Avedon Carol of The Sideshow directs readers to Joe Vecchio for an explanation of libertarianism. Would she link to Ken Mehlman for an explanation of liberalism? Joe writes, “What we’re witnessing now in this country is a shadow of what went on before the New Deal: in the days before there were child labor laws, minimum wage laws, etc. Did you think liberalism was created out of a vacuum? It was a direct result of the failures of the unregulated market: the reason government had to step in in 1932 is because a few people got together to rig the system for their own benefit, and now that liberalism has been publicly humiliated we’re seeing it happen all over again.”
The gist of what Joe is saying is that social liberalism arose to protect the working class from the menacing onslaught of the wealthy. He doesn’t say how negotiating a contract between a disenfranchised white labour pool and the gov’t’s business cronies furthered individual rights. How can liberalism ever be rescued from its “humiliation” when its origins are denied, hijacked by indentured servants of a cruel master they legitimise over and again in those curious aberrations referred to as elections, thereby ensuring the social misery they purport to relieve?
Vecchio continues, “All this is falling on deaf ears, of course. Knowing nothing about history, and less about the true nature of humans (or perhaps understanding it all too well), the Libertarians will never understand how wrong they are. They’re being played for suckers by people who are looking to make a profit at their expense.”
Here’s a little history lesson liberals like Joe never mention:
Katznelson concludes that most government social policies during the 1930s and 1940s were, in effect, part of a vast affirmative action program for whites that left blacks further behind than they had been at the beginning of the period. He makes a chilling case.
Who’s the sucker?
Aw, c’mon, at least get my name right.
Apologies, Avedon.
Thanks.
Thank you. Your site is a great resource. Sorry for the slight, it wasn’t intentional. A glitch in the memory files.
Peace
Actually the gist of what I was saying is that unless there is a countering force to prevent them, unscrupulous people will rob us blind. Libertarians seem to believe that everyone will somehow behave in an honest and forthright manner, which is about as naive an assumption you can get.
I harbor no illusions about utopian societies, nor do I believe that liberal programs have always worked, or that “government” is the solution to every problem (as I stated quite clearly in the article). But it seems a rather strange coincidence that every time the laissez-faire people get political power, things wind up very badly for a lot of us.
I for one would be perfectly happy to let the rich and powerful play their little games, so long as they would leave people like me alone. But history shows time and time again that those who have a certain amount of money will always seek twice that, and twice that again. Thucydides wrote about the same kinds of events 2500 years ago, things have changed very little since.
Those three posts were supposed to be one single post, it turns out the “questionable material” in your filter was the three dots at the end of the sentence. Not sure why that was so.
Did you read Still Separate & Unequal by George M. Fredrickson? I don’t think it’s behind a subscription wall. If it is I’d be happy to send you a copy. It’s a pet peeve of mine when liberals go on about the wonderfull New Deal which was nothing more than an affirmative action programme for whites, the same whites in the 70+ years since who have done little more for blacks than put their ass in jail then have the gall to go on about caring so deeply about African American problems. Look at the gentrification going on in New Orleans after Katrina. What are the Democrats doing about it? Lining up their business partners for a piece of the action, likely, and their “base” does nothing of any real significance to hold them accountable. Clinton’s tough crime position, what was that about but a pandering to the racist elements in both parties? His economy? An illusion. Liberals haven’t actually accomplished any of the goals to stem the injustices in this country that cause crime and poverty they keep insisting big gov’t is necessary to address. Name one thing, please. Tell me. When will the time come that your Democratic party will actually champion any of the “progressive” causes you care about so deeply? Never. Because you allow it. You’re as bad as the Republicans who keep prattling on about this and that whenever these corporate whores pull their strings.
Apologies for the filter. Porn spam it allows, three dots not. Go figure.
