Why Libertarian Socialists Belong in the Libertarian Movement and the Libertarian Party

     Libertarianism and the left, far from being irreconciliable, are one and the same; libertarian socialism is not an oxymoron.

     Libertarian socialism hearkens back to the traditions of 19^th century European liberalism; back in the days of Joseph deJacque, the anarchist of the 1848 Paris Commune. Back when classical liberalism and calls for revolutionary socialism were all lumped together as part of “the left”, and back when classical liberal Frederic Bastiat and mutualist-anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon served together on the left of the French National Assembly.

     Libertarian socialists aim for the dissolution of the state, as well as all hierarchical and exploitative economic structures which the enforcement of the state's power supports. Libertarian socialists support mutually beneficial voluntary exchange; and as free, direct, open, and egalitarian negotiation (on employment and contracts and other forms of decision-making), as possible. Libertarian socialists support the achievement of socialism through peaceful means, but also recognize that achieving justice against an intrinsically self-serving and violent government, often requires acting without the support of the law.

     Libertarian socialists believe in abolishing the state, organized and legalized violence, monopoly, and relationships of domination and hierarchy in the economy. These relationships of domination include landowner over land and nature, polluting business over community, landlords over tenants, bosses over employees, lenders over borrowers, and elected representative over voter. Libertarian socialists aim to create a society which is absolutely free, but also as equal as possible (without sacrificing liberty), just as voluntaryists and libertarians of the right do.

     Liberty from the state, and equality within that liberty, make libertarian socialism. Libertarian socialists want to see people so absolutely free, that they are equal in that total liberty, and thus have equality of opportunity. Guaranteeing equality of outcome, however, would take the “libertarian” out of “libertarian socialism”, and that would be against our values; libertarian socialism is thus not inconsistent with the traditional entrepreneurial libertarian value of freedom of opportunity (and equality within that opportunity).

     That is what I and other libertarian socialists believe, and that is why we feel that there is a place for libertarian socialists within the libertarian movement and the Libertarian Party. We are in the movement to help make sure that voters (and non-voting lovers of freedom) understand that libertarians do not want to fetishize, or over-prioritize, capitalism, private property, competition, markets, trade, or money. If the Libertarian Party regards its economic ideology as capitalist, rather than supporting free markets, it is making a choice for potential voters, which they should and must have the right to make for themselves when we have a free society. That choice is the choice of which economic system (or systems) one will live under.

     A stateless society will feature a multitude of economic systems, because the structures which keep the current system enforced, cannot continue to be supported without resorting to legalized violence (i.e., state action). That's why, when the state is gone, we will see not only free markets in defense and security (because the power to make large-scale military contracts with legally stolen taxpayer money will be gone), we will also have a free market in economic systems. We will also have a free market in "self-governance", i.e., freedom of choice over who resolves our disputes. and ensures that we abide by voluntary contracts.

     That is why I and other libertarian socialists believe that the Libertarian Party should not designate an economic system. I would prefer that the L.P. cease supporting “capitalism” in name, and instead declare that we support free markets. Alternatives which I would accept, include: 1) a declaration that we are neutral on economic issues not having to do with the state; 2) a declaration that we are open to all so-called “heterodox” (or non-traditional) schools of economics; or 3) a declaration that we support either classical liberalism, laissez-faire economics, or entrepreneurialism.
     Whatever we choose, it must be abundantly clear that we do not oppose cooperative enterprise. Anyone who believes that a private, for-profit business can be self-governing, should be able to admit that a cooperative enterprise can be self-governing too. And when all enterprises become self-governing - and are directed by a free, open, and direct as possible negotiation between their workers and clients/customers - external government of economic affairs will no longer be necessary.

     Only when we are free to improve land and keep whatever we build and grow on it, will we all be fully free to enjoy the benefits of liberty and property. We cannot simply resolve to support “property rights”, by supporting the existing set of property claims (many of which are unfounded, undeserved, and supported by the violent enforcement of outdated government laws). The libertarian socialists are in the movement because libertarians should want everyone to have property, and own businesses (if that's what they want in life), if the movement is to be taken seriously as having realistic solutions to poverty.

