Share
With all the hype over the candidacy of Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) in the Republican primary, there may be some value in further exploring the range of libertarian thought.
Paul has attracted attention to his outsider candidacy, which combines opposition to the American occupation of Iraq with opposition to militarism in general, alongside a domestic vision of a greatly reduced federal government and a less regulated economy. Paul has run for president on the Libertarian Party ticket before and an independent run in 2008 is possible. That said, Americans could use a further look into what it means to be libertarian.
The word "libertarian" in the broadest sense does not have the economic implications that it does in American politics. It tends to mean, in general terms, a vision of decentralized, anti-authoritarian, and federated social organization. The economic implications are present only in so far as they can be captured in the concept of cooperative, non-hierarchical institutions. The American libertarian party would better be labeled the libertarian capitalist party, because one can be a libertarian without endorsing a capitalist economy.
The gross human failure of the Communist bloc nations of the twentieth century testified to the brutality of the authoritarian vision of socialism espoused by Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong and others. The concentration of economic and political power into fewer and fewer hands inevitably resulted in some of the most brutal and inhumane systems of social organization. If fascism is taken to be a political system built around a centralized government that subordinates and controls (insofar as it can) all aspects of economic and political life, then these nations were truly more fascist than communist.
The Bolshevik regime was more concerned with drawing the entire economic sphere into its grasp than it was with encouraging a proliferation of cooperative farms and communes, as envisioned in classical socialism.
The problem with representative capitalist democracy is not a lack of centralization but too much centralization.
It is time to put to bed the notion that a genuine social revolution can take place at the hands of a vanguard party. Genuine change will occur when it is organized cooperatively and from below; when hierarchical institutions are replaced with voluntary, cooperative ones. I do not endorse American libertarianism, and for those precise reasons. Any economy that is built upon private property is one that is built upon exclusion. I take it for granted that for an American to express his or her opposition to capitalism is sacrilege, but I believe that we are capable of offering more decent economic alternatives.
A variety of thinkers and activists have explored ways in which humans can conduct themselves upon less hierarchical lines, both economically and politically. Some have stressed the virtues of revolutionary-era town hall democracy, characterized by face-to-face interaction and decision-making, where individuals have a say in social decisions to the degree that they are affected by them. The participatory economy movement, building on a history of anarchist syndicalism and cooperative labor, seeks to replace the managerial and hierarchical nature of the corporation with a management system characterized by participation.
In this vision, workers have no bosses, but rather make factory or company decisions insofar as it is relevant to them. This participatory vision is enhanced by a new concept of remuneration.
Wages have a seemingly inverse relation to the nature of the work. Rote and un-stimulating work is paid the least, while the most exciting and rewarding careers are remunerated with massive salaries.
Is our wage system justified? This line of thought goes against conventional economic wisdom, but even those of us who have little experience in formal economics know that wealth is a matter of values.
Leave a comment 17 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
"Until we are willing, individually and collectively, to challenge the pervasiveness of hierarchical forms of organization and decision-making... [and] insist upon making decisions for ourselves, and not at the behest of politicians and corporations, that we will have a chance at organizing a better society." Sounds like you've got a pretty good grasp of the Ron Paul movement, I couldn't have worded it better myself.
Reply to this Top
Jason, I was starting to bristle when you began to criticize capitalism, but I then saw that your argument was more subtle than simply "Capitalism bad, Socialism good". I have always been a fervent free-marketeeer, but lately, like you, have begun to question some of the authoritarian aspects of what I would call our current economic system, corporatism (as opposed to free enterprise). Somehow, I do feel that true libertarianism is not compatible with being free politicallly, and yet being a wage slave in a corporate hierarchy. As Karl Hess once said (I paraphrase here): "Why do we reject fascism in politics, and yet embrace it in the workplace?" It is an excellent question, and one which I have never been able to answer. Thank you, anyway, for your thought-provoking essay.
Reply to this Top
A free market economy is the best way to promote economic growth for all classes. Free market economies are more prosperous than a socialist economy because it based on the law of supply and demand, not on some imaginary labor theory of value. Would you want NASA to design a rocket that ignored the law of gravity? Then why would you want an economy that ignored the law of supply and demand?
