Brainpolice : Corporatism, Economics

The Nail in the Coffin of "The Right"

Brainpolice — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 20:54:00 GMT

It is common for many libertarians, especially those in America, to assume that they have a natural alliance with "the right". This is based on certain assumptions, such as the notion that contemporary libertarianism grew out of the old American conservative movement and that "the right" is generally supportive of less government and more free markets in comparison to "the left". In short, the libertarian who makes such assumptions is at least partially buying into the way in which the political spectrum is typically framed in contemporary public discourse, with "the right" standing for less and less government control and "the left" standing for more and more government control, with "the left" standing for collectivism and communism and "the right" standing for individualism and capitalism. One would think that the libertarian should know better than to buy into this false dichotomy. It eradicates all nuances.

I find such assumptions to be mistaken for a number of reasons. In historical terms, libertarianism predates the existance of contemporary American conservatism altogether and the term "libertarian" itself actually derives from certain socialists from the 19th century. And, the term libertarian itself aside, the bulk of those who are considered to be the forefathers of libertarian ideas were originally considered to be on "the left", including free market proponents. Furthermore, it seems to me to be the case that the bulk of self-identified "rightists" do not actually support a free market or any consistant philosophy of individualism. I see no serious compelling reason to assume that "the right" necessarily supports state power any less than "the left". Conservative devotion to individualism and free markets is largely rhetorical, not substantive. These are campaign slogans, not seriously or consistantly held philosophical positions.

If viewed in terms of the original meaning of the left-right political spectrum, the meaning that it had centuries ago, libertarians are actually on the "far left" while the conservatives are on "the far right". For the left originally was supposed to represent anti-authoritarianism, anti-statism and revolution, while the right was supposed to represent the status quo, the oligarchy and reactionaries. Taken in its original context, conservatism has always been the polar opposite of libertarianism or liberalism. Libertarians are often mislead by the modern assumption that "the left" is necessarily in favor of statism and opposed to free economic interaction. Since this is assumed about "the left", the libertarian may make the mistake of then concluding that "the right" is therefore their natural home on the political spectrum.

But what does "the right" of today really stand for? Not to make too hasty of a generalization, as a "rightist" may not necessarily support all of these things, but here's what immediately comes to mind: corporatism, protectionism, monarchy, theocracy, traditionalism, militarism, nationalism and racism. It is important to note that all of these things were strongly opposed by historical libertarians and classical liberals to varying degrees. Classical liberals tended to be cosmopolitans in their worldview, and therefore nationalism does not jibe very well with such a philosophy. They also respresented a radical divergence from past political traditions, which implies an opposition to monarchy and theocracy. And there was always a strong opposition to war and imperialism within the old libertarian "left". Furthermore, obviously any sensible understanding of free market economics would lead one to oppose protectionism and corporatism.

Why do I identify "the right" with these traits? Because as far as I can tell such traits are implicit in their own rhetoric and in the substantive content of their policy positions. Obviously I do not mean to lump all "rightists" together into one arbitrary camp, as there are different factions within the contemporary conservative movement. But each faction represents some selection among the listed traits. Neoconservatives tend to support corporatism and militarism. Paleoconservatives tend to support protectionism, nationalism and traditionalism. The Christian right tends to support theocracy. Furthermore, despite quibbles among different factions of conservatives, they all are united by an irrationalist opposition to anything that is considered to be part of "the left". When it comes down to it, many conservatives are willing to set aside their differences to function as reactionaries to what they commonly oppose. Therefore anti-communism, anti-Islam, anti-multiculturalism and anti-secular sentiments prevail.

The problem is that in the name of opposing such things, the conservative tends to enter into a desperate state in which they will support just about any means in the name of defeating their common enemies. Thus, whatever disposition they may have had towards restraint in political affairs is at least temporarily set aside. The communists, radical Islam, the secularists and multiculturalists must be defeated at all costs first - then, only when the enemies have been defeated, we can worry about restraining the government, freeing up the economy and adhering to a non-interventionist foreign policy. But even when one boogeyman is defeated, it usually is replaced with another one. Thus, when the Soviet Union fell and left a void of rationales for foreign policy interventions, radical Islam was then used as the new rationale.

Even if the conservative is somewhat or even entirely correct in opposing something, such as a communism, they may tend to make the mistake of going on to form or join equally dangerous reactionary movements and end up supporting other things that should merit opposition as well. In short, they fall into the trap of thinking that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". But it does not logically follow that since one opposes communism, one must join forces with the fascists. It does not logically follow that since one opposes social democracy, one must join forces with the monarchists. It does not logically follow that since one opposes the state's discrimination laws, one must join forces with white nationalists. It does not logically follow that since one opposes government ownership of the means of production, one must indiscriminately support corporations.

