Well, I've actually been puzzled by positive liberty's name. My understanding is that we libertarians believe in negative liberty--and that communitarians and their ilk believe in positive liberty.

So just what am I missing?

Posted by: James Hanley | October 17, 2007 10:02 AM

So the upshot, Ed, is that everybody hates you.

Cool. You must be doing something right! :)

Posted by: Scott Simmons | October 17, 2007 10:58 AM

Steve F. wrote

a communist anarchist (indeed is doing a PhD on the subject). He believes in both the downfall of the state and capitalism. Not exactly sure how the communist bit comes in

Actually, that's what Marx himself believed, that the state would wither away and we'd return to a peaceful anarchy where everyone worked together willingly for the good of all.

Of course he was a bit vague about how the state would actually wither away, and so far we've never seen that happen (Marx should have listed to Lord Acton). But communist anarchy describes his own beliefs.

Oddly enough, the failure of any country to become "truly" communist is what allows Marxists to keep their faith. Marx argued states would have to develop industrial capitalism before becoming communist (the materialistic dialectic), but in fact only agrarian states have tried to so far (Russia, China, Vietnam, etc.), so there's room--for the true beleivers, at least--to argue that of course they failed, that Marx was only wrong about how soon the revolution would happen in industrialized countries, and we just haven't seen real communism yet.

That's all a bit off topic, unless the topic is the word "simplistic."

Posted by: James Hanley | October 17, 2007 11:23 AM

Thanks, Ed. I feel better knowing that I was confused, and not them.

James H.

Posted by: James Hanley | October 17, 2007 11:39 AM

Alas, I ran out of time before I could do this justice.

I think the most interesting dichotomy here, is the libertarian/Marxist philosophies. Ultimately, they aren't nearly so far apart or different as it would appear. The goal of both is virtually identical and for Marxist socialism to work, libertarianism is a pre-requisite. I would argue that with a couple of exceptional flaws, Marx was pretty dead on. (granted, they are rather important points, but not necessarily fatal flaws)

First flaw and an answer to Mr. Hanley's comment, is the notion of revolution. Totally unnecessary and ultimately destructive to the notion of socialism, as post revolutionary societies are almost always totalitarian. The U.S. was a major exception, but then, the existing colonial power structure, for the most part supported the revolution. So the power structure being thrown off, really only collected taxes for the most part.

However, I would argue that the U.S. to a strong degree and many European nations, to even stronger degrees, have moved towards certain socialist principles, by attrition rather than revolution. This is far superior to the revolutionary notion, as it has meant far stronger continuity and makes the socialist elements far more pervasive. Rather than forcing people with violence, socialist principles have insinuated themselves deeply and inexorably into modern capitalist societies.

The other flaw, far more likely to cause catastrophic failure, is putting the means of production into the hands of the state. Redistribution through taxation is the only way for a partly socialist society to avoid totalitarianism. Bad enough in our U.S. democracy, where few pay little enough attention at all. It could be worse, Venezuela comes to mind.

But I think that this dichotomy, is another that is far from simple. Ultimately, the best breeding ground for socialism, is a libertarian state. Likewise, the best way to later achieve a pure libertarian/responsible anarchy, is to come through a strong socialist period. The notion of socialism (communism is a different beast and not entirely Marx' point) leading to the state withering away, is simple. Basically, as the citizenry becomes accustomed to the responsibility of self rule, a central state to enforce democratic rule, becomes redundant and disappears.

The common mistake that people make, in categorizing socialism, is the idea that it must preempt capitalism. Nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, socialism could not possibly survive, without the admix of capitalism. Ultimately, the end goal of socialism, is a libertarian society, the like of which we have never seen. I would also argue that reaching the purist libertarian ideal, is impossible without a move through a strong and reasonable welfare state. It will not and cannot work, without raising the bar, from the bottom up. This is not to say that we are anywhere near reaching that ideal, indeed, it may be impossible. But the truth is, that for either socialism or libertarianism to function properly, to have a smooth and reasonable society, we need a progression that includes both.

Posted by: DuWayne | October 17, 2007 11:40 PM

I'm a big fan of the simplistic trichotomy. Three worthless labels are better than two.

Posted by: itchy | October 18, 2007 12:05 PM

DuWayne writes:

The other flaw, far more likely to cause catastrophic failure, is putting the means of production into the hands of the state. Redistribution through taxation is the only way for a partly socialist society to avoid totalitarianism.

I suspect we largely agree on politics, and that this may be a bit of a semantic nit. The notion of eliminating the private ownership of the means of production seems to me the defining essence of socialism, and so when you say that that is a mistake, it seems to me that you are -- quite correctly -- condemning everything I would label socialist. I would rewrite your last sentence as this: Redistribution through taxation is the way a liberal society avoids the economic extremes capitalism otherwise causes.

The common mistake that people make, in categorizing socialism, is the idea that it must preempt capitalism. Nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, socialism could not possibly survive, without the admix of capitalism.

Well... there have been several attempts at socialism by the elimination of capitalism. I wouldn't say it's impossible, just that it is pretty ugly and undesirable. I think most liberals recognize the good that capitalism brings to the table, and the strong connections between capitalism and a liberal society. That doesn't mean worshiping the market, as do the libertarians. But it does mean rejection of the socialist view that the way to utopia is the destruction of capitalist business.

Posted by: Russell | October 18, 2007 5:52 PM