Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Have you ever seen a marxist turned to libertarian?

rated by 0 users
This post has 90 Replies | 25 Followers

Not Ranked
Posts 7
Points 135

Jon Irenicus:

Yeah, ok. You go live in a cattle farm then.

Well, aside from the fact that cattle are typically slaughtered, while a government doesn't gain monetarily from slaughtering its own subjects, yes, that's pretty much the idea.  Provide milk, be protected from rustlers, and chill out and eat some grass.  I wouldn't want to live on a cattle farm where all the cows vote about how much grass each of us can eat, though.  You get freedom up until you step on someone else's property, or mess with the guy in charge.

It's basically what Singapore is like.  The people there seem pretty happy, even though rules about what you can do in public are pretty strict.  They aren't killing each other like we are in the US.  I don't think they can have guns, although a sufficiently secure state wouldn't care if its law-abiding citizens had guns or not.  You can teach them to hate the State, but is that really doing them a service?

Keep in mind that most of the governments that we live under are extremely poorly run.  It goes hand in hand with democracy.  For any sort of organization beyond the very smallest, humans do best in a hierarchy.  Even open source projects like Linux or the Python programming language have "Benevolent Dictators" at the head.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,939
Points 49,110
Conza88 replied on Thu, Oct 29 2009 8:45 AM

asokoloski:
A strong State (unlike pretty much any democratic government in existence), where the owners can benefit from tax-farming the subjects, will tend to have laws that are good for the prosperity and safety of its subjects.

What... you mean like Monarchy?

I'm guessing you haven't read any Hoppe, have you?

asokoloski:
I wouldn't want to live on a cattle farm where all the cows vote about how much grass each of us can eat, though.

No-one here does. So why bring it up? That isn't anarcho-capitalism.

asokoloski:
Keep in mind that most of the governments that we live under are extremely poorly run.

What gave you the idea that they were ever trying to run the state well? The parasites take their loot & continue to live off the backs of producers. When they fail, they create a crisis & take even more.

asokoloski:
For any sort of organization beyond the very smallest, humans do best in a hierarchy.

Who is against hierarchy?

I'm against monopolies. Why aren't you?

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 318
Points 4,560
Wanderer replied on Thu, Oct 29 2009 8:52 AM

I was a non-classical liberal a few years ago, but a few Austrian economist minarchists converted me to minarchy, and then Laughing Man converted me to ancap.

Periodically the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.

Thomas Jefferson

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 7
Points 135

Conza88:

What... you mean like Monarchy?

I'm guessing you haven't read any Hoppe, have you?

Yes, like monarchy.  Monarchy has that nasty little issue where the rulers are chosen by bloodline rather than by being appointed by shareholders, like in MM's neo-cameralism.

I have read Democracy: The God that Failed.

Conza88:

asokoloski:
I wouldn't want to live on a cattle farm where all the cows vote about how much grass each of us can eat, though.

No-one here does. So why bring it up? That isn't anarcho-capitalism.

I was mentioning it as contrast to the idea of a well-run farm, to illustrate the danger of using Democracies to illustrate the problems with States in general.

Conza88:
What gave you the idea that they were ever trying to run the state well? The parasites take their loot & continue to live off the backs of producers. When they fail, they create a crisis & take even more.

Nothing.  I feel that we agree on this.  "Parasites" also accurately implies that they are working independently -- bureaucrats all squabbling over whatever they can get, numbering in the millions.  Whereas a word like "masters", as in a stronger and more centralized but smaller government, implies a coordinated team.  Yes, we are slaves.  Perhaps subjects is a better word, without all those negative connotations.

I don't expect rulers to rule well because they care.  I expect them to rule well because they are rewarded for doing so, by the amount of wealth they can extract from their subjects.

Conza88:
I'm against monopolies. Why aren't you?

