Political Theory

Re: Anarcho-Capitalism as populist fascism, and subsidiary observations

Autolykos — Thu, 04 Apr 2013 16:47:04 GMT

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".

Re: Anarcho-Capitalism as populist fascism, and subsidiary observations

fakename — Thu, 04 Apr 2013 06:58:10 GMT

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.

Re: Anarcho-Capitalism as populist fascism, and subsidiary observations

Hairnet — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 21:41:27 GMT

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).

Re: Anarcho-Capitalism as populist fascism, and subsidiary observations

Bill — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 17:11:35 GMT

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.

Re: Anarcho-Capitalism as populist fascism, and subsidiary observations

ToxicAssets — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 15:14:10 GMT

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".

Re: Anarcho-Capitalism as populist fascism, and subsidiary observations

Buzz Killington — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 02:09:37 GMT

How is individualism in any way compatible with fascism?

Re: Anarcho-Capitalism as populist fascism, and subsidiary observations

SkepticalMetal — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 00:42:56 GMT

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

Re: Anarcho-Capitalism as populist fascism, and subsidiary observations

Jargon — Tue, 12 Mar 2013 23:55:52 GMT

Re: Anarcho-Capitalism as populist fascism, and subsidiary observations

gotlucky — Tue, 12 Mar 2013 23:55:34 GMT

Possible definitions of libertarian:

Noun

libertarian (plural libertarians)

One who advocates liberty either generally or on a specific issue, e.g. "civil libertarian" (in favour of civil liberties).

(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'.

(chiefly Europe) An anarchist, typically with socialist implications.

(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.

(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)

(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.

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.

Re: Anarcho-Capitalism as populist fascism, and subsidiary observations

Neodoxy — Tue, 12 Mar 2013 23:44:22 GMT

"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.

Anarcho-Capitalism as populist fascism, and subsidiary observations

fakename — Tue, 12 Mar 2013 23:35:54 GMT

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?