A few weeks ago I decided I probably wouldn’t raise this point anymore – that libertarianism and communism have more in common than many libertarians would care to admit; in fact, subtract private property (which, I admit, is a meaningful subtraction), and you might not be able to tell the two apart in a line-up. I decided that making this philosophical connection was much too complicated for something as simple as one of my blog posts (albeit, one of my more significantly researched blog posts).
So…why did my resolve on this matter evaporate so quickly? It is due to a post by Brian Doherty, who is excited about his twice-in-a-lifetime “evidence” of Ron Paul’s bigotry. I won’t get into defending Ron Paul about his supposed bigotry; Dave Smith has done a very good job of this. In any case, one has to have nothing other than an agenda to attack Ron Paul for such an issue.
You know, I also resolved several months ago to no longer poke at other libertarians. I have been really good about this, but…as you can see…I am also breaking this resolution. For this, I have nothing to blame other than my respect for Dr. Paul. So I blame Dr. Paul for causing me to hold him in such high respect such that my spine wouldn’t hold.
But, on to Doherty’s post. There is really only one comment worth touching on:
…raising a stink about these supposed depredations of “cultural Marxism” is in most contexts anti-liberty.
I really could leave it here, “Exhibit A” to my assertion of these kissing philosophical cousins. But I won’t. (NB: If you think Reason.com is not representative of mainstream libertarian opinion in the US, you haven’t checked the Alexa ranking.) For a New Liberty: The... Murray N. Rothbard, Mu... Best Price: $9.45 Buy New $10.50 (as of 11:00 EDT - Details)
As I said, I won’t leave it here. I would like to take the opportunity to demonstrate that libertarians such as these are either idiots when it comes to political philosophy or they are communists. Either way, they are doing the work of the communists.
So, first for the idiots: any idiot can do the first step in an analysis, the first-order ramification of any action. This applies whether to economics, political philosophy, or any other subject more complicated than two plus two equals four. One need not have an IQ above “idiot” to be qualified to perform such an analysis.
So, for example, it is a very simplistic analysis to say “X has nothing to do with violating the non-aggression principle; therefore being against X ‘is in most contexts anti-liberty.’”
See how easy that is? With an IQ of idiot, you too could be an editor for Reason.com. One could say it is quite technically correct – some very high profile and intellectual libertarians don’t go any farther than this. After all, “culture” is not “property” under any definition offered by any well-recognized libertarian theorist.
Now, for the communists:
While firmly committed to global Communism, [Gramsci] knew that that violence would fail to win the West. American workers (proletariat) would never declare war on their middle class neighbors as long as they shared common Christian values. So the Italian communist — a contemporary of Lenin — wrote an alternative plan for a silent revolution. The main weapons would be deception, manipulation and infiltration. Hiding their Marxist ideology, the new Communist warriors would seek positions of influence in seminaries, government, communities, and the media.
Gramsci himself rejected Christianity and all its transcendent claims. Nevertheless, he knew Christian culture existed…. For that was the force binding all the classes… into a single, homogeneous culture. It was a specifically Christian culture, in which individual men and women understood that the most important things about human life transcended the material conditions in which they lived out their mortal lives.
I can’t really add anything to this; it is futile to do so for the idiots who can’t see past the first ramification of their position, and unnecessary for those who can.
Conclusion
Not my conclusion, I will ask you for yours:
Who do you think is a more capable political philosopher, idiots who cannot see more than the first ramification of their advocated position or Antonio Gramsci? Who do you believe has better thought through the idea that destruction of all voluntary and competing governance institutions will leave the State – and only the State – left to govern? Who? The idiot libertarians, or the communist Gramsci?
In other words, once culture (and, specifically, Christian culture) is destroyed, whose vision of the future will stand victorious: the libertarian vision or the communist vision?
So, let’s return to Doherty’s statement:
…raising a stink about these supposed depredations of “cultural Marxism” is in most contexts anti-liberty.
Demonstrating – much better than I ever could – the relationship of libertarianism and communism.
Epilogue
“Hey, bionic…you glossed over that ‘except for private property’ part.”
So, let’s agree with Doherty – opposing cultural Marxism is anti-liberty. How long do you expect to keep your already-tenuous hold on property if you go along with this liberty-enhancing idea?
Are you sure that “private property” is the most important factor when considering a free society?
Reprinted with permission from Bionic Mosquito.