I am, in almost all cases, probably for the same reasons you are.  If I believed that an-cap was the most stable form of government, I would be against all monopolies.  But I think that neo-cameralism is a good bit more stable, while keeping some of the best features of an-cap -- smaller states, strongly enforced property rights, and mostly free markets.  In a sense, I think that ownership of land is OK, and that owning a whole bunch of land that you rent out to people in exchange for letting them use it, trade plots of it, while you protect them from external threats and each other, is also OK.  Yes, there is a high barrier to entry, and if Seasteading ever takes off that will go away to some degree.  But for now, ownership of land is monopolistic whether you like it or not.  Hoppe himself said that monopolies have less to do with market share and more to do with barrier to entry.

Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,255
Points 80,815
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Well, aside from the fact that cattle are typically slaughtered, while a government doesn't gain monetarily from slaughtering its own subjects, yes, that's pretty much the idea.

No thanks.

Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 696
Points 12,900
AnonLLF replied on Sat, Nov 14 2009 4:34 PM

" Interesting.  Did Hoppe ever write about his conversion experience? I would be interested to read it."

http://mises.org/story/1455

he doesn't give away much but  you can see why he now hates marxism and democracy so much  because he used to believe in it!

 

does anyone else find that? ,you argue most strongly against that which you used to believe in.

I don't really want to comment or read anything here.I have near zero in common with many of you.I may return periodically when there's something you need to know.

Near Mutualist/Libertarian Socialist.

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,055
Points 41,895

Few Marxists have ever read Marx.  It isn't exactly a bestseller flying out of the printing presses.

I was a hardcore central planner for a few years in my teens and I held a place in my heart for icons such as Marx.  Had I known the insane, less known things about Marx, I would have hated him, but still idealized central planning, which is essentially the case of all communists.

However, my case is very different from most because I always loved markets since I was little.  I always had an understanding and respect for successful entrepreneurs.  There's nothing contradicting at all about that.  It just seems so if you use most communists as a reference because most of them had personal experiences in childhood that filled them with hate.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 114
Points 2,280

I convinced my step-brother towards anarcho-capitalism and he was a supporter of communism.

Although he didn't know much about capitalism and government in general, so it wasn't like converting some hardcore communist.

It's not very hard at all if you find someone that has an open mind (that's the hard part), I've convinced two of my liberal friends as well.

Robbery: The nation's fastest growing career!

Duties: Giving the people their bread and circuses, extracting payment by force, validating legitimacy, etc.

Job Outlook: Ever increasing and shows no signs of stopping!

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 304
Points 5,160

Felipe:

I was wondering if someone here has managed to turn a marxist over to libertarianism.

I've just saw one case on another forum where I met a nice ex-marxist that now believed in liberty and capitalism.

That's got to be quite a feat.

Not a Marxist, but my girlfriend used to be a national socialist and she's now a libertarian/Plutocratian.

...
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 814
Points 16,290

I actually used to be a Democrat, largely because I thought Republicans were racist and that minorities needed a greater chance.  I'm not a minority (other than being an individual), but I hadn't really completely come to individualism until the first Republican Presidential debates in 2007.  I had gradually changed shortly after high school; I had come to reevaluate the Clintons when I saw that Hillary tried to censor my favorite hobby (video games), but 2 years after I had a graduated in 2005, I saw Ron Paul and became a full-fledged paleo-conservative/libertarian.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,939
Points 49,110
Conza88 replied on Sun, Nov 15 2009 3:32 AM

asokoloski:

Conza88:
I'm against monopolies. Why aren't you?

I am, in almost all cases, probably for the same reasons you are.  If I believed that an-cap was the most stable form of government, I would be against all monopolies.

Anarcho-capitalism isn't a form of government, lol. That's probably the first issue you need to tackle.

asokoloski:
But I think that neo-cameralism is a good bit more stable, while keeping some of the best features of an-cap -- smaller states, strongly enforced property rights, and mostly free markets.

0 state is anarcho-capitalism.

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 901
Points 15,900
wombatron replied on Sun, Nov 15 2009 9:54 PM

liberty student:

Andrew:

I have never heard of a libertarian turning into a socialist.