This puts forth some very persuasive arguments against the notion that even a limited gov’t can be held accountable by the “people”. (pdf)
I understand your argument, and I don’t disagree: I know how racist the country was (and still is). Others, Digby in particular, have pointed out that organized racism is alive and well in this country, and that we would have a larger and better social infrastructure if there were no black people here.
But that has nothing to do with my post, which was about Libertarians.
Could you kick me a link to this Digby post and tell me how it relates to the notion that even though this organised racism you refer to is perpetuated by gov’t policies it has nothing to do with Libertarianism?
“unless there is a countering force to prevent them, unscrupulous people will rob us blind.”
Indeed. Where is that coutering force now, I wonder.
From Kevin Carson’s site:
“As corporate liberalism (aka “Progressivism”) evolved in the U.S., the New Class was simply adopted as a junior partner by the capitalist class. As Hilaire Belloc predicted in The Servile State, the New Class has been allowed to pursue its agenda of regimenting the lower orders and socially engineering us “for our own good,” only to the extent that it has served the plutocracy’s need for rational planning to guarantee secure and predictable profits. Anyone who thinks nanny statists like Hillary, Rosie, Barbra and their ilk are “anti-capitalist” is delusional: Hillary made a 10,000% profit on cattle futures and was a Wal-Mart director, for cryin’ out loud!”
What “laissez-faire people” are you talking about,Joe? Not only have REAL free market libertarians never had any amount of political power, but they wish to abolish it. Republicans and other conservatives, along with the vulgar “libertarians” who engage in corporate apologetics are not real libertarians and are actually enemies of free markets.
A free market has never existed in this country. It is at serious odds with what the political and financial elite wants. It would, in fact, spell the end of their reign of exploitation and rule.
It seems as if you’re beating up a strawman and have not addressed real, radical libertarians. You admit that a free market has never existed and then talk about bad things that happend whenever “free market” types get power. There is a BIG difference between “free market” advocates and real free market advocates. You seriously need to familiarize yourself with the works of people like Gabriel Kolko and Kevin Carson, not to mention more historical critiques of state power, such as Franz Oppenheimer’s “The State”.
The State has never been and never will be a tool for social justice. It has always and will always be a tool used by the political elite to perpetrate social injustice.
And Diane is absolutely correct about the New Deal (which was largely written by Wall St.) being little more than affirmative action for whites. It also helped to stabilize corporate capitalism by keeping “the rabble”, as Chomsky would say, from pushing for radical change, the type of change that would actually make a difference. If you want to know why the corporate political elite has been moving away from mid-20th century corporate liberalism and towards what some call “neoliberalism”, I again urge you to consult Kevin Carson’s analysis of the subject.
And people wonder why we’re losing this fight. Let me be clear, Diane: I’m on your side. How does picking a fight with me over the shortcomings of the New Deal help? Let me quote Jello Biafra:
There’s nothing cops and corporations love more than to sit back and watch us turn off everyone we think we’re trying to help by splitting into nitpicky, backbiting, power-hungry factions and tearing each other apart. “I wanna be leader.” “No, I wanna be leader.” “No, I wanna be leader.” “No, I wanna be leader.” Bla, bla, backstab, backstab. If you don’t agree with me on everything than you must be against me. That’s poison. Anyone who’s not a vegetarian is automatically evil. All hip-hop is bad because some gangstas are sexist. If you don’t believe every word of the Bible, you’re a devil worshipper. If you’re not gay, you must be homophobic. Look at me wrong, you’re racist. Criticize Israel, oh, you hate Jews. Wear lipstick, you can’t be a feminist. Divide, divide, divide. Let the powerful few keep the quarreling majority from sharing in what is rightfully everyone’s.
I’m not your enemy. Save your energy for the right wing.
If you want me fighting by your side I’ll require a description of the enemy. If your agenda is conning people into voting for Democrats I’ve no more use for them than I have for the Republicans. Why you think the Democrats are worthy of your energy and support has yet to be determined.
