditional order, and how it would prepare the way for world socialism. Considering history and our present situation, I am personally quite amazed. Obviously, judging from the lack of response, not many others share that sense of amazement. Also this links in quite well with the thread on the Perestroika Deception on the book review section.

The article would make a good case if it were actually talking about libertarianism. It sets up a massive straw man then knocks it down. For example:

Quote:

The workers’ movement was a necessary response to the very real grievances of the uprooted urban proletariat under the libertarian regime of the workhouse, child labour, slum dwellings and cholera.

A few points:

1) The distinction between free child labour and parish child labour is not made. Free child labour was working children who still lived with their parents, as such, parents very rarely allowed their children to work in bad conditions - such as pulling the loose cotton from underneath the machinery. However, astute businessmen managed to get children to work these jobs by asking government to provide them with the parish children source - what we all might traditionally think of as the work house. This was a government instituted agreement, not a private enterprise one - c.f. the poor law of 1834.

2) The Poor Law was passed by the Whig government of Earl Grey. Please can you explain to me which part of the poor law fits with libertarian beliefs and how this connects the Whig party to the libertarian ideology?

3) I will never deny that some of the living conditions during the industrial revolution were terrible compared to our current standards, however, the article conveniently ignores what went before. Britain was much worse in terms of poverty and death from starvation and malnutrition when we were an agrarian society. The standard of living during the industrial revolution what substantially better than that during the mercantilist society that went before.

There are plenty more examples like this in the article.

P.S. He never actually once supports his claim that Whig liberalism equates to modern day libertarianism. I am surprised that you can be so highly convinced by an article that doesn't even back up one of its main claims. Intellectual dishonesty? I think so.

John Connor · 24-01-2008, 06:10 PM

There's some very misinformed people in this thread.

zbrahead · 24-01-2008, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Connor

There's some very misinformed people in this thread.

Care to mention who?

John Connor · 24-01-2008, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zbrahead

Care to mention who?

Well, the BNP crowd and the Grimsby Popular Front, to name but two.

zbrahead · 24-01-2008, 06:28 PM

The BNP are ****, I agree.

But the GPF? Nah, we rule xD

jgrabham · 24-01-2008, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tito

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 ********.

Or as I usually put it, there are three types of people in the world, libertarians, fascists, and those who haven't been paying attention.

But awesome post

EDIT: just realised that that is already someone in this threads sig anyway... oops XD

John Connor · 24-01-2008, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgrabham

Or as I usually put it, there are three types of people in the world, libertarians, fascists, and those who haven't been paying attention.

But awesome post

EDIT: just realised that that is already someone in this threads sig anyway... oops XD

Good man. I'd forgotten how my original sig was worded and you just reminded me.

24-01-2008, 06:10 PM	#25 (permalink)
John Connor Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Away for Summer Posts: 766 Party: None	There's some very misinformed people in this thread. __________________ There are three types of people in this world: Libertarians, fascists and those who haven't been paying attention. Russia: The largest tax haven on the planet. Which annoys the US a tad since they believe that they won the Cold War. Users on ignore list: Akria, Besoeker, Clippo, david H, Ian C.

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

24-01-2008, 06:28 PM	#28 (permalink)
zbrahead Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Grimsby Posts: 191	The BNP are ****, I agree. But the GPF? Nah, we rule xD