Francois Tremblay.  There are more mutualists I suspect are more socialist than libertarian.  I don't know for sure, because you can't pin one down in debate to get definitive position statements.  Cowardly bunch (NOMD)

;-)

And Block was a state-socialist until he had a debate with a prominent Objectivist (I want to say Nathaniel Branden, before his split with Rand) and was convinced to a laissez-faire position.

Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 72
Points 990
mouser98 replied on Tue, Nov 17 2009 10:06 PM

Conza88:

asokoloski:

Conza88:
I'm against monopolies. Why aren't you?

I am, in almost all cases, probably for the same reasons you are.  If I believed that an-cap was the most stable form of government, I would be against all monopolies.

Anarcho-capitalism isn't a form of government, lol. That's probably the first issue you need to tackle.

asokoloski:
But I think that neo-cameralism is a good bit more stable, while keeping some of the best features of an-cap -- smaller states, strongly enforced property rights, and mostly free markets.

0 state is anarcho-capitalism.

it serves us no good purpose to mock contributers that have different ideas, or in other words, don't subscribe to anarcho-capitalism.  i personally am an anarcho-capitalist because i believe in the sovereignty of the individual, but asokoloski makes a valid argument that cannot be dismissed with mockery or some lolz.  

the question is really whether people, if given the choice, would value freedom over comfort, or comfort over freedom.  most of the people i know don't even have a clue what freedom is, but they know when they are uncomfortable.  

i personally don't want to be a silk worm, but i fear that given the choice, most people would embrace a system where their 'betters" made decisions for them if they really were, to some extent, in their best interests.

when i try to visualize a true anarcho-capitalistic society, i cannot help but imagine a committee of townspeople getting together to elect a board or a commissioner to act as their agent for some purpose.  anarcho-capitalism would always ride along the edge of that slippery slope into statism, with the only thing protecting it being the awareness of the sovereignty, and resulting responsibility, of the individual, which i fear would be set aside by many in favor of the warm embrace of comfort.

so if all you can do is mock someone who suggests an end result that is the likely end result of your (and my) beloved theoretical utopia, then do you (or I) really have a leg to stand on?

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,939
Points 49,110
Conza88 replied on Wed, Nov 18 2009 12:39 AM

mouser98:
it serves us no good purpose to mock contributers

Only if they are in fact contributing, but I agree - which is why I haven't.

mouser98:
that have different ideas, or in other words, don't subscribe to anarcho-capitalism.

Oh you can be ignorant, but when you know all the arguments and still dismiss it for Archy I have an issue with that.

mouser98:
he question is really whether people, if given the choice, would value freedom over comfort, or comfort over freedom.  most of the people i know don't even have a clue what freedom is, but they know when they are uncomfortable.

Thank the state education system / indoctrination schools & MSM for that. Just another reason to get rid of the state completely.

mouser98:
i personally don't want to be a silk worm, but i fear that given the choice, most people would embrace a system where their 'betters" made decisions for them if they really were, to some extent, in their best interests.

People have been conditioned. What do you expect? Take it back to a time where there was no state, i.e the true nature of humanity and the individual was clear.

http://mises.org/journals/lf/1971/1971_04.pdf

"The contemporary Irish historian, Kathleen Hughes, has remarked that one reason why the English conquest, begun in the 12th century under Henry II and completed only under William III in the late 17th century, was so long in being achieved was the lack of a well organized State in Celtic Ireland. A people not habituated to a Statist conception of authority are incapable of considering a defeat in war as anything more than a temporary limitation upon their liberty. Submission to the enemy is viewed as no more than a necessary and temporary expedient to preserve one's life until opportunity for revolt and recovery of liberty presents itself.