Reply to this Top
As George Orwell pointed out, the only reason the government (and religion) still exists is to preserve "unfreedom and inequality." Humanity now possesses the knowledge and understanding necessary to liberate itself from the authoritarian power structures which have enslaved it since the dawn of history. It is no longer necessary for human beings to live at different social or economic levels, but the only way this will ever be brought about is with the abolition of government, to be replaced by cooperation organization (bottom up rather than top down) and absolute respect for individual liberty (which includes the right to own property).
Reply to this Top
This is a good piece of writing. Thanks for a good essay that I can respectfully disagree with! I believe an economy can be built around libertarianism. The society in which we live started out as that, perhaps not in purest form, but the most libertarian system ever attempted. It has been very successful if it was not for losing our way through apathy and entitlement. It's not too late to recapture that freedom. I agree that a purely libertarian system (like any pure system) would not work, but as a basis for a free society with a very limited governing body it is far better than socialism, corporatism, and of course, statism. Thanks again for the great piece. http://slackhack.blogspot.com
Reply to this Top
If I remember correctly from US History, was it not the federal government that ordered that food be destroyed in order to keep prices up? (see Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933) As a matter of fact, there were a few policies during the Great Depression that actively kept prices high, in effect preventing any kind of free-market capitalism, and are even cited as prolonging the Great Depression. A free market economy is, for the most part, ideal, as it allows individuals to have the freedom to make choices for themselves for the best benefit. However, it should be noted that we do not really have anything close to that anymore. For example, most, if not all, businesses are currently required to give some sort of basic benefits to workers, which I believe includes health benefits. This is a noble goal, to be sure, but it has the unfortunate side-effect of increasing the overhead involved in creating new small businesses. This in turn makes it virtually impossible for small scale entrepreneurs to create jobs. A lack of jobs leads to increased unemployment, and you know the rest.
Reply to this Top
The libertarian expression of economics is the Austrian School of economics, the principle exponents of which were Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard. Check out www.mises.org for information on this true school of free market economic theory. Money, the heart of any economy, is not whatever government declares it to be. Gold is money because peaceful people, trading without a gun at their heads, have for thousands of years chosen gold as money. A real money must be something that traders value and are willing to hold as an intermediary object for trading. This allows human economy to rise above the level of barter. Money was invented in the market place, not by government. But governments have proven very willing to steal the very concept of money...first by replacing gold with paper that was redeamable in gold, and then gradually pushing the real money out of the way so government could replace it with pure central-bank controled fiat paper and fiat credit. Then govenment expands the money supply for its own purposes until the economy eventually collapses from the destruction of the fiat money standard itself. This is what the US is facing now, with the other paper currencies of other countries following. There was basically no inflation in the US from 1790 through 1910. A house in NY city, a fine dinner in NY city, cost much the same over those 120 years. Since the establishment of the US central bank in 1913, the dollar has lost more than 95% of its value. The US government stole its citizens gold in the 1930's for twenty dollars per ounce, then immediately raised the price to 35 dollars per ounce. Now the market price of gold is around 800 dollars per ounce and if the US government was forced to buy back its dollars for the gold it claims to own, the price would be in the many thousands of dollars for every ounce. The US government cannot continue in this manner and will never pay off its debts or give the American people the benefits it has promised. The wealth to do this simply doesn't exist on the planet. Americans will never receive the benefits they have voted themselves by electing the criminals to congress who have made these promises. And yet, the American voter continues to prove himself/herself incapible of electing any honest people into high positions of their government.
Reply to this Top
I think the author of "An economy built around libertarianism can't work" misses the true essence of libertarianism. Libertarianism is not focused on whether not it would actually work, the primal quality of libertarianism is it's ideals. No one can say truthfully whether or not it would work under any circumstance, because a pure libertarian society has never existed. What matters is that we are what America is. America was founded on three principals. Liberty, Justice, and lastly and most important, freedom. Freedom has been given more definitions than just about any other word. But if you would ask a libertarian what it means, they would tell you that freedom means the freedom to live or to die, to prosper or to perish. Freedom means one holds sole and complete responsibility for oneself and one's property. The only way for that freedom to exist is for the government to back off. Taxes restrict freedom. Most laws restrict freedom. The only laws that should exist should be drawn directly from the constitution; to protect people's freedoms. So, libertarians believe that to uphold these ideals, any and all sacrifices can be made. Benjamin Franklin once said "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." This is in terms of economic, political and social safety. Our country was founded upon the virtue that freedom is the most important ideal, and unless we want to change who we are, and not be the United States of America, we too must believe and follow that virtue at any cost.
