You must log in or register to comment.

ziq wrote (edited )

French anarchist Joseph Déjacque castigated Proudhon for his sexist economic and political views. He argued that "it is not the product of his or her labour that the worker has a right to, but to the satisfaction of his or her needs, whatever may be their nature".

Déjacque later named his anarchist publication 'The Libertarian: Journal of the Social Movement'. It was printed from 9 June 1858 to 4 February 1861.

In the mid-1890s, Sébastien Faure began publishing a new Le Libertaire while France's Third Republic enacted the "villainous laws" (lois scélérates), which banned anarchist publications in France.

Libertarianism has frequently been used as a synonym for anarchism since this time, especially in continental Europe.


RedIsNowGreen OP wrote

A quote from the poem "Labels":

Far "Left" we place the Anarchists, Libertarians claim far "Right";

Yet both decry the government: False continuum brought to light.


throwaway wrote

When anarchism first started taking shape, in the 1800's, libertarianism was its equivalent; they were synonymous. The term has since then undergone some metamorphosis (degradation, you could say), and has become closer to being synonymous with anarcho-capitalism than anarchism and anarcho-communism.

Kropotkin often uses the word 'Libertarian' to refer to an anarchist.


RedIsNowGreen OP wrote

In my experience I have encountered as many "Far Right Libertarians" as I have "Far Left Anarchists", with many on both sides dissing the other despite their common anti-government stance. To me, as the poem I quoted earlier asserts, this is just more proof of the fallacy/falsity of the overall Left/Right political paradigm, because in this context at least there is a point at which Far Left and Far Right do indeed intersect.


throwaway wrote (edited )

I completely agree on the point of left / right division being shit - we're all workers, and we have the same common goals - but we all have different visions of how those goals should be achieved. Libertarians aren't being dissed just because they're on the other end of the line, but because they somehow have convinced themselves that capitalism would be love and pink skies if only the state would go (it should be pretty obvious to anyone who isn't blinded by their own capitalist assets why this is a horrible idea).

That being said, I'd work alongside a libertarian to smash the state any day. Common goals are common goals, and libertarians are in no way bad people, like some of their fellows on the right are.

e: I'll add that I often do call myself a libertarian socialist, too.

e2: Your picture actually points out my argument perfectly. Libertarians are nothing but anarchists that are too invested in the capitalist system to let go of it, blinded by greed and the material values that they've worked for their whole life. They do not care that capitalism is an inherently evil, exploitative, inhumane and abusive system, because what they own is more important to them.

Libertarianism is indeed anarchism for rich people - or, egoistic and blinded rich people, at least. Both Kropotkin and Bakunin was rich, but they were strong enough to let their privilege sink into the sand in exchange for fighting for what is right.

No state, no capital. Only people.