this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2025
1375 points (99.1% liked)
Political Memes
7566 readers
2979 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I still think the word libertarian should be reclaimed by the left. Fuck the ancaps who took it. Westerners are too scared of it, despite it originally meaning a socialist. Places where white peopl aren't the majority have no issue with the word. My Filipino family understand that liberty is just another word for freedom, but think socialism is just state communism. Socialists will never win against capitalist propaganda without violence. Too many people hate anarchists and "socialists" but are not at all afraid of the principles of anarchist socialism. It needs better branding, and the word libertarians was literally designed for that. And the ignorant western liberals believed them and hate the word libertarian because of it instead of being educated.
I agree with you but it's just difficult when you have groups like Libertarians of NH posting this shit
Ugh. New Hampshire once again proves they are the worst of New England, by a huge margin!
As a lifelong NHer, I feel obligated to say fuck you buddy. Nobody calls NH shit but NHers.
As a person with a brain though you're pretty much right lol
But idk I mean I think I'd rather live here than like Connecticut or Rhode Island.
Heh, fair enough!
As a lifelong Masshole, I already live in the best state in the country - but, believe me when I say that New Hampshire isn't that bad when you factor in the many many shithole states that aren't in New England.
Yeah it really depends what you're talking about. Our politics are pretty whack. There's a small amount of that good libertarian socialist energy here that bleeds over from Vermont and Maine, and I do feel like that is intensifying as Trump wields his heavy hammer of federal government, but I think a good chunk of that energy gets stolen and redistributed by bigots. We've never really had someone like Bernie to channel it.
But outside of politics we've got mountains, we've got lakes, we've got beaches, we've got some small cities, and Boston's just a day trip away. I've always enjoyed that aspect. But yeah. New Hampshire. Live restrained and hike a little. See a loon. Then die.
I drive through NH every time I visit my sister in Maine. Call it the southern kid in me, but I enjoy a few tiny minutes of no seatbelt 🫣 but I've been in a horrible car accident where I was the only one with a seatbelt so don't take that the wrong way 😅
Of course nh doesn't have seatbelt laws lol
Or mandatory car insurance I think
I thought their motto was live free or die, not live free and die
Trust me I'm very well aware of the libertarian party and its various caucuses etc. They're part of the problem.
I still think the root word of liberty has meaning to Americans that can make it easy to grasp anarchist socialism, even if they don't fully buy in to the anarchist part. As long as Americans don't associate it with communism or socialism they can often buy socialist anarchist ideas. It's stupid, but it is what it is
It's funny, because in Europe we classify liberals as right wing too.
Over here, Liberals are the people who want liberal economic policies, meaning less rules for the rich. Our left wing are socialdemocratic, with liberal social policies (meaning freedom to live how you want)
In America, they call their left wing liberals, because they are scared of socialism and just the thought of people getting to decide how to live their own lives are semi-radical.
For so many years the American left wing has only been focusing on social issues, while neglecting the more important stuff like healthcare, education, workers rights and affordable housing.
I get wanting to fight for acceptance for all, but its just distractions man. And as soon as gays became accepted, trans people became the new out group. The fascists will always create a perceived enemy that normal people have to defend.
You can fight for their rights without letting it take focus away from the oligarchs trying to fuck everyone.
Yup.
Although I would definitely argue that "Liberal" probably IS more accurate for what the American left is. Even going back to bush era republicans... we as a country tend to be right of center. With the American Left being fairly center-right/center-left and still prioritizing liberal politics to protect donors.
The left/right distinction is just one axis and makes all these discussions complicated (hence the confusion over where anarchy and libertarianism actually falls or the belief that socialism/communism is fundamentally left wing). But it is also important for people to realize that overton windows actually are very important to understand when discussing regional politics.
Which is funny because to me it’s very clear liberal philosophy is leftist. Rawls being more modern liberal is basically distributionist. Classically Rousseau and even Smith were definitely not neoliberal.
I think the right hijacked liberal just like they did with libertarian, but in this case they did it wrong. The left needs liberalism or else they go the way of Stalin and Mao, they need core principles that they don’t sway from even for revolutionary ends such as justice, rule of law, freedom of speech, etc. The Marxist immoralism gave them far too much freedom to be opportunists in their principles basing them literally on material conditions rather than principles like rights and freedoms. As I often say, what revolution is worth anything without principles? If it was just scientific necessity, who would care to do the work?
As an Anarcho-Syndicalist I am far more of a Libertarian than the average US "Libertarian". However I mostly would rather use the word Anarchist due to wanting to absolish all coercion. At the same time "left-libertarian" works, hopefully one day actural Libertarians wont need to differentiate as leftist just as Anarchists dont need to.
