Libertarian versus Marxist- equally unreal?

[Giordano]

I was thinking about this due to my participation in another thread, and it struck me: Marxists and Libertarians both have similarly unrealistic expectations about people and society.

Marxists believe that people would build a perfect world through sharing resources based on a sense of community. Libertarians believe that people would build a perfect world by sequestering resources based on a sense of greed.

Neither can point to an example in history where this has worked. In fact, in both cases the results have often been horrific. But if I had a choice, I would rather spend time with Marxists; they may be unrealistic, but I like their mis-understanding of human nature more.

 

[Ziggurat]

I was thinking about this due to my participation in another thread, and it struck me: Marxists and Libertarians both have similarly unrealistic expectations about people and society.

If you're talking about really hard-core libertarians, then sure, both ideologies require that the vast majority of people share their desire for that system, and that's simply never going to happen. But there are still critical, differences. For one thing, Marxists have frequently resorted to violence to obtain their goals, and libertarians don't. But that's really just one manifestation of a much deeper difference: Marxism's failure modes are catastrophic (mass starvation being one example), whereas libertarianism's failure mode is not: people just vote for something non-libertarian, and that's the end of it.

 

[Robrob]

Yep, both systems require people to act completely against their short term self interest in completely altruistic ways. Neither have ever actually worked in the real world.

 

[Giordano]

We run the risk of getting into a "true Scotsman" debate here. I agree that Marxism has been distorted into political systems that have led to the death of huge numbers of people. But Libertarianism has been equally distorted with similar qualitative, if not quantitative, outcomes. Isn't Somalia an example of "getting government off people's backs" and "letting the marketplace decide?" The situation in Somalia may have come about by collapse of a society, rather than a vote, but so did the Soviet Union. Are Somalians any more able to vote for a different economic system than were the Soviet people in the 1930s?

In any case, I agree that they are both unworkable. But being in the US, I feel the current major threat to our society is from Libertarians; Marxism, at least as practiced, has been discredited.

 

[JJM 777]

Marxists have frequently resorted to violence to obtain their goals, and libertarians don't.

This is new information to me, that Socialists are violent or militant, and Capitalists are not. I thought most wars are started by Capitalists...

 

[EGarrett]

Libertarians believe that people would build a perfect world by sequestering resources based on a sense of greed.

No. Libertarians believe that acknowledging people's primary motivation to provide for themselves and supporting a system that allows them to obtain the most for themselves by providing for others will create a world that is the closest to perfect that we can realistically achieve.

If you want to be seen as knowledgeable, mature, and respectful of other people's time, don't post strawman versions of other people's positions.

 

[psionl0]

Wait until Darat sees this new thread.

 

[Giordano]

No. Libertarians believe that acknowledging people's primary motivation to provide for themselves and supporting a system that allows them to obtain the most for themselves by providing for others will create a world that is the closest to perfect that we can realistically achieve.

If you want to be seen as knowledgeable, mature, and respectful of other people's time, don't post strawman versions of other people's positions.

Why, that's exactly what Marxists believe, that their system "allows people to obtain the most for themselves by providing for others!"

I am aware that I may have simplified both philosophies slightly in my OP for purposes of discussion. Why, I even understand a book or two may have been written explaining the details of each. However, my opinion as to their practicality stands! I'm not trolling- I do want a discussion. Perhaps you can provide a historical example of either approach being a success?

 

[Giordano]

Wait until Darat sees this new thread.

Oh oh! My mistake! Moderators- please send this where appropriate. Sorry!

 

[Ziggurat]

We run the risk of getting into a "true Scotsman" debate here. I agree that Marxism has been distorted into political systems that have led to the death of huge numbers of people. But Libertarianism has been equally distorted with similar qualitative, if not quantitative, outcomes. Isn't Somalia an example of "getting government off people's backs" and "letting the marketplace decide?"

You have GOT to be kidding me. There is no faction in Somalia which is fighting for libertarian ideals. No side is even claiming to fight for libertarian ideals. One of the sides is Islamic fundamentalists, who are totalitarian and pretty much exactly the opposite of libertarian ideals. The other side, while not nearly so bad, doesn't resemble anything libertarian either. Not in deed and not even in word.

The situation in Somalia may have come about by collapse of a society, rather than a vote, but so did the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union came about because of a deliberate effort of one faction to implement Marxist ideals. Nothing like that is happening in Somalia with regard to libertarianism. There is no libertarian side in that conflict. Somalia is a lesson in the dangers of Islamism, not libertarianism.

 

[Ziggurat]

This is new information to me, that Socialists are violent or militant, and Capitalists are not. I thought most wars are started by Capitalists...