Reply to this Top
This whole essay sounds, to me, like another marxist chomping at the bit to start up the proletariat revolution and overthrow the bourgeoise oppressors. Trouble is, no such oppressors really exist. You have to keep in mind that the brand of capitalism practiced in the US is correctly noted as corporatism - but is not something that sprang up 'on it's own.' I mean, think of it this way. . . I start a widget factory, and in order to produce my widgets I need a supply of dingbats. Now, when I first start, I have to locate and purchase my own dingbats. . . but as my company becomes more profitable, I earn the ability to make my own dingbats. So I buy out the dingbat company in order to reduce the cost of my widget, and the cycle continues. It's how successful business thrive, and how they manage to continue making better products to introduce to a very competitive market. The author of the article wants a 'bottom up' approach to business operation, but you need to remember that not every worker has a valid opinion on how best to operate his business. I mean, let's say you are a factory worker, and the factory in question is not 'managed' by anyone but the workers. Well, I don't feel like I'm getting paid enough - in fact, nobody feels like he is getting paid enough! So the workers vote themselves a raise - and subsequently drive the company out of business because it is not a sustainable business practice. "Let's abolish money!" you say - also bogus. That would only work if each person was able to make something that other people actually wanted. I may be the best widget maker in the world, but if they guy who sells corn doesn't want or need a widget, I won't get to eat tonight. That's why the barter system doesn't work, and that's why we have money in the first place.
Reply to this Top
I am so happy to read all of these comments! Especially considering the fact that the CT refuses to print any of our rebuttals to the several anti-libertarian columns over the past few months. I am the President of the Libertarians at Virginia Tech and I strongly encourage all of you friends of liberty and free marketeers to check in to our group. I am also the coordinator of Students for Ron Paul, and we are equally interested in your participation in the Ron Paul Revolution. Find us on facebook or email me at liberty@vt.edu
Reply to this Top
Is the author a college student? seems like it. Lots of big words, and a C- grade. "Capitalism has proven the capacity to create immeasurable quantities of wealth, including basic nutritional and medical necessities, and yet these necessities fail to reach those in need. The persistence of homelessness, poverty, and other seemingly intractable social problems may be a reflection of the natural operation of a capitalist economy." It would take some time to explain to you how you don't know what you're talking about in every regard, so there's one. Capitalism creates wealth, central eccon control filters the wealth to the top in our system. Libertarians want open markets, not managed. This would mean that everyone has the same chance at creating value without the government deciding who "needs" it. As you can OBVIOUSLY see, we've been trying to fix everyone's problems, and we have the same problems only worse. We also have more overall problems. If you've graduated college, author, please go back for a degree in econ.
Reply to this Top
"Why do we reject fascism in politics, and yet embrace it in the workplace?" Anser: cause your boss can't arrest you and toss you in jail with no hope of ever seeing the light of day again.
Reply to this Top
I think this article would have been better placed in the Daily Worker. You assult property rights? Should we give ALL property to one master, one lord of us all? This Owner-of-All could then decide who "deserves" to live somewhere?
Reply to this Top
If you want to address poverty then the best way to do it is by generating the most wealth. Pure free market capitalism (characterized by criminalizing any type of coercive market behavior such as physical force, fraud, etc, but otherwise allowing all mutually agreed upon transactions to occur) has, I think at this point, been conclusively demonstrated to be the best vehicle to generate such wealth. Right now America throws at least two trillion dollars down a social welfare rathole each year on all levels of government, yet we seem to be increasing the problems that the author is concerned about rather than reducing them. Its no coincidence. Vote for Ron Paul for a return to free market prosperity of the sort that made America the rich technologically driven nation that it is today. He'll work to restore sound money (thus ending inflation) and to get the government tax/spend machine off our backs.
Reply to this Top
Hong Kong has fully libertarian economic policies and boasts a 3 percent unemployment rate and higher living standards than Great Britain, its former colonial master. If only the other colonies followed its lead...
Reply to this Top
Really now. Then how did this country operate up until the federal reserve was illegally implemented?
Reply to this Top
The only problem with capitalism is that people are not yet educated enough in its workings to know that they ultimately control it. Also, we don't have capitalism (we have protectionism).
Reply to this Top