I hate to be the one who breaks it to ya, Diane, but you don’t have the luxury of picking and choosing your allies. Whether it’a the People’s Front of Judea or the Judean People’s Front, we’re all alike in the minds of the right wing.
Joe – I ask for your opinions and you give me slogans. I’m not sure since you won’t speak in your own voice but you seem to be asking me to replace neconservative Republicans with neoliberal Democrats. That’s not a battle, it’s surrender.
Lads,
Political parties serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.
However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion.
Please allow me to summarize:
I write a post on my blog calling Libertarians suckers (among other things).
You respond that I’m a sucker because I support the New Deal.
I tell you that while I agree that the New Deal was less than perfect, it had nothing to do with what I wrote.
You challenge me to defend the Democratic Party, despite the fact that not once did I even bring them up.
I point out that one reason we on the left are losing is because we’re always bickering with each other.
Again you accuse me of trying to convince you to vote for Democrats.
I tell you that we don’t have the luxury of picking our allies.
You accuse me of doing nothing more than saying slogans and again insist that I am demanding you support Democrats.
Now, I’d like you to go back and read my original post and then all of my posts here. You’ll notice that not once did I do any of the things you have accused me of. Not once.
And a big reason I am not getting into a more detailed, serious debate with you is because you’re not so much asking me my opinion as you are reading things into what I say and demanding I defend them.
Now you have a choice: you can take a step back and realize that your accusations are false (and if you go back and read through my blog or listen to my show, you can get a far better idea of my opinions), and then perhaps we can proceed from there.
Or you can keep making accusations and putting words in my mouth.
It’s entirely up to you.
What makes you think that you are on the same side as Diane? The left/right dichotomy is pretty simplistic, not to mention obsolete, if you ask me. The more important distinction is between authoritarian and libertarian, and from there you can break those two groups up into left and right if you wish.
You claim to criticize all libertarians in your blog post by focusing on one specific group of “libertarian”, which suggests that your understanding of libertarianism and it’s various divisions is pretty small. You then come over here and claim to be on the same side of someone who objects to your depiction of libertarians and your insistence on relying on a violent institution that is inherently corruptible. Have you yet to ask yourself why that might be? Have you noticed the various libertarian links on her blogroll, the downloadable pamphlets written by left-libertarians? I hope I don’t come across as trying to speak for her, but your confusion over her reaction is quite puzzling to me.
Just because someone is anti-war, anti-corporate, and promotes social justice doesn’t mean that they must allign with certain people, or that choosing allies is a non-existant luxury. Could it be that some of these people view “progressives” who yearn for a return to New Deal-era policies and other authoritarian non-solutions as being people who are either letting the enemy define the landscape and the proper courses of action and are surrendering to this (which is what most of your rhetoric seems to suggest, at least to me) or simply do not understand the nature of the machinery that perpetuates poverty, warfare, and all other forms of social injustice, or both?
There is no singular left, no singular right, no singular libertarian movement. Some people are waking up to this reality and are questioning certain alliances that used to seem to be a given to them. Just because some “progressives” seem to think that there is only one way to go, one way of doing things, one party to support, and that there is no choice in the matter doesn’t make it so. In fact, it just ain’t so at all.
Oh, and did you even bother to read any of the links that Diane provided? How about the one in her initial post about the inevitability of private interests. If you do, it might help to clear the confusion as to where she’s coming from.
Joe,
Most of us do pretty badly when libertarians are in power because the “libertarians” who wind up controlling the state are the “pot-smoking Republican” kind, vulgar libertarians who use a thin veneer of free market principles to disguise an apologetic for the interests of big business. Much like the progressive, idealistic rhetoric of corporate liberalism was used in the New Deal to package the economic agenda of Gerard Swope.
Joe- I reread the entire post and my impression is the same. The New Deal is the knight on your chessboard so of course it’s in play. I also checked your site again for even one criticism of the Democrats and found none. All of your links are to Democrats and you seem to favour centre/right. I read you’re currently leafletting for a Democrat but “it seems” and “if” you support Democrats were inappropriate accusations for which I should make amends? Why?