The English, of course, considered the Irish notorious in their faithlessness (they repeatedly repudiated oaths of submission and allegiance to their English conquerors); they were repeatedly characterized by English commentators as natural-born, incorrigible rebels, barbarians, savages who refused to submit to the kind of law and order offered by the English State. The Irish, unfettered by the slave mentality of people accustomed to the tyranny of the State, simply refused to surrender their liberty and libertarian ways."

mouser98:
when i try to visualize a true anarcho-capitalistic society, i cannot help but imagine a committee of townspeople getting together to elect a board or a commissioner to act as their agent for some purpose.  anarcho-capitalism would always ride along the edge of that slippery slope into statism, with the only thing protecting it being the awareness of the sovereignty, and resulting responsibility, of the individual, which i fear would be set aside by many in favor of the warm embrace of comfort.

mouser98:
so if all you can do is mock someone who suggests an end result that is the likely end result of your (and my) beloved theoretical utopia, then do you (or I) really have a leg to stand on?
I didn't mock anyone, but no wonder you responded like this, I gather you seem to think I was mocking you - since you hold the same position? How amusing.

Utopia is literally defined as requiring a change in human nature. Anarcho-capitalism requires the exact opposite, that people realise and follow their self interests. Having overlords isn't one of them. If comfort is what they seek, a government will not provide it - the exact opposite in fact, in terms of markets, justice and everything under the sun.

I have four limbs, two of those I use to walk with. I don't know about you...

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,739
Points 60,635
Marko replied on Wed, Nov 18 2009 5:08 AM

Scott F:

" Interesting.  Did Hoppe ever write about his conversion experience? I would be interested to read it."

http://mises.org/story/1455

he doesn't give away much but  you can see why he now hates marxism and democracy so much  because he used to believe in it!

 

does anyone else find that? ,you argue most strongly against that which you used to believe in.

The zeal of the convert you mean? Maybe you just find the best arguments to argue against a position you used to held, because it can give you a better, more complete, perspective. Makes you know where to hit so to say.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 72
Points 990
mouser98 replied on Fri, Nov 20 2009 7:16 PM

mouser98:
i personally am an anarcho-capitalist because i believe in the sovereignty of the individual

Conza88:
I didn't mock anyone, but no wonder you responded like this, I gather you seem to think I was mocking you - since you hold the same position? How amusing.

Do you see an inconsistency in the above quotes? 

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,939
Points 49,110
Conza88 replied on Fri, Nov 20 2009 8:26 PM

mouser98:

mouser98:
i personally am an anarcho-capitalist because i believe in the sovereignty of the individual

Conza88:
I didn't mock anyone, but no wonder you responded like this, I gather you seem to think I was mocking you - since you hold the same position? How amusing.

Do you see an inconsistency in the above quotes? 

I hadn't mocked anyone, but then I was accused of it, so I obliged against the accuser. Not inconsistency, just a change of heart.

Is there a reason why you ignored the rest of the post that contained the most substantive arguments and focused instead on the semantics of the least?

Wait, don't answer that - respond to my previous post points instead if you still disagree with them. Cheers Smile

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 72
Points 990
mouser98 replied on Sat, Nov 21 2009 9:28 AM

Conza88:
Is there a reason why you ignored the rest of the post that contained the most substantive arguments and focused instead on the semantics of the least?

Wait, don't answer that - respond to my previous post points instead if you still disagree with them. Cheers Smile

The reason is that I agree with your arguments.  What I was criticizing was your tone.  However, having seen your posts in many other threads I realize now that this is just your style.  So I can see that my appeal to have you reply to asokoloski with reasonable and respectful replies rather than dismissive one liners like "No-one here does. So why bring it up? That isn't anarcho-capitalism." as if only subscribers to ancap were allowed to post here, was a waste of my time and yours.  My apologies.

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,939
Points 49,110
Conza88 replied on Sat, Nov 21 2009 9:46 AM

mouser98:
My apologies.

No worries. Smile

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 3
Points 90

Well, I am one of those :-)

 

Let me explain what I thought and what I think. It may help you to figure out how to argue with marxists and convert them.