The economic views of contemporary conservatism are also very warped. For the modern conservative does not support laissez-faire, but some form of a mixed economy or corporate state. Sure, the conservative's rhetoric is often devoted to laissez-faire, but their support for "capitalism" is more often than not merely a knee-jerk apologia for current economic conditions, corporations and the rich, irrespective of wether or not it has anything to do with laissez-faire. In short, the contemporary conservative often ends up using the term "free market" to describe and legitimize what we currently have. But we do not currently have a free market. The average conservative has not read Ludwig Von Mises or Frederic Bastiat. Their support for "capitalism" is more or less merely cultural, not an informed and substantive position. All they know is that they oppose "socialism" and "communism", and "capitalism" is the opposite of those things, therefore they must support whatever "capitalism" is. But their "capitalism" happens to be either the status quo (or elements of it at least) or some romantisized past utopia.

Since the conservative tends to conflate laissez-faire with corporatism or the effects of a mixed corporatist economy with "the free market", actual consistant proponents of laissez-faire may actually be demonized and brushed aside as being "socialists", since a consistant adherance to laissez-faire would naturally lead one to oppose corporatism. The conservative loves to see red where it does not really exist, therefore going on red-baiting witch hunts. The conservative may see red in positions that don't necessarily have anything to do with being a communist, such as opposition to political borders and support for multiculturalism. They accept an absurd false dichotomy: either you support the conservative agenda or you are a "far leftist". A "far leftist" is defined quite simply as anyone who disagrees with the conservative to any significant extent.

While there certainly are conservative intellectuals, the average conservative does not derive their position from any serious study of philosophy, economics or history. They derive their position from the media, their parents and cultural cliches. They are brought up to believe that whatever the conservative establishment happens to be supporting equates to small government, free markets and individualism - and that everyone and everything else is more or less a representation of big bad communism and "big government". In contemporary politics, conservatism has more to do with one's cultural preferances than any half-seriously thought out political philosophy. Dimwitted talkings heads such as Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter determines the conservative's views rather than anything remotely resembling a rational thought process.

What does the libertarian truly have in common with the contemporary right? In my estimation, very little. What they have in common is a matter of rhetoric and to some limited degree over what they are opposed to. But the libertarian ultimately has no compelling reason to support what the contemporary right does. For the contemporary right is largely a reactionary statist movement. Figures such as Ronald Reagen and Pat Buchannan are not particularly libertarian, despite any correct positions they may hold to on certain individual issues. Contemporary conservatism is just another brand of statism.

The Anarcho-Statists

Brainpolice — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 17:46:00 GMT

For quite some time now, Kevin Carson has critisized what he calls "vulgar libertarianism". Vulgar libertarian is a tendency of some libertarians, particularly those with an affinity for "the right", to function as apologists for currently existing economic conditions and corporations as if they came about as the result of "the free market" and even outright advocate statist policies in the name of "the free market". In short, they defend the effects of corporatism in the name of "the free market". For the most part, I find Carson's criticisms in this regaurd to be fairly spot on. Vulgar libertarianism is indeed a considerable problem.

However, there is another tendency displayed by some of the libertarian "left" that sort of runs in the other direction. If the vulgar libertarian could be said to concentrate on anti-statism and anti-socialism while ignoring the problems of corporatism and non-governmental forms of exploitation (or making apologetics for the results of the corporatist economy), a significant portion of social anarchists would appear to display the opposite problem: they concentrate so much on anti-capitalism that they start to neglect the problem of statism and function as a apologists for state-socialism. In short, they underemphasize and seem blind to the degree of power that the state has and how it effects matters.

While the vulgar libertarian functions as an apologist for gigantic corporations, the virtuently anti-capitalist libertarian functions as an apologist for state bereaucracies and coercive labor unions. Indeed, much of the valid complaints that the libertarian left makes about the modern chartered corporation applies just as much so to modern chartered unions. For the most part, modern unions are by no means free associations. They are cartels with government privileges and they function much like corporations (even with mergers). This is a problem that particularly applies to anarcho-syndicalists, who envision unions as their main strategic means to bringing about a free society.

But the problem cuts much deeper than coercive unions. For while the virulent social anarchist opposes what they see as being "private tyrannies", a temptation arises to view the state as a more benevolent alternative. The prospect that the state's intervention itself brought about such "private tyrannies" to begin with seems dim or unfathomable to some social anarchists. Instead, they tend to see it as an inevitable result of the market itself. Consequentially, it would appear that they can only turn to the state to crack down on the allegedly private sector created problems. The state appears to be a balancing force that can potentially help alleviate "private tyranny". To these people, government provided goods and services is seen as preferable in comparison to private or corporate provision.