Your radio show is hosted by a site that limits its services to liberals/progressives. What common enemy/sacrifices/impact do liberals/progressives share with The White Rose Society?
“The imperialist ideology of force, from whatever side it comes, must be shattered for all time. ” [link]
While it is quite true that big-business supported the New Deal, the ND was won by decades of popular struggle, NOT by big business.
To call the New Deal an “authoritarian” policy is just astonishing. Since freeman brought up Chomsky, allow me to link to a Q&A with Chomsky, who basically sums up how I feel about the ND and similar programs:
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky_repliesana.htm
I have a real hard time understanding people who claim to be on the left, who claim to be on the side of the poor and the oppressed, who actually think it’s worthwhile to attack social programs just because they come from “the state”. The state’s a deeply flawed institution, but at least it’s somewhat accountable to the public, and the ND and other social programs are examples of this. Reformism shouldn’t be an ultimate goal by any means, but it can help real, poor and oppressed people TODAY.
Want to smash the state? I do too. But let’s focus on the completely unaccountable private tyrannies first; we can focus on the government, which is at least somewhat responsive to the public, later.
I’m not sure how you can read the page you’ve linked and frame it in the manner you did. Chomsky is pretty clear that whilst social democrats and anarchists “fairly generally” agreed on “so-called ‘welfare state measures'”, “(t)hey diverged on where to go from there. Is that the end (roughly, the social democratic stance)? Or is it the beginning of a process leading to a very different end, and is it accompanied by efforts to build the facts of that future within the present society (the anarchist stance). It’s not either-or but both-and.”
I wouldn’t presume to speak for Chomsky but an example of different solutions to the same problem that immediately comes to my mind are companies that bilk the state for tax breaks on the promise of providing jobs but never deliver and when the tax credits expire pack their plants into semi-trailers and haul them off to the next tax break haven, usually stripping union affiliation in the move, or move them out of the country entirely.
The state has slapped some bandaids on this hostage situation to placate dumbed-down voters but I think it’s reasonably fair to assume the U.S. gov’t would never tolerate a solution like the one documented by Naomi Klein and Avi Lewis in “The Take” on workers in Argentina taking over such factories and running them cooperatively. [More Background Here.]
The state is a privatised tyranny that joined with organised labour to smash the only union truly representative of all workers regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation. The New Deal was an extension of its tyranny.
“the ND was won by decades of popular struggle”
I think it would probably be more accurate to say the ND was offered in reaction to decades of popular struggle, to keep the lid on, so to speak. But one should point out that it was keeping on lid on the facistic forces of business (e.g. the coup deal offered to Smedley Butler) as much as it was any popular movement lead by the marxist-communists of the day.
Diane – Thank you for bringing up and posting a link to info about “The Take”. I read something about it awhile back but then forgot about it. I definitely want to see that film. Such a solution is indeed one that the US government would never approve of.
The state is simply a tool used by the “private” tyrannies that we seek to get rid of. I put private in quotes since these tyrannies have historically relied upon state power to gain wealth and power and get to where they are today. I’m afraid that Adam has it backwards when he says that they have to be abolished first.
freeman- Chomsky Torrents had it at one time. It might still be there.
It just occurred to me. Joe’s original post was essentially an attack on libertarians, and a denial that we’re any different from the right-wing Republican enemy (McKinley, Reagan and Bush).
And when Diane subjects that analysis to a bit of critique, Joe’s response is “Cool your jets! My post was about libertarians–we’re natural allies against the right-wing Republican enemy.”
I might suggest that the tone of Joe’s original post was somewhat counter-productive, if his desire is really for libertarian allies against the right-wing GOP.
If Diane’s critique is “beside the point,” then surely everything Joe actually said in his original post was also beside the point of what he meant to say.