 

CONFESSIONS OF A MARXIST MIND TURNED IN FAVOR OF FREE MARKET CAPITALISM

 

I used to believe that people's motivation was more or less constant and not so sensitive to incentives. Thus people would strife and innovate independently of what economic system there was. This was never made explicit in my brain, but it was nevertheless an underlying assumption. A necessary corollary of this assumption is that differences in wealth has to derive from a combination of the following causes:

1) differences in innate abilities

2) exploitation by some of others 

It was clear to me that differences in abilities could not explain the differences in wealth that I saw around me. After all, no Robinson Crouse could end up super rich. That could only happen by taking advantage of others. (And, as I thought, necessarily at their cost.) Under this assumption, it was natural to think that society collectively should gather to protect itself from the exploiters, just as libertarians usually think that society should collectively defend itself from outside invaders through national defense. The taxes that capitalists had to pay was not "their" money in any meaningful way, since it was basically stolen from the workers. Therefore the state should take it all back and use it for the common good. In fact, I thought that the government should not only take back what the capitalists had stolen from their workers, they should take the further step to artificially erase the innate differencies in productivity. The slogan "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" should be the guiding rule. 

 

Why did I change my mind? 

I need not to go into detail about the merits of free market capitalism, as you all know it. Basically I realized that people react to incentives and that this was the underlying reason why capitalist nations were richer than communist nations. I also began to understand how free markets work in allocating resources, and why it was futile to believe that state planning could do the same job. I also realized that one cannot count on the government to act for the common good, since state bureaucrats are not necessarily more angel-like than businessmen. I now realize that the "natural selection" that acts on business is essential to drive out inefficiency.

 

In short, I have changed my underlying assumptions about how society works and come to different conclusions. This was not done by divine inspiration. It was done by starting to read about economics. I did it reluctantly. I thought that economists were not interested in understanding how the economy worked and had no theories about it. I thought they only invented theories about how to earn money by not working (i.e. "robbing" from others). When I started to learn about the workings of the market I was really thrilled. It was the beginning of a 3 years battle where old "obvious truths" were to battle agains reason and statistics. There are literally billions of neurons that have to connect in a different way when you change your world view in such profound ways. Fortunately I am a man of science, so I know that empirical data has to be accepted and interpreted rather than explained away. I think this helped a lot. But more than anything else, I benefitted from reading Sowell. It was like reading the Devil's poetry. So clean, so logical, and so contrary to anything I had always thought. It is a strange feeling to have your assumptions and convictions smashed down mercilessly without being able to get upset. Sowell kills almost any argument against him. One can only ignore him or respect him. But to ignore would be intellectual dishonesty. 

 

To sum up, I should perhaps say that I am probably not a "true" libertarian, as far as I understand the concept. By that I mean that I do not warship freedom. I think freedom is nice, of course, but not sufficient as an argument for the free market. Under my old assumptions and conclusions, i.e. that "freedom" led the masses into misery, I condemned freedom since I saw it as being beneficial only for a small randomly selected group. Only under my newly acquired hypothesis that freedom is the most efficient method to bring prosperity to the masses do I embrace it.

 

I therefor strongly suggest that, when arguing with marxists, do not emphasize freedom. Do not talk about profits in terms of rewards for good work. Talk about it as a necessary evil that has to be there to get those small-minded people out there into being useful. If you have to mention freedom, treat it as a positive side effect, not as a goal in itself. Marxists think that this freedom is only theoretical, that in practice it leads to LESS freedom for the masses since it permits them to be exploited by the capitalists.

 

Good luck,

Martin

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,360
Points 43,785
z1235 replied on Mon, Apr 16 2012 8:10 PM

Martin, thank you for sharing. Welcome!

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 781
Points 13,130
Minarchist replied on Mon, Apr 16 2012 10:18 PM

No, but I've seen a libertarian become a Marxist.

A friend of mine was once a libertarian (granted, he didn't study the subject in any depth, but he had libertarian leanings and usually agreed with me on specific policy-issues: e.g. drug policy, welfare, etc), but then he went to university and now he's a Marxist, and a radical feminist!

Maybe I'll convert him back someday.

apiarius delendus est, ursus esuriens continendus est
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,850
Points 85,810

What's wrong with being a feminist? 

'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 781
Points 13,130

"What's wrong with being a feminist?"

Nothing, if the goal of feminism is to achieve equal rights for women.

