please compare 'anarchism' and 'classical liberalism' and 'libertarianism'
please compare 'anarchism' and 'classical liberalism' and 'libertarianism'
i know only a little bit about each philosophy. they seem so similar, and i wonder, are they really just the same thing in spirit? or would you make certain distinctions? i'm seeking more understanding. i know that each has a different history, but i am asking about the philosophies themselves, separate from their manifestations.
additionally, are there other titled philosophies that are more or less the same as these?
i have read some definitions of so-called "classical liberalism" and they vary. some say that it is a philosophy that isn't attached to any political agendas, but other definitions bind it to certain political agendas. i presume that so-called anarchism and libertarianism are also defined in different ways depending on who you ask.
it seems to me that many of the terms people use to categorize each other are too ambiguous, over-simplify, become perverted over time, and cause too much misunderstanding. maybe we should rid ourselves of these category conventions altogether, but that's a conversation for another time; my primary question is enough of a topic for this post's discussion.
Anarchism is an-archos in Greek, or no-hierarchy-ism. It is a political philosophy centered around creating free ways of living without hierarchies and domination.
Classical liberalism is a statist political philosophy where a state supposedly guarantees safety alongside political and economic freedoms. Of course anarchists contest that the state actually provides these safeties and freedoms. We believe that the state usurps the natural safety and freedom of individuals and communities to impose its own order.
Libertarianism comes in two main flavors, the classical libertarianism or left-libertarianism, and the post-classical or right-libertarianism. Classical or left-libertarianism is the same as anarchism. When the French government outlawed anarchism in the late 19th century, anarchists in France developed a new word to describe themselves and their political philosophy. They began to call themselves libertarians instead of anarchists. In the middle of the 20th century, some authoritarian economists around and including Murray Rothbard rebranded their right-wing anti-state pro-big business political philosophy as "libertarianism" or what anarchists call as right-libertarianism or right-wing libertarianism. This "libertarianism" isn't libertarian at all because it promotes the freedom of corporations from accountability while leaving people and communities increasingly unfree at the mercy of corporations.
We believe that the state usurps the natural safety and freedom of individuals and communities to impose its own order.
I'd argue that "natural safety" is pretty dangerous, and safety is the main argument in favor of ceding freedom to the state.
Nice writeup btw.
Well, I come from an abolitionist perspective, and from abolitionist theory, we understand that the state doesn't give safety, it instead perpetuates harm.
The way I read it is as follows:
We believe that the state usurps the natural "safety and freedom" of "individuals and communities" to "impose its own order."
E.g., not that the safety is a property of nature, or that we need to go back to a "natural" state. My view is that people are social creatures, and that without a state bearing down on us all time, we are likely to organize into groups and conduct our lives relatively peacefully.
I cannot guarantee that there would be absolutely no conflict in a stateless society and that all people will be entirely peaceful always, but any ideology that promises that is lying to you. Furthermore, the idea that people are always peaceful or even mostly rational is not necessarily a fundamental assumption in formulating our views, as it often claimed by those who scoff at our "idealism".
Lastly, it is my view that the state and its enforcers are the biggest impediments to safety in most communities. What genocide ever occurred without the blessing and help of the government of the victims? How much violence do police inflict upon our communities by enforcing the law as it is written, harassing and killing minorities and the poor, breaking up protests and movements? How much ill-will has your country's military generated on your behalf destroying other communities and plundering them for resources? The state gives an illusion of safety because that's what it is designed to do. I suppose that for some people that look is enough, but I am a practical, results-driven person and I'm not willing to pretend that the state materially keeps us safe from anything.
The prospect of individual's having "natural safety" doesn't sound as dangerous in a society that can distinguish where "Your freedom to swing your fists ends where my nose begins" ~Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. As we face the inextricable amalgamation of corporate and state power I think it's important to take note when technology companies frequently demand permission for location and other personal data, then attempt to justify this by telling us it's for our "safety." Obviously it's almost always for the same reason corporations exist in the first place, to perpetuate wage slavery and further the interests of the authoritarian oligarchs that control them.
I know that many anarchist use an-archos like no hierarchy, but i use it like without a ruler
Additionally i disagree that post-classical libertarianism promotes the freedom of corporations from accountability. It supports private property, so if a corporation harms your property in any way without your consent, it's like any other individual.
if a corporation harms your property in any way without your consent, it’s like any other individual.