     If the federal government did not own or manage any land outside of the District of Columbia, then the third of Western American lands which it owns and manages, would fall to the states and/or private owners. If assurances can be made that vulnerable lands won't be exploited, then the amount of area suitable for development will increase. With more land available, the price of land will decrease. And since all labor and capital which you can mix together, has to be mixed together on land, with the price of land low, the costs of developing that land, including by hiring people to work on it, will also decrease.
     This is how abolishing the state, and undeserved claims over wide swaths of land, will eventually lead to low prices on everything, and potentially even zero cost for land. The same effects, in terms of price decreases, will also be felt when and if our market systems are used as they were intended; our markets need an injection of price competition and the clearing of markets, so that prices can naturally fall, without governmental economic intervention being necessary to achieve those price decreases.

     The last hundred and fifty years of discourse in political economy has been consumed with petty squabbles between the representatives of the interests of labor and capital. But neither capital nor labor will be free - nor will they be able to deal with one another on fair or free terms - until the land beneath them is respected. An injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere; none of us will be free as long as the majority of the people with whom we are interacting, are unfree. Each of us ought to be free to join any union (and as many unions) as we please (on a voluntary basis). Also, we must each be free to become independent contractors, which maximizes our power to negotiate in a direct manner.

     The more people who are independent contractors, and the more people who own their own home - and the less restrictive zoning laws we have – the more people there are who can work at home. When people can work without leaving home, they can protect their own house and family (instead of somebody else's), and teach the next generation how to inherit their skills. And the more people who work at home and own their own home, the more people can build and grow whatever they want on their own property, and keep all the products of it (without paying taxes or rent). And the more people can depend on themselves, the less likely it will be that they will have to resort to leaving their own property, selling their labor, selling their products, participating in markets, or trading, or using money or currency, or participating in economic activity at all. Post-scarcity economics is possible now, because we have abundance, and most if not all economic activities could easily be made unnecessary.

     Only once we can build and grow what we please on our own property, and once competition is fully optional, will competition be fully free. A free market, in a stateless society, will feature total freedom to compete, as well as to cooperate, and cooperatively own. Total freedom to compete, includes the right to compete against the established predator multinationals which exist today, and which thrive off of taxpayer-funded subsidies, favors, grants of monopoly status (such as patents), and other privileges and protections (such as contractual and legal protections from economic competition and responsibility for their crimes and frauds).
     Corrupt, monopolistic, and rent-seeking firms will likely never be held responsible through the law, and so they must be held responsible through the market; through both competition by all producers against monopolies, and cooperation with other producers with the intent of driving the corrupt monopolists out of business.

     When large numbers of families do not own the homes they live in, and can have their shelter or warmth taken away through a landlord's selfishness or negligence – or through a boss's corruption - humanity is threatened, and the system is condoning child abuse. We must never allow ourselves to become dependent upon anyone whom we would not trust to take care of our families as we would. And that is why nobody who works should be dependent upon a boss (or a machine he doesn't at least partially own, or land in which he doesn't have stake and interest) for survival.

     And once it is no longer necessary for anyone to rent or borrow means of production (i.e., farms, factories, workplaces, and large difficult to move machines), then all economic rents (including rent, interest, profit, and usury) will disappear. We can have a stateless economy which is “privatized” in its statelessness, but that does not have to mean that the economy must be oriented towards extracting as much surplus profit as possible. Expecting each person to be independent, can only work with enough voluntary association and coordination, to make sure that the purchasing power of the poor and needy are maximized, so that the poor can afford what they need to live.

     We can and must achieve a free market system that is so radically and totally free, that the potential of the poor to build and grow and receive what they need, is not predicated on their ability to beg for scraps while their work is deliberately undervalued so as to keep them in dependence forever. A vision of society which allows that is unfree, and thus cannot rightfully be described as featuring a free market or a free economy.

Written on November 6th and 7th, 2019

Published on November 7th, 2019