But unfortunately the goal of modern feminism in the West is to carve out special legal privilages for women, in the same way that other Leftists seek to carve out special legal privilages for racial minorities.

...not to mention the importance of feminism in the ongoing and intentional destruction of all traditional mores, otherwise known as cultural Marxism.

apiarius delendus est, ursus esuriens continendus est
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Mon, Jun 18 2012 5:48 AM
 
 

One of the problems in trying to bring a leftist around to libertarianism is that the left eventually realized that science and facts are against them in economic theory (Mises's economic-calculation) and they decided to turn away from facts to emotion, away from reason to mysticism.

So, there's a built in resistance to facts on the left and to clear, reason-based thinking.

You see this in the philosophic attacks on the concept of knowledge, with the left holding the epistemological line that it is impossible to know anything for sure. The whole co-opting of the concept of relativity, twisted into the idea that 'everything is relative and therefore nothing is true' follows the same line.

On the extreme end you have those who believe that there is no such thing as reality, that truth is created by the mind--a lapse into philosophic solipsism.

Those immersed in these anti-intellectual concepts are inherently resistant to facts contrary to their existing conclusions. Combine that with certain biases of the human mind to discount evidence contrary to what they want to be true, and you have a group particularly resistant to facts.

I think this explains why so many socialists continue parroting the idea that socialism as an economic system was never tried faithfully, or that somehow Stalin 'screwed it all up.'

As for me, I was raised in a home marginally republican. My path to libertarianism largely began through listening to talk radio, moved into a study of economics via Sowell and the Austrians, and then into political theory and philosophy, which led me to libertarian writers such as Rose Wilder Lane, LeFevre, Hayek, and many more.

It was perhaps my study of economics that proved to me that freedom was essential. In economics you could get hard numbers and hard facts such as one could not in political theory. I think approaching political concepts of freedom from an economic viewpoint is key because of that aspect of provability that pure theory largely lacks.

I'm less interested than many of you in deep economic theory in a world without an Austrian economy in place. To my mind, a free economy is just a consequence of a free society and largely would take care of itself. The larger goal of putting a free society in place is more important, and a free market would be emergent from that. We know it would work, let's get it going.

 
Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Mon, Jun 18 2012 5:49 AM

***removed dupe***

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 77
Points 1,150

The first three books I read on economics was the three volumes of Das Kapital. I thought it was a garbled mess at the time.

I considered myself a socialist when I was a teenager but someone pointed out that I was using the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy to justify my arguments for intervention. I immediately ceased advocating socialism and decided to study economics. Economics led me to the Austrian School. The Austrian School's champions led me to libertarianism.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590
Autolykos replied on Mon, Jun 18 2012 11:45 AM

Anemone:
I'm less interested than many of you in deep economic theory in a world without an Austrian economy in place. To my mind, a free economy is just a consequence of a free society and largely would take care of itself. The larger goal of putting a free society in place is more important, and a free market would be emergent from that. We know it would work, let's get it going.

You forgot to add at the end, "Now all I need are your credit-card numbers."

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 3
Points 90

Hi Anenome. You say that "the left eventually realized that science and facts are against them in economic theory (Mises's economic-calculation) and they decided to turn away from facts to emotion, away from reason to mysticism." 

I don't believe that is correct. Typically the left is 100% certain that they are the ones who stand on the side of science and facts. For example, they are likely to show you things like income statistics showing disparities between, say, male and female income and call you a "denier" if you dare to say that females are not necessarily being discriminated against as much as is often thought. They are also quick to observe that religious belief and oposition to the theory of evolution is more common among non-leftists than among leftists, not to menion manmade global warming. Moreover, in a broader sense, the idea of having a specialist board that plan the economy and use "reasonable" estimates on what kind of prices are just, what types of compensationary privilieges should be given certain groups to compensate for innate obstacles etc, is in some sense much closer to scientific procedure than to accept that "value is subjective", "man is not capable of improving on the spontaneous outcomes of the market" etc. Many leftists are indeed convinced that a communist society would work out just fine if it weren't for all "non-scientific" and "irrational" and "egocentric" reactionaries who stand in the way for their paradise. Sowell analyzes very neatly in "A conflict of visions" how people come to logically sound but completely different conclusions by making different assumptions of the nature of mankind and the meaning of words such as justice and freedom.

