Hi Harry, For starters, (and others may want to jump in with definitions) I agree there is a libertarian dialectic, as you point out - 'right libertarians' and 'left libertarians.'
The contemporaneous libertarianism is of the right wing variety and is legitimated, most often, by the philosophy of Ayn Rand, and the economic thinking of Hayek and Friedman. It shares elements of the neoconservative and neoliberal critique of what's wrong with contemporary society, particularly the idea that government is a millstone around the neck of the individual. Any notion of a collective identity, based on race or class, or gender, would likely be anathema to a right-libertarian. In our earlier discussions of Buddhism and the workplace, I was trying to suggest that the Buddhist concern with the invidual reaching their own individual Buddha state, through inner self-development, is an attractive idea where libertarian ideology has taken root, either individually, or institutionally. Not to forget that possessive individualism is a cornerstone of capitalism. When I was being politically socialized, in the 60s and 70s, the libertarianism I became acquainted with was 'left libertarianism', influenced by the thinking of anarchists like Peter Kropotkin. Noam Chomsky is probably the best example of this kind of left-libertarianism. Both libertarianisms share a preoccupation with the role of individualism and freedom, in their epistemologies, but otherwise are starkly different; right libertarians embracing hyper-capitalism, whereas left libertarians critique captialism and embrace the hyper-individualism of self-regulated individuals in civil society, sans a state; the latter being not necessarily incompatible with the political thinking of Marx and Engels in a society where the state has already withered away, but not in the transitional stage towards such a society. Defining is not necessarily an easy task as the 'right libertarians' have appropriated many of the key words once associated with 'left libertarians' - a common discourse reframing in the conservative restoration we are living. Off the top. What are your thoughts? Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Robert E. Bowd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 7:48 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] Re: direct democracy // Schwarzenegger > Bob, > > What is a "right wing libertarian" and, for that matter, what is a "left > wing libertarian"? > > Harry > > ----------------------------------------------- > > Robert wrote: > > >Hi Arthur, > > > >I wanted to respond to your post in relation to my rhetorical question > >concerning Web-citizensip. I inadvertently deleted it. > > > >You have correctly pointed out the nature of the contemporary political > >alliance that constitutes our political hegemony. I would add that there > >are many professional technocrats and authoritarian populists who are also > >arrayed with that alliance. > > > >However, I do not accept that the introduction of technology, as argued by > >some proponents of cyber-democracy, constitutes a greater democracy. If > >anything, it may simply represent a new technological mediation of the > >political forces already dominating the political culture. I think the > >intensified corporatization of the internet points in this direction. > > > >I have been reading Manuel Castell's "The Internet Galaxy" and am struck by > >the role that libertarian thinking has played in the shaping of the Net. (I > >am aware of alternative *progressive sites*, of course.) In the open > >cyber-forums (public spaces) I have seen the regulation of these sites as > >proprietary sites, often under constant surveillance by right wing > >libertarians, who precipitate flame wars to silence voices they do not want > >to be heard. It has always rankled my free speech sensibilities. If we > >are going to move down the road to cyberdemocracy, then we will have to > >understand, clearly, which democratic ideology we are embracing. > > > >As someone who is skeptical about the level of political awareness, and > >sense of individual political efficacy, in postmodern society, where image > >is valued more than substance, I have some trepidations in just accepting a > >new technology as the solution to the crisis of democracy. > > > > There are examples, where it has worked, as we both know, such as the use > >of the Internet to stop the MAI Treaty, but again this has involved selected > >institutions, such as the Council of Canadians, working with other activist > >insitutions, internationally. I suspect the hegemonic powers-that-be have > >learned the lesson well, from that experience. For every Michael Moorse > >Website, there is a libertarian website, in Texas, (Moorewatch) attacking > >his credibility. Talking to a Generation Y sales clerk, at Indigo, last > >weekend, it was Moorewatch that was given credence. I suspect it was > >because Moorewatch reinforced the conservative values in his middle class > >family, as the culture has shifted rightward, with neoliberalism and > >neoconservatism. > > > >Political processes are complex and I think it is still necessary for people > >to get away from the atomization of cyber-cultures to talk to one another, > >face-to-face. It's a different kind of human communication. > > > >Enjoy your Thanksgiving! > > > >Bob > > > **************************************************** > Harry Pollard > Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles > Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 > Tel: (818) 352-4141 -- Fax: (818) 353-2242 > http://home.comcast.net/~haledward > **************************************************** > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.518 / Virus Database: 316 - Release Date: 9/11/2003 > _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
