Notes on building a case for radicalism
Libertarians often despair of the prospects for social change in some arguably libertarian direction. One of the most pernicious and reactionary false concepts arising as a result of this despair is the notion that libertarianism itself is flawed in the sense of being to volatile or radical for mass consumption — that it must be kept as some hidden doctrine only to be shared with trusted acolytes. Yet if there is one true marker of radicalism among libertarians, it is uncompromising ideological consistency. It is precisely where libertarians are inconsistent with libertarianism, though (typically as part of their efforts to appear “moderate”), that they seem the most hypocritical, disreputable, untrustworthy and irrational to the non-libertarian observer. As an example, here’s an anecdote from one DKos commenter:
That pisses me off too
I was riding in a car that a libertarian friend of mine was driving. I told him about an old ExxonMobil boycott that was still going on. He immediately pulled into the nearest Exxon station to fill up.
Oh sure, we can’t use regulation to stop environmental destruction, but if we try to use our own wallets and free will… he’ll fight that too, just out of spite.
This is a wonderful example of the behavior signified by Carson’s rightfully desparaging term vulgar libertarianism (named after vulgar Marxism — i.e. dumbed down and distorted Marxism). Vulgar libertarianism has nothing to do with libertarianism proper (or profanity, for that matter) and everything to do with small-minded adherence to preconceived notions, cultural prejudices, right-wingnuttery and just plain being a jerk. In its original form as described by Carson, vulgar libertarianism is the use of free market rhetoric to defend the economic results of statist corporatism. The term is also useful, in my opinion, to describe related tendencies, such as those of the driver above.
The libertarian in the anecdote above may think himself radical for sake of his rudeness and combativeness, yet his libertarianism is obscured by not particularly libertarian notions, his vulgar libertarianism, that ultimately derive from the libertarian movement (as a sub-culture) being in long, habitual, unwise and self-defeatingly “moderate” alliance with the Right. He personally may have never voted for a Republican in his life — but he’s got the ‘tude.
Strictly speaking, of course, the libertarian driver of the car was not acting in a way that was inconsistent with libertarianism in the sense that libertarianism is, after all, about personal choice. The attitude, though, indicates right-wing sympathies in the driver that typically do not mesh with libertarian radicalism if radicalism is defined as uncompromising consistency. The driver acted reflexively and in accordance with long habituated class sympathies that are not part of libertarianism proper, and are actually incompatible with radical libertarian class theory as that body of thought is best understood today.
Although I’m not a religious person, I find it noteworthy that the few Christians I respect often believe themselves to be called to witness for Christ — by which they mean they should seek to be the best exemplars of their professed values that they can be. Now if only libertarians truly felt called to witness for Liberty.
Share This
[...] Brad Spangler makes an interesting point that some of us would do well to listen to. posted in: Main [...]