Beyond “No Particular Order” and “Anarcho-Social Democracy” 5

Mainstream economic discourse, including that of most “libertarians” or “anarchists,” is still stuck in the geocentric model of the solar system. Imagine medieval “libertarians” and “anarchists” arguing over whether there should be an absolute monarchy to reign in the power of the aristocracy, Church, or local feudatories (the “progressive” perspective) or whether the oppression of the peasants, serfs, and slaves by the feudal lords should be embraced in the name of “freedom” (the “conservative” viewpoint).

I refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the socialism vs. capitalism debate because it’s based on the view that one should either side with the royalty on one hand or the aristocracy on the other, like a debate between flat-earthers and geocentrists (btw, you can be either one of those and still be a pan-anarchist, all heretics welcome). The “no particular order” ancaps and right-libertarians always end up being stooges for the right-wing of the capitalist class (e.g. Reasonoids, Catoites, and “Libertarians for Trump”). The “anarcho-social democrats” always end up being stooges for the technocratic managerial class (e.g. Chomsky, Carson, Vaush, and other anarcho-Berniebros).

5 comments

  1. “The ‘no particular order’ ancaps and right-libertarians always end up being stooges for the right-wing of the capitalist class (e.g. Reasonoids, Catoites, and ‘Libertarians for Trump’). The ‘anarcho-social democrats’ always end up being stooges for the technocratic managerial class (e.g. Chomsky, Carson, Vaush, and other anarcho-Berniebros).”

    You left out the “no particular order” left-libertarians.

      • I can’t speak for any group, but I’d resist the Rothbard comparison because for him any “left” affiliation was more a matter of strategy than ideology. But I’m a left-libertarian and a “no particular orderist.” I’m not saying there’s never any order I’d prefer, but I wouldn’t refuse a good thing due to concerns over the order in which good things get done.

        • Didn’t Rothbard argue at one point that libertarianism is actually an ideology of the extreme left, even to the left of Marxism? That’s what he seemed to be saying in this old article from the 60s unless he was just being rhetorically facetious for tactical purposes (which he seems to have had a knack for doing). https://mises.org/library/left-and-right-prospects-liberty

          As I understand Carson’s views, and he seems to be a kind of left-libertarian economics guru, he takes a position more like Chomsky’s which regards legislation to help the “little guy” to be compensation from the government/bosses. Case in point: https://c4ss.org/content/28949 He seems to have moved further in that direction over time. The right-libertarians always end up sounding like Reaganites.

  2. I’m not sure if Rothbard was just being rhetorically facetious for tactical purposes, or if he was ideologically flighty, or both. Let’s face it, he was kind of all over the map. That’s why I don’t call myself a Rothbardian, even though I’m an abolitionist who would push the button, a no-particular-orderist, etc. It’s not that I don’t like him, it’s that using him as a descriptor isn’t useful because for every Rothbard X there seems to be a Rothbard -X somewhere.

    But yes, I agree with Rothbard that libertarianism is the leftmost point on the left-right spectrum, to the extent that that spectrum is descriptively useful. Marx was a right-deviationist from Comte/Dunoyer’s libertarian class theory. He replaced their “productive class” with “labor,” and their “political class” with capital, then wired that class theory to a labor theory of value, etc.

    It’s not coincidence that both Thomas Paine and Frederic Bastiat sat on the left, not the right, when serving in France’s legislative assembly. The left-right spectrum mirrors the Estates General — on the right sat the political class (the nobility and clergy, the first two estates), on the left sat the productive class (the third estate, peasants, farmers, tradesmen, merchants).

    Vis a vis Carson, I have no problem with “the little guy” thinking of e.g. welfare legislation as crumbs of restitution from a table “the little guy” has to keep stocked for the “big guys” to eat a buffet from. It’s not untrue. And I’m all for “cutting taxes from the bottom up and welfare from the top down. But I’ll also call any cut of either of those things, from either end, a win.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s