Uhuh, that doesn't track. I've seen plenty of communities have their property harmed by corporations, regardless of their private property. This happens all the time in countries like the Philippines. It's also the case in the US. You don't really have to travel far.
Classical liberalism, libertarianism, and anarchism are absolutely not interchangeable.
Liberalism is a group of related ideologies that descend from (or claim to draw from) Western Enlightenment thinkers. Classical liberals are people who claim to represent the views of those thinkers, in contrast with the modern generation of liberals who will pay lip service to modern notions of social welfare. Classical liberals typically advocate for free markets, low/no taxes especially for the wealthy, and "limited" government in the sense that it is only limited in their authority to help the poor and downtrodden [1].
Libertarianism is a term used for several movements and ideologies. Without qualification, I feel like it has little use. The original usage of the word was in relation to early libertarian leftism [4]. However, the current usage of the word is for """libertarian""" capitalists. Their ideology retains private property, but calls for the nominal abolition or reduction of government power.
Anarchism is, in my view, the label applying to those ideologies and movements that oppose all forms of authority and hierarchy. In my opinion, a consistent anarchist ought to oppose liberal democracy and liberal political systems in general. Liberals are creatures of the right because they don't oppose capitalism and usually don't oppose hierarchy on principle. Liberals have a historical tendency to betray movements that are too hostile towards their status quo, even if that means siding with obvious bigots who would kill them if given the chance. "Scratch a liberal, and a fascist bleeds." [2]
Some people use the term "libertarian socialist" (or "communist" depending on their economic beliefs) to denote those socialists (or communists) who believe in opposing authority and hierarchy, but believe that full abolition of the state is impractical. We otherwise draw from the same thinkers. Basically, all anarchist socialists [3] are libertarian socialists, but some libertarian socialists may not strictly be anarchists (but many are).
In my view, the error that "rank and file" liberals make is in taking the words of Enlightenment philosophers out of context (assuming they're arguing in good faith, which is usually a generous assumption). This causes them to inherit the biases of those philosophers, and this is especially true about classical liberals who distinctly seek out an outdated liberal perspective that doesn't challenge their bigotry. This "useful idiot" property of liberals is exploited by capitalists to create ideologues who apologize for capitalism, and by fascists who exploit liberals' aversion to change to oppose socialist movements.
Make no mistake: liberalism is the ideology of capital, and liberal writings from at least the previous century onward should be regarded as obvious capitalist propaganda. That being said, I'm not of the opinion that we need to dispose of all Enlightenment thought, but we must read into these ideals with a great deal of skepticism and context.
[1] This is not meant to imply that the State is even designed to help the poor, or that state welfare is the be-all end-all solution to poverty. However, as a stopgap measure, government welfare is better than literally nothing, although not equivalent to genuine mutual aid or building communities.
[2] I don't mean that liberals are all outright fascists. What that expression really says is that in times of distress, liberals will side with fascists before liberation movements. However, even in comfort, liberal perspectives are...kinda wack, because they're so obviously trying to justify oppression.
[3] For various reasons, including historical atrocities committed by self-identified socialists and arguments that socialist frameworks, even those that guarantee freedom, are themselves hierarchies that need to be dismantled, not every anarchist identifies as a socialist or even a leftist. Personally, I don't think that socialist frameworks are inherently hierarchical, but I understand that even supposedly "anarchist" societies have the possibility to develop hierarchies and injustice if we become complacent, and that we should be continuously re-evaluating our relationship with the rest of the Left.
[4] EDIT: replaced "communism" with "leftism", removed "e.g. direct transition to stateless, classless, moneyless society".
regarding libertarianism, you said,
The original usage of the word was in relation to early libertarian communism, e.g. direct transition to stateless, classless, moneyless society.
mambabasa said,
Classical or left-libertarianism is the same as anarchism. When the French government outlawed anarchism in the late 19th century, anarchists in France developed a new word to describe themselves and their political philosophy. They began to call themselves libertarians instead of anarchists.
these seem to be contrary claims. or are you both saying the same thing?
I think mambabasa is more correct here, and I'll change my comment in a minute. The point I was really trying to make was that the term "libertarian" "belonged" to the left instead of the right as is typically assumed.
That being said, I still think that libertarian leftism is a superset of anarchism.
thanks for your input. i honored your request to ignore the content of your earlier mis-post but was sure to read all of this one.