How in the world would one abolish all coercion? That seems a basic fact of human nature. People will always try to influence others.
I was referring specifically to the absolution of the state and capital
There's libertarian socialism. And anarcho-syndicalism. I'm small government on weed but big government on preventing pollution. Pollution violates the non aggression pact but what's left of libertarians don't see it that way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism
Left libertarians and right libertarians are both separate real things and they don't agree on everything at all. It keeps them from gaining traction which our two uniparties appreciate because it keeps them in power. I'm anti-authoritarian so I dislike both parties for different reasons. Many libertarians describe themselves as classic liberals, saying "the party left me" but we've never had leadership that reflected either right or left libertarians whatsoever. Although I'm anti-authoritarian, I don't consider myself libertarian. It's too full of abuses like wanting child labor and approval of sex with minors that enables child sex trafficking. And complete removal of any regulation. The US has too much regulation, but there is good regulation.
I actually think the newer meanings is more accurate. Libertarian is now distinguished from anarchism by the presence of a limited government. That’s a necessary distinction. But what should that government do? Right libertarians say defend property rights, Left libertarians would say things like organize production.
The problem is liberals don't even grasp the concept of a left libertarian. It's an oxymoron to a liberal. They immediately assume you're a right winger unfortunately in America at least. Then you have to just say you're a socialist and then they think you want to put them in the gulags. Then you say well I'm the anarchist kind and then they think you're going to kill them for liking money or something.
My primary complaint is liberals believe the right when the right try to say what libertarian means, and I think liberals should instead be educated on the word but they are often can't be convinced , and it's often too much energy to even try.
(I'm including the modern liberal and conservative in that definition of liberal).
Well I’m fundamentally against language protectionism, basically saying a word used to mean x and it should always mean x. Words should have utility more than history. But I think the struggle you’re having is real.
I’ve frequently said the left needs new words, if not primarily for the reason that all the old words have the baggage of failure from a century ago. But they should also engage in new ideas, hopefully not just new words.
Left libertarianism is not engaged with because it’s often just used as a synonym for left anarchism, whereas right libertarianism is not synonymous with right anarchism. If it doesn’t have a distinct philosophy, they feel you are tricking them, then they are right to just take all the problems with left anarchism and associate them. And IMO all anarchism is equally discredited. As someone who used to be left anarchist.
I'm not talking about protection, I'm talking about reclamation. Ie not all words must be protected, but some words have reason to be reclaimed. Very different things. The right shouldn't have a monopoly on liberty in political discourse.
Well again, the proper use of the term should not be the implication that libertarian is implied right or left. It’s the axis on which we balance liberties. Both left libertarians and right libertarians want maximal liberty, but they disagree how those liberties are obtained. They both want a minimal government, but a minimal government best ensures liberty how? Both of their relations to anarchy are on the axis of the discussion of the word “maximal/minimal”. Minimum government manifests itself how? Maximal liberty manifests itself how?
The words greatest use is there. Not a political pin to be reclaimed by either side.
You... should really educate yourself on what libertarianism actually is. Just because the root word "liberty" is in there does not mean it is a socialist concept.
In fact, libertarianism is kind of anti-socialism as one of the founding principles is individual autonomy. That is in direct opposition to the idea of social ownership of the means of production.
Ironically, you are highlighting what led to a LOT of people self identifying as libertarians in the early 00s. You hear a word that sounds nice to you and figure that must be a good thing. When it is actually in direct opposition to your implied claim of being pro-socialism.
Now, I COULD go on a long rant about how the vast majority of modern socialists ALSO don't actually understand the political ideology they claim to support. But that just makes people pissy.
You're just factually wrong. The word 'libertarian' was first used to describe a political ideology in 1857 by the French Anarcho-Communist philosopher Joseph Déjacque specifically to differentiate his ideology from the mutualist anarchism of Proudhon.
The term 'libertarian' took off in popularity in France in the 1880s when the French government began to suppress anarchist newspapers. They just switched to using the word "libertarian" rather than "anarchist" to get around the censor. This is exemplified in the weekly newspaper founded in 1895 called The Libertarian (Le Libertaire in French).
The anarchists in the Russian Revolution and in the Spanish Civil War called themselves interchangeably 'anarchists', 'libertarians', and 'libertarian socialists'.
The term didn't come to be associated with classical liberalism and right-wing ideologies as it is today until the middle of the 20th century. It was a specific attempt by right-wing American political philosophers who held an allegiance to Locke-style 18th century classical liberalism, but felt that the term "liberal" had become too associated with left-wing (within the American context) politics.