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,113
Points 60,515
Esuric replied on Mon, Jun 18 2012 6:49 PM

 I was wondering if someone here has managed to turn a marxist over to libertarianism.

Well I was a Marxist before I was a libertarian. 

"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 781
Points 13,130

"Many leftists are indeed convinced that a communist society would work out just fine if it weren't for all "non-scientific" and "irrational" and "egocentric" reactionaries who stand in the way for their paradise.'

Indeed, as witnessed by all the unmarked mass-graves East of the Vistula.

apiarius delendus est, ursus esuriens continendus est
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 77
Points 1,600
Ancap66 replied on Mon, Jun 18 2012 7:41 PM

Anarchast Ep. 25 with Josh Luther - Josh's road from Marxism to Anarchism

...stupid glitch won't let me post video directly.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Mon, Jun 18 2012 10:18 PM
 
 

Autolykos:

Anemone:
I'm less interested than many of you in deep economic theory in a world without an Austrian economy in place. To my mind, a free economy is just a consequence of a free society and largely would take care of itself. The larger goal of putting a free society in place is more important, and a free market would be emergent from that. We know it would work, let's get it going.

You forgot to add at the end, "Now all I need are your credit-card numbers."

I'll let Kickstarter handle the payment processing ^_~

Seriously tho, we're too complacent. New options have opened up in recent decades. We no longer have to change hearts and minds to get a libertarian society going, we can start an experiment of our own and show the results of our actions.

It was argument by deed that convinced the British to deregulate during the 1800's, to rampant success, spurred on by the example of America's then-free trade. That could happen again, in the face of mixed-economy states failing the world over, their economies and currencies sinking under the battering waves of soaring interest rates, just as we predicted.

What we need is not another book on Austrian economics or libertarianism or more theory--those are good things too, but probably not going to have the greatest impact on a tone-deaf public and a media that ignores anything but the status quo. What we need is the argument of the deed, to show in reality the incontrovertible outcome of a free society.

And why wouldn't libertarians flock to such a society, to put their money where their mouth is?

America forced the world to advance right along with it, and the waves of the American revolution crashed upon European and world monarchy and converted them to republicanism right along with us. Why couldn't a truly free society, a libertarian society, similarly complete the revolution the Americans began and create an even greater impact?

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Mon, Jun 18 2012 11:02 PM
 
 

achaquesabetudo:

Hi Anenome. You say that "the left eventually realized that science and facts are against them in economic theory (Mises's economic-calculation) and they decided to turn away from facts to emotion, away from reason to mysticism." 

I don't believe that is correct. Typically the left is 100% certain that they are the ones who stand on the side of science and facts. For example, they are likely to show you things like income statistics showing disparities between, say, male and female income and call you a "denier" if you dare to say that females are not necessarily being discriminated against as much as is often thought.

That one doesn't even stand up to a passing scrutiny. If firms could get the same work from women for any % less wage, firms would be forced to hire nothing but women to compete with others doing the same thing, becuase the firms hiring nothing but women would have a lower cost base and could compete strongly on price. It also doesn't explain why women-owned firms don't do exactly that.

So, it's not a question of believing they're right, it's confirmation bias and ignoring contrary evidence. They'd rather believe in mythical oppression as an explanation because that's a political cause. It's the feminists who actually start thinking whom then become the enemy, to be silenced and ignored, like, say Tammy Bruce.

achaquesabetudo:
They are also quick to observe that religious belief and oposition to the theory of evolution is more common among non-leftists than among leftists, not to menion manmade global warming. Moreover, in a broader sense, the idea of having a specialist board that plan the economy and use "reasonable" estimates on what kind of prices are just, what types of compensationary privilieges should be given certain groups to compensate for innate obstacles etc, is in some sense much closer to scientific procedure than to accept that "value is subjective", "man is not capable of improving on the spontaneous outcomes of the market" etc.

