Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Libertarianism = Communism: My Glenn Beck Chalkboard Moment.


"Wha..? Pi R squared..? Well, I guess that could work too..."

I had an email today from an angry wingnut wondering where I got off equating Libertarianism with Marxism.

Ha! I knew I'd get a conservative goat or two with that apparently far-fetched hypothesis. Maybe I'd sound like I'm doing a Glenn Beck-style 2+2=85 equation. But the statement is logical. Just bear with me while I break out the chalk board...

Central to what Marx and Engels called the 'scientific theory' of class, state and revolution was the idea that democratic societies are in a constant state of tension (or class warfare) because there's the Bourgeoisie who own the wealth and the Proletariat who work for them and the Proletariat are invariably screwed over. But because the rich and powerful Bourgeoisie are numerically far smaller than the Proletariat, it's necessary to have a state (i.e., a government with police, prisons and armies) to exert its own power on behalf of the minority and keep the otherwise untenable system running smoothly-ish.

Marx and Engels were obviously opposed to the dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie (i.e., systems like ours) and prescribed violent revolution as a way of bringing about the ostensibly fairer dictatorship of the Proletariat instead. Marxist revolution envisaged the Proletariat seizing control of the state and then using its power to assume ownership of the means of production, to wrest away the 'common wealth' from the Bourgeoisie whose asses had now been roundly kicked.

But... State control? Big government? Class warfare..? Not very libertarian so far. Bear with me. This is where the equation kicks in:

Marx and Engels' whole point was that the post-revolutionary state (or government) would "whither away" as the unfairness that warranted its existence in the first place disappeared. Without the need to maintain a minority dictatorship on behalf of the Bourgeoisie (who would no longer exist), the state would just go bye-bye on its own. At least that was the idea.

Obviously Marx was proved wrong by Lenin, Stalin, Mao and all his other fans who seized power on behalf of the Proleteriat and then bloated state power to authoritarian extremes instead of allowing it to "whither away". But that doesn't change the theory. Neither does it mean that the Libertarian idea of small government fostered by some kind of magically occurring, equitable economic balance doesn't hold true either. Just like Marx, Ron Paul will tell you that big government only exists to preserve an otherwise untenable imbalance rooted in unfairness and without it, the State (or government) is superfluous. Hmm... maybe it's unfair to call Libertarians communists. Maybe I should call them strict Marxists instead?

Unlike Marx or Paul, however, any "big government liberal" will tell you that our current freemarket capitalist state isn't ideal but it's the best we can hope for. Hell, most of the time it sucks. But it sucks waaaaay less than the totalitarian dystopias that inevitably arise whenever folks who stand for "small government" or "people power" get their way. And that's why the state (or government) is necessary and will not, cannot "whither away" under the dictatorship of the majority. All you need to do is substitute "Corporations" for "Bourgeoisie" and "The American People" for "The Proletariat" and you can see how Libertarianism and Marxism have pretty much the same goal in mind. And would suffer the same pitfalls in practice.

So don't email me and call me ignorant. At least not until you grasp enough basic political theory to debate a self-confessed rube like me.

Share/Save/Bookmark

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.