Here's a quote from 1955 from the libertarian writer Dean Russell:
Here's a quote from the libertarian writer and philosopher Murray Rothbard from the early 1970s:
Here's a quote from Ronald fucking Reagan in 1975:
Modern libertarianism in the context of American politics is synonymous with classical liberalism and conservatism (up until the MAGA movement co-opted conservatism and just made it synonymous with fascism). But in the US prior to the middle of the 20th century, and outside of the US until much more recently, libertarianism was synonymous with anarchism and was very much a leftist ideology.
Thank you for the summary, I got in a discussion on the same point some time ago, it seems that people who grew up in the USA culture associate libertarian and right wing in a very deep way.
Id just like to add that in french nowadays, we have two words for libertarian : Libertaire for the left-wing anarchist meaning, and Libertarien for the USA right-wing version. Libertaire is still widely used by anarchists here, so there's no reason it could not be the case in USA, though it will be a pretty tough challenge.
Your historical analysis is nicely summarized. But words change meaning, they always have. ,"Don we now our gay apparel"used to mean festive clothing. Well I guess it still does in a different way, wtf do I know lol. Carry on.
Queer used to be a slur (and still can be) and before that it had a different meaning, but it has since changed again to be reclaimed by those it was intended to hurt. Words change, of course, but that must mean they can change back too. I'm not saying we must take the word back, mind you, I'm only suggesting it. I personally think it's a good idea but I'm not gonna make anyone who doesn't want to do it. I also am very aware of the challenge to reclaim it, I only brought it up because it was relevant to the thread. Penn Gillette is most likely a left-ish libertarian and doesn't even know it, but obviously no longer associates with the term for understandable reasons. I am wishing he didn't have to abandon the term libertarian and instead wish American society was able to comprehend left libertarianism.
I'm not arguing anything about the modern meaning. I'm providing historical context as to where the word comes from, and correcting the previous commenter who was asserting 'libertarian' had no connection to socialist political theory.
One could argue that many modern right wing libertarians are closer to anarchism than some of their left wing equivalents. Back when I was on reddit there was much discussion of what they called watermelons - green on the outside, red on the inside. Meaning they presented themselves as anti authoritarian but in reality wanted to use the power of the state to enforce their ideal version of societal freedom. There are also differences in how the words are understood today in different places - Europe, the US, other places in the world. I did commend your historical representation btw.
Only if you don't understand what right-wing libertarianism is. It is 100% reliant on the state monopoly on violence and coercive authoritarianism.
Only if you paint with broad strokes. They are more diverse than that, and some are very anti government. The same is true of those more on the Left.
I already addressed all of that in the other branch (its cool, you probably started typing that before I posted) but, the super short version:
As you yourself acknowledge, the "libertarian" part of that is related to the "anarchist" part of "anarcho-communism" which came out of the anarcho-capitalist movements of the era.
And, over the past 150 years or so, modern libertarians have continued to embrace ideologies of personal liberty that align more with the anarchist movements. Whereas modern socialists have largely decided that The State needs to provide for its people (with lots of arguments as to what The State should actually be).
Insisting that "libertarianism" should somehow be used by socialists because they came from a similar root movement is like insisting that all socialists should ACTUALLY call themselves feudalists because you can draw a line from the various philosophers back to concepts from feudalism (and beyond). It ignores WHY different philosophies and forms of government were constructed but it sounds much better, I guess?
And if the argument is that you consider yourself a libertarian because of your pseudo-anarchist leanings and don't like that other people ALSO consider themselves a libertarian becuase of their pseudo-anarchist leanings... tough titties?
My argument here is that when the term 'libertarian' was created it was specifically used by leftists to describe a leftist political ideology and the only reason it is not still associated with leftist politics is because right-wing conservatives very specifically and intentionally "stole" the term in the middle of the 20th century.
Further, in the right-wing context, 'libertarianism" is synonymous with classical liberalism and conservatism. The idea that right-wing libertarians embrace the ideology of personal liberty is just plain horseshit. They embrace personal liberty for one person and one person only: themself. They want 0 personal liberty for anyone other than themself, and if you tell them they are not allowed to restrict the liberties of others, they take that as an attack on their personal liberty. Modern right-wing libertarian political "philosophy" is no more developed than the political ideology of a toddler.
I don't have any personal attachment or desire for myself or other leftists to use the term libertarian. The petulant children can have it.
No. Right wing politics is 100% about "personal liberty"... for them.
It is the problem with trying to implement theoretical socioeconomic and political models in reality. Because WE can all agree "nobody should be enslaved". But... who actually WANTS to dive into the sewers to break up the fatbergs?
Because personal liberties inherently conflict. You want to be free to let your dog roam wherever he wants. I want to be free to let my cat out on her catio without fear of neighbor dogs attacking her. Which of us get our personal liberty respected? And so forth in terms of religion and speech and choice of labor and so forth.