I didn't say Socialist, I said Marxist. And this thread isn't about socialism versus capitalism, it's about Marxism versus libertarianism.

And yes, quite a bit of history evidently is news to you. Hitler wasn't a National Capitalist.

 

[Toke]

Does anyone know if libertarians would accept the Irish famine as an example of libertarianism in action?
Would they have accepted that a government had interfered with the marked and banned food exports from Ireland?

 

[Ziggurat]

Does anyone know if libertarians would accept the Irish famine as an example of libertarianism in action?

I doubt it. Property rights issues in Ireland prior to and during the famine were very much non-libertarian, and had a lot to do with why the potato crop failure was so devastating.

 

[EGarrett]

Why, that's exactly what Marxists believe, that their system "allows people to obtain the most for themselves by providing for others!"

No, under Marxism every citizen obtains the same amount no matter how much they provide. This is also why they end up having nothing left to give away, no one has incentive to produce.

I am aware that I may have simplified both philosophies slightly in my OP for purposes of discussion. Why, I even understand a book or two may have been written explaining the details of each. However, my opinion as to their practicality stands! I'm not trolling- I do want a discussion. Perhaps you can provide a historical example of either approach being a success?

Hong Kong is the freest market in the world and their GDP has grown roughly 180 times over since they became such, they also have no minimum wage law and their unemployment rate is half that of the United States. The Netherlands, which from my understanding has legalized "victimless crimes" such as drugs and prostitution," has actually run out of criminals to fill most of their prisons and is looking to offer the space to other countries or convert them for other purposes.

 

[Toke]

I doubt it. Property rights issues in Ireland prior to and during the famine were very much non-libertarian, and had a lot to do with why the potato crop failure was so devastating.

Yes, it did look a bit feudal.

I would still be quite interested in the libertarian stance on government interference in the marked.
Exporting food from a starving country makes perfect economic sense to the individual exporter, as long as the peons are too poor to pay.

 

[Alan]

I didn't say Socialist, I said Marxist. And this thread isn't about socialism versus capitalism, it's about Marxism versus libertarianism.

And yes, quite a bit of history evidently is news to you. Hitler wasn't a National Capitalist.

If only you didn't include that last bit...

 

[Ziggurat]

If only you didn't include that last bit...

Look, if you want to claim Hitler wasn't really a socialist, go ahead. I won't actually argue. But he sure as hell wasn't a capitalist. And historically speaking, the clear winner in terms of who starts wars is tyrants, who have always been ambivalent about capitalism at best and frequently quite hostile to it. Giordano's claim about capitalists starting most wars is so wrong that it's hard to imagine what even made him think that in the first place.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

But he sure as hell wasn't a capitalist.

“I absolutely insist on protecting private property ... we must encourage private initiative” - Adolf Hitler.

the clear winner in terms of who starts wars is tyrants, who have always been ambivalent about capitalism at best and frequently quite hostile to it.

I think you would be hard-pressed to find any nation that tried to pursue pure Capitalism while also fighting a major war - whether they started it or not.

OTOH, capitalists often make handsome profits selling arms to warmongers and/or their victims. It could be argued that some capitalists have actually enabled the starting of wars - perhaps even encouraging warmongering in order to increase sales!

 

[Darat]

Both Libertarianism and Marxism expect the world to conform to their models rather than being attempts to model the real world. Promoters or defenders of either are engaging in nothing more than wishful thinking, any description of either should start with "Wouldn't it be nice if..."

 

[Ziggurat]

“I absolutely insist on protecting private property ... we must encourage private initiative” - Adolf Hitler.

"We are not fighting Jewish or Christian capitalism, we are fighting every capitalism: we are making the people completely free." - Adolf Hitler

ETA: I found your quote on the Wikipedia page on the economics of fascism. Immediately after the quote is the following statement:

On yet another occasion he qualified that statement by saying that the government should have the power to regulate the use of private property for the good of the nation.[45] Hitler clearly believed that the lack of a precise economic programme was one of the Nazi Party's strengths, saying: "The basic feature of our economic theory is that we have no theory at all."[46]

I'm not claiming he was a socialist, but he wasn't a capitalist either. He was an opportunist, with no real economic philosophy other than what was useful at the moment.

OTOH, capitalists often make handsome profits selling arms to warmongers and/or their victims. It could be argued that some capitalists have actually enabled the starting of wars - perhaps even encouraging warmongering in order to increase sales!

That theory runs into the small problem that trade has long been more profitable than war. So while a few capitalists might have an incentive to go to war, many more will have an incentive to ensure peace.