Leftists have always been extremely weak on economic theory--especially when it comes to theory of production. To cover for that, their economic theory has to exist in a fog of confused generalizations, platitudes, confusions of cause and effect, and simplistic reasoning. The result is more like anti-thought than thought.

The driver on the left is undoubtedly social issues, and they justify using force in order to achieve so-called good ends. But they do not look at the results--meaning they ignore outcomes and focus on intentions--which is again to ignore reality.

I love the story of the legislator whom thought she was doing a good thing by banning babies being held on airplanes. A plane had crashed and a poor baby had been ripped out of its mother's arms in the crash, flew through the cabin and killed. So she proposed legislation to save kids' lives by requiring parents to buy an extra seat so the poor kid can be strapped in.

But this fails to account for how people will react to such a law. The intention may be good, to save lives, but what is the outcome? What happens if we think beyond stage one? Will parents strap down their kids?

Parents have the option generally to fly or drive. Requiring parents to buy an extra plane ticket means many won't be able to fly and will instead choose to drive. It is however much more dangerous to drive than to fly. Which means that, should such a policy go in place, it's likely that the actual result of such a policy would be more dead babies than if you simply let parents hold their toddlers on the plane.

But the left doesn't realize that every cause has an effect, and that every effect is in turn itself a cause.

achaquesabetudo:
Many leftists are indeed convinced that a communist society would work out just fine if it weren't for all "non-scientific" and "irrational" and "egocentric" reactionaries who stand in the way for their paradise. Sowell analyzes very neatly in "A conflict of visions" how people come to logically sound but completely different conclusions by making different assumptions of the nature of mankind and the meaning of words such as justice and freedom.

Which, again, makes no sense for any student of history who can look at the actual results of societies where leftists have gained unopposed power in societies, places like Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, and in the Khmer Rouge.

Conflict of Visions is a fantastic book *sagenod*.

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,389
Points 21,840
Moderator

 

I wouldn't be surprised if it was easier for a Marxist or whatever fringe ideology to turn to another frings ideology.   It would probably be harder for a succesful mainstream progressive or social dem to turn libertarian, as that form of leftist liberalism is the relevant social custom.

 

Fortunately for us, we actually do speak an esoteric academic language that progressives loves so much -unfortuanatley for us - it essentially dissolves their hard on for the type of scientism aesthetic they have.  So our arguments are irrelevant.  It's kind of hard saying intellectuals and science aren't that special when you are addressing a view that is built off of classic Enlightenment principles.

 

"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann

"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence"  - GLS Shackle

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 60
Points 825
s burgess replied on Tue, Jun 19 2012 5:11 AM

yes ive turned a couple.if you allow x marxists who had never read marx.but they have read rothbard.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Wed, Jun 20 2012 5:34 AM

Nice reply, achaquesabetudo.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 256
Points 5,630
... the idea of having a specialist board that plan the economy and use "reasonable" estimates on what kind of prices are just, what types of compensationary privilieges should be given certain groups to compensate for innate obstacles

I find these people the hardest ones to convert.

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 56
Points 875

achaquesabetudo and Anenome are both correct, but refer to different strands of collectivism.

You have the scientific type who use a form of faulty deductive reasoning that leads to the labour theory of value. They think that freedom and respect for property rights lead to capitalist exploitation, lead to the accumulation of capital in the hands of the few while everyone else ends up earning a subsistance wage.

Then you have the cultural marxists, who are positivist and relativist, attack science, attack logic, attack theory, run on pure emotion, usually work in Academia and the social sciences.

The first type can be made to see the logic of libertarianism and turned, as achaquesabetudo shows (Hans Hoppe has a brilliant article about this called 'Marxist Austrian Class Analysis'). For the second type there is no hope for them, because their mental philosophy rejects logic and reality.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 172
Points 4,070

OT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Marxism

wink

Suum cuique
  • | Post Points: 5
Page 2 of 3 (91 items) < Previous 1 2 3 Next > | RSS