Due to this confusion, some social anarchists are actually functioning as state-socialists in disguise. I have seen this myself first-hand. They will defend blatantly statist ideas and policies such as national healthcare, the minimum wage, anti-trust and personal welfare. They are essentially duped by the populist rhetoric behind such policies that panders to sentiments of empathy towards the poor and needy (and derision towards the wealthy and powerful). They fail to see how, if anything, these policies are substantively more corporatist than not. And they fail to see how such interventions would blatantly contradict anarchism. Such policies are supported in the name of alleviating conditions that are thought of as being the inevitable result of private property and the market economy.

If all of the problems in society are blamed entirely on private property and the profit motive, it is easy to see why one would tend to view state intervention (backed up by egalitarian rhetoric) as a solution or "lesser evil". But an informed social anarchist should know better than to overlook the institutional role of the state in such problems, let alone see the state as a solution. They should not accept the false choice between state tyranny and private tyranny, or between state-socialism and corporatism. Opposition to corporatism should not blind one to the evils of the state apparatus itself.

In order to have a more sound view of matters, the social anarchist should temper or modify their position in certain ways. For one thing, they should aschew the Marxist class analysis, which largely neglects the role of the state in class conflict (as well as the role of the enterprenuer in an economy). Furthermore, they should have a better understanding of how modern welfare states formed on the behalf of big buisiness with the purpose of cartelizing economies. They need to understand how government intervention in an economy creates the conditions they abhor and benefits the private groups that they despise. Otherwise, there will be an overwhelming tendency to drift towards state-socialism.

"Private" and "Public" are Misleading Terms

Brainpolice — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 20:23:00 GMT

This is a response to the following video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1b9qGxjjAP8

Hello Luke

I share your frustration with the definitional chaos surrounding these words. In many ways the meanings typically attached to the terms public and private property are juxtuposed. The word public would seem to imply that the property in question is under the control of the actual public, which would be the citezenry. The word private would seem to imply exclusivity. What is commonly called public property, however, is under the direct control of the state rather then the public. So the fact that it is labeled as being public property is very misleading and disingenous. In contemporary terminology, the term public property is an obfuscation of what should be called state property.

In reality, those who constitute the state, in conjunction with a small amount of wealthy elites from the public who are in patronage with the state, directly and exclusively control what is called public property. If the actual public were truly in control of it, they would be able to directly determine how their portion of it is used as individual or sell their portion of it. Instead, they are taxed to maintain the exclusive control over the property by bereaucrats. The public does not directly determine how the property in question is used. They are denied the true implications of ownership over it, despite being the ones who bear the cost for its maintainence.

Private property, in my understanding, would be property that is owned and controled by private individuals, in contrast to being in the control of the state. The public is merely the sum total of private individuals. So in a quite literal sense private property is the only true public property in that it is actually under the ownership of the public. To truly "privatize" would be to transfer ownership to the public. True public ownership of the means of production, as in ownership by private individuals constituting the public, would inherently require the removal of state ownership of the means of production. However, there is a significant difference between genuine "privatization" and the bulk of what passes as "privatization" today. What usually passes as "privatization" today is merely the transferance of ownership and the granting of privilege and protection to a monopoly, to institutions that already are in collusion with the state to begin with.

Institutions such as corporations and central banks are chartered into existance by states and granted special legal privileges and protections. So-called private institutions that are in patronage with the state and that are granted the privilege of externalizing their costs onto members of the public are no longer independant. They may be viewed as extensions of the government. While to some extent they may still be under the control of certain private individuals, usually a very exclusive group, that control was granted to them by the state. They are dependant on the state for their existance and often the state is one of their main customers. This is especially true in the case of military industry, hence the term "military-industrial-complex". And of course central banks function as a mechanism of state policy. They enjoy immense macro-economic control that was granted to them by the state, a monopoly on the money supply.

In order for an institution to truly be "private" in the sense of being independant and in accordance with the principle of free association, all connections between that institution and the state have to be severed. If there is even the slightest symbiotic relationship between an institution and the state, and if an institution's very existance is that of a legal entity based on some kind of charter or protection, it cannot be considered fully "private". Unfortunately, due to the definitional confusion in public discourse, this fusion between state and private power is blamed entirely on "private" sphere and a non-existant free market. The state's role in the existance, maintainance and protection of such institutions is obfuscated. Unfortunately people like Noam Chomsky have a tendency to repeatedly conflate the distinction between laissez-faire and the fusionist corporatism that currently exists.

So those are some of my thoughts on this. I hope I haven't created more confusion then before.