It seems to me that @[email protected] actually has a better grasp on the historical context of "libertarianism" than you.
"Libertarian socialist" was what you called collectivist/communist anarchists in French.
Both have their roots in anarcho-capitalist movements and the idea that The State must be abolished.
The root anarchy and libertarian aspect of that is the idea that The State must be abolished. The difference is that (libertarian flavored) socialism is largely based on the idea of small communities to replace The State (and if that sounds contradictory...). Whereas (modern) libertarianism, is that the idea is that you replace The State with individual enclaves with the remnants existing solely to protect those rights. The "libertarian" aspect fundamentally boils down to the idea of individual liberty (hence the name) at the cost of The State and the distinctions between that and anarchy is, to put it bluntly, questionable.
It would be like insisting that those in favor of socialist democracies rebrand themselves as anarcho-communists because it sounds cooler and there IS a direct line between libertarian communists/anarcho-communists and modern socialist democratic thought. Which ignores that there is a reason that said thought evolved.
Lolwut? Left wing anarchism is decades older than anarcho-capitalism (which basically started with the austrian school). Do you think Mikhail Bakunin was an Ancap, too?
You're simply misrepresenting anarchism, homie.
It was an intentional co-opt of a left wing term, as the right consistently does (steal our ideas/terms/strategies)
"One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, 'our side,' had captured a crucial word from the enemy. 'Libertarians' had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over."
-murray rothbard ("founder" of American libertarianism)
Realistically, from an anarchist perspective, the battle on the word is lost, we simply do not have the resources to combat that in the sphere of public consciousness.
Arguably, it's a better use of our time demonstrating and connecting our ideas (namely, opposition to hierarchy) to the working class directly rather than fret over terminology but I digress
I actually think it is incredibly important to understand these distinctions. There is an entire generation of people who grew up with "I want weed and to not pay taxes. I guess that makes me a libertarian?" just like we have a generation of people who grew up with "I think it is stupid that I will be in debt forever because of college. I guess I am a communist?"
Understanding these distinctions is important.
Just because someone aligns with socialism doesn't mean they are a libertarian socialist or a communist. Just like how someone can also be a libertarian but not be a socialist. The reason there are two words in that term is because it is a merging of multiple ideologies.
We see it all the time. Leftists become tankies because they listened to the equivalent of a facebook post at a drum circle and don't want to actually understand their own ideologies. So rather than being a socialist democrat or a libertarian socialist or any other flavor, they become full on tankies because "Well. I like socialism and socialism is communism so the CCP never did anything wrong". And that is used by right wing governments because... the vast majority of communist governments were evil and corrupt fascists (also many had stopped being communist along the way but...)
And same here. You and others are insisting that it was "co-opted". But if you actually go back to the roots of the movements and even look at how the left uses it, it is one aspect. And yeah, right wing politics did push to use the term... because the idea of "tear it all down and make it better" aligns well with youths. But... just because they "won the branding" doesn't mean that their pseudo-anarchists aren't libertarians.
And I also very much argue it is worth making people look themselves in the mirror to actually understand what they are advocating for with "libertarianism" regardless of if it is "polite anarchy" or not.
From a historical perspective, absolutely. My point is that it's not worth attempting to "out message/propagandize" literal billionaires that own the platforms in which we would attempt to do so.
Rothbard quite literally claims this, this isn't an opinion lmao.
Yes and? What is your point even supposed to be? That it's not an umbrella term that comprehensively covers conceivable form of socialism? I don't think anyone is arguing that.
We are simply pointing to the historical usage of the word, it's origins.
In the modern, Americanized version of the word sure. But that doesn't change the fact that historically, and originally, it meant something entirely different.
Again, not sure who your arguing with here. The problem isn't that it's "polite" anarchism (whatever that even means), it's that they stole and corrupted terms, ideas, etc, the very bastardization itself.
I think you missed their point. Contemporary US style libertarianism has taken over the term, historically it meant something very different. They are arguing that people should start using the word again to mean things other than US style libertarianism. They are very obviously not confused about what libertarianism actually is given their knowledge of the history of the term; ironically it seems like you are unaware of this history and are doing something akin to what you accuse OP of doing.
I do agree though that people are generally very ignorant about this sort of stuff and often latch onto words to describe their politics without any genuine understanding of what those words actually mean.
I elaborated on that in the other branch and why, even historically, "libertarian" is MUCH closer to the modern libertarian than the modern socialist. But if the entire argument is "that sounds cooler and we should take it back"... that is a really stupid point.
Americans like to vote Republican. Let's just call the Democrats "Republicans" and be done with it (bonus points for people who get the historical irony of that).
This is factually incorrect.