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

Anarcho-Capitalism as populist fascism, and subsidiary observations

rated by 0 users
This post has 10 Replies | 4 Followers

Not Ranked
Posts 1,005
Points 19,030
fakename Posted: Tue, Mar 12 2013 5:35 PM

I've been thinking about it and it suddenly hit me that libertarianism is individualist fascism.

I think that this is a much better insight for introducing a lay-man into libertarianism, than simply calling libertarianism either low tax liberalism -since indeed if it was how would we explain Hans- Hermann Hoppe -or anti-coercive (since what is coercive seems controversial and it is too remote an explantation to illuninate how the world would look under it).

Now, fascism is about promoting the autonomy of a people and/or of individuals belonging to a unique group.

Libertarianism is about promoting the uniqueness of autonomy of individuals. The only difference is in contexts: group freedom vs individual freedom.

But to what extent is this correct? After all libertarians follow the NAP, and this means that their ethics are not in individual terms, what fascist ethics are to a community (for fascist communities often wish to expand into other foreign communities).

However, insofar as the NAP seems to be what libertarians believe everyone will choose because all individuals have an interest to do so, then it seems to me that even here the NAP is just a policy which nourishes the individual's own interests instead of compromising it. As such, it could be seen as self-invigourating and thus, fascistic. Also note that fascism and libertarianism have extremely broad meanings in that fascism could apply equally to America, Spain, Italy, Japan, China, Germany, the USSR, etc. Libertarianism can also be practiced by diverse peoples like communists, capitalists, environmentalists, racists, black nationalists, liberals, conservatives, etc.

 

However I think the charm of such an oxymoron might lapse into absurdity because it would be much like calling anarcho-capitalism anarcho-statism or individualist statism.

Clearly then, there must be some difference between ancap and the chaos evident in something like anarcho-statism, where all men have the right to tresspass on each other? This difference must be the NAP but does the NAP square with indivudals who express themselves by coercing others? To some extent yes and no, since it is conceivable that there would be differing legal traditions in an ancap world (Catholic law, vs Protestant law, etc.), yet how could the NAP support itself when people with such different backgrounds live together? Perhaps even here there is a voluntary solution such as, living apart? But still, I think that to fully resolve this problem the austrian school must attempt a moral critique of interventionism by analyzing all the specific reasons for such interventionism and showing how these reasons could not logically hold, when employing praxeology within the context of that particular position.

For instance, if there was a religion whose highest value was disorder, then perhaps praexology could attack that religion by showing how disorder makes no sense in a world of human purposes. As such, this religion would not be allowed in ancap land.

Does that seem like a profitable field for exploration or is it pointless?

  • | Post Points: 95
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 2,439
Points 44,650
Neodoxy replied on Tue, Mar 12 2013 5:44 PM

"I've been thinking about it and it suddenly hit me that libertarianism is individualist fascism."

I think I'm going to enjoy the responses to this.

At last those coming came and they never looked back With blinding stars in their eyes but all they saw was black...
  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 2,679
Points 45,110
gotlucky replied on Tue, Mar 12 2013 5:55 PM

Possible definitions of libertarian:

 

Noun

libertarian (plural libertarians)

  1. One who advocates liberty either generally or on a specific issue, e.g. "civil libertarian" (in favour of civil liberties).
  2. (chiefly US) A believer in a political doctrine that emphasizes individual liberty and a lack of governmental regulation and oversight both in matters of the economy ('free market') and in personal behavior where no one's rights are being violated or threatened. Also 'classical liberal', akin to 'anarcho-capitalist'.
  3. (chiefly Europe) An anarchist, typically with socialist implications.
  4. (philosophy) A believer in thinking beings' freedom to choose their own destiny, i.e. a believer in free will as opposed to those who believe the future is predetermined.
  5. (US, prefixed to "Republican") a member of the Republican Party (especially a legislator) who emphasizes economic and Constitutional, rather than religious and personal, aspects of the party's platform.

Possible definitions of fascism:

 

Noun

fascism (usually uncountable; plural fascisms)

  1. (historical) A political regime, having totalitarian aspirations, ideologically based on a relationship between business and the centralized government, business-and-government control of the market place, repression of criticism or opposition, a leader cult and exalting the state and/or religion above individual rights. Originally only applied (usually capitalized) to Benito Mussolini's Italy.
  2. By vague analogy, any system of strong autocracy or oligarchy usually to the extent of bending and breaking the law,race-baiting and violence against largely unarmed populations.

I'm not sure you know what fascism is.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 1,133
Points 20,435
Jargon replied on Tue, Mar 12 2013 5:55 PM

Land & Liberty

The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 1,711
Points 29,285

Calling ourselves "individualist fascists" is not a good way to make friends.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 372
Points 8,230

How is individualism in any way compatible with fascism?

 

"Nutty as squirrel shit."
  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 371
Points 5,590

 

I see your point.

Well, libertarianism is a very broad term, and can apply to people that want more personal freedom and point out abuses of power by governments and their affiliated operations.

But indeed, the idea entertained by some self-proclaimed libertarians of a "non-coercive" social contract is almost as blatantly asinine as the contradiction in "individualist fascism".

"Blood alone moves the wheels of history" - Dwight Schrute
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 134
Points 2,155
Bill replied on Wed, Apr 3 2013 11:11 AM

But indeed, the idea entertained by some self-proclaimed libertarians of a "non-coercive" social contract is almost as blatantly asinine as the contradiction in "individualist fascism"

I remember my first coercive social contract (shotgun wedding). Turns out she was a fascist. Now I see what you mean about individualist/fascism.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 144
Points 2,635
Hairnet replied on Wed, Apr 3 2013 3:41 PM

 The OP is fixated on the concept of soverengity. Fascists claim soveringity for a group, and AnCaps claim it for an individual. 

However Fascism is the incorrect model because groups don't have rights, individuals do (as individuals are rational actors and groups are not). 

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 1,005
Points 19,030
fakename replied on Thu, Apr 4 2013 12:58 AM

Calling ourselves "individualist fascists" is not a good way to make friends.

 

I liked the phrase "individualist fascist" because I felt that it was a better concrete description than "laissez faire". From experience, I've observed that people link Libertarianism and any political idea, with a concrete description. So conservatism=war, big business, theocracy and liberalism=gay marriage, peace, high taxes. Likewise laissez-faire=19th century capitalism, limited gov., etc. And indeed, the popular conception of libertarians as pot-smoking republicans is mostly true. But libertarianism of the LvMI brand, will always be difficult to equate to any one state of affairs since, besides the NAP, it really doesn't settle on any one "vision for society". So I asked, with what concrete state does ancap most mimic? And I came up with, as we all know, fascism (interpreted as the realization, through struggle, of the unique qualities that differentiate all persons) and individualism (the scale to which such struggle applies). I also felt, that this characterization is also a more popular one, since it connects with the ideal of a world where "everyman is king". Obviously such an ideal is kin to one that wants everyone to be his own "dictator". Perhaps it is ultimately not the best way to win friends, but the rationale is so starkly concrete that I personally like it and prefer it to some label like "everyman is king" or populist monarchy because the latter is too cliche sounding.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590
Autolykos replied on Thu, Apr 4 2013 10:47 AM

I think there are way too many negative connotations with the word "fascism" for this to be successfully marketable. Plus fascism was intended to be explicitly anti-individualist. Going with this, "individualist fascism" makes about as much sense as "square circle".

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (11 items) | RSS