Instead of Fighting, Libertarians and Communists Should Be Working Together

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. Misconceptions
     I. Markets and Monopolies

     II. The State and Centralism

     III. Economics

     IV. Politics
     V. Environment and Borders

     VI. Self-Regulation of Firms

3. Conclusion

Content

1. Introduction

     Why are libertarians and communists fighting each other instead of working together?

     Karl Marx said that "the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all". These are not words which you might expect would come out of the mouth of a communist. The quote seems to imply that the collective has a duty to satisfy the individual's needs, and perhaps even his wants. But Marx did say it (in Chapter 2 of The Communist Manifesto).
     It's easy to imagine why individualist anarchist Max Stirner might have agreed with this sentiment. After all, Stirner said "If it is said socialistically, society gives me what I require - then the egoist says, I take what I require."
     Despite Stirner's association with the mostly left-wing Young Hegelians, he has become somewhat of a hero to anarcho-capitalists (possibly owing somewhat to his financially disastrous ownership of a milk shop).
     Marx's pro-individualist statement, and Stirner's popularity among right-libertarians, should cause us to wonder whether libertarians and communists can get along after all, and whether their relationship can be salvaged, and their differences resolved.
     I believe that they can. But first, students of these schools of thought must continue their education, increase their level of discourse with rival schools, and resolve and clarify long-standing misconceptions about the supposed irreconcilability of libertarian and communist thinking on economic and political matters.

2. Misconceptions

     Among those misconceptions are the following.

I. Markets and Monopolies

     Communists shouldn't worry about truly free markets.

     Free markets don't have to result in super-profits or monopolies. The rewards of competition are only permanent when there is a monopoly on the recognition of legitimate property claims (i.e., a state). When the state registers property claims, it promises the legitimate use of force against people who contest other people's property claims. Otherwise, the rewards for competition are permanent and markets are free, all resources would be capable of being competed for, and contested.

     Unnatural monopolies cannot be sustained without willingness to use violence. Without the use of the state as a violent tool of repression, the private sector would have to protect itself, and work to support itself and maintain its own properties. Instead, the private sector colludes with the state to subtly deprive and impoverish people into being "willing" to perform that labor for reduced wages.

     But this "will" is not truly voluntary; it is acceding and begrudging acceptance, when enthusiastic consent should be the standard. Make no mistake, libertarians: wage-theft and wage-slavery are real, and the augmentation of the economic pressure felt by the poor is undeniably coercive - and therefore in violation of the Non-Aggression Principle - because it is being done with the help of the state.

     But not all private-sector entities reap profits. The non-profit sector, and workers' cooperatives, do not reap profits, are largely outside the realms of both the public state sector and the for-profit private sector. Non-profits and workers' cooperatives are thus "private" in the sense that they are not state actors, but they could also be described as not private, but only to the extent that "private" implies being in business for profit (which it does not necessarily imply).



II. The State and Centralism

     Lenin clarified in The State and Revolution that Engels was more consistent than Marx about wanting community control rather than state control. Marxists do oppose the state, at least as we now know it (i.e., the bourgeois-controlled ultra-nationalist state). The "state" which the Marxists and Leninists support - and want to replace the current state, and then gradually wither away after revolution - is arguably not a state at all, since it would be comprised of the masses of people acting in voluntary cooperation with one another. This "proletarian state" - a state of affairs in which the people have the power and proliferate freely without fear that their children will become slaves - could hardly be described as either a state, or as any sort of monopoly.

     So communists and libertarians both oppose the state, and centralization, and fascism. Moreover, Lenin also let people trade in markets temporarily during economic crises (i.e., Lenin's New Economic Policy of 1922). Libertarians and communists both support decentralization, as well as geographical political autonomy. The voluntary building of intentional communities, and their secession from larger units of government, therefore furthers both libertarian and communist goals.

III. Economics

     Redistribution doesn't have to be done by the state, and it doesn't have to harm workers or the poor. Redistribution can and should be done through the community, whether it expresses itself as a public sector entity or market entity. But only the ill-gotten wealth of government contractors and artificial monopolies - and what has been legally or illegally stolen from the public or the commons - should be redistributed back to the people.

     Both the communist and libertarian schools of thought are equally tolerant of libertarian Marxism, Murray Bookchin's libertarian communalism, Georgism, geo-libertarianism, Mutualism, voluntary syndicalism, physiocracy, left-wing market-anarchism, platformist anarchism, free-market anti-capitalism, and post-scarcity economics. The Alliance of the Libertarian Left, must take shape, but also heed criticism coming from the libertarian right; while the right heeds the criticism of the Left.

IV. Politics

     Austrian economics and Austromarxism should be taught side by side, because total freedom of choice includes political and economic freedom. Also, market-anarchists like Molinari and Marxist Otto Bauer both promoted panarchism, the freedom to choose your political association without changing your location.

     Libertarians and far-leftists should talk about how the Constitution can be amended. If that doesn't happen, then leftists will scream demands to vote away everyone's right to have guns and private health insurance, without caring whether it's even legal to "force the vote" on a given topic in the first place. Until leftists receive constitutional education from the libertarian right, permanent national reform on health, retirement, education, environment, land management, housing, and energy will be all but impossible.

V. Environment and Borders

     Once libertarians and communists educate one another, they should support the abolition of states and the U.S. Senate, and their replacement with bioregionalist states (such as Cascadia). This will reduce competition over water resources and water regulation, and reduce the need for (and expense involved in maintaining) artificial borders.

     This will in turn reduce interruptions in the flow of commerce, making goods less expensive. A Georgist or Mutualist economy will also drastically reduce taxes on income and sales, decreasing prices even further. Automation, overproduction, and cessation of government hoarding of land and resources, will accelerate this process. Carl Menger’s writing on how abundance results in low prices, makes him essential reading for both left-libertarians and students of Austrian economics.

VI. Self-Regulation of Firms

     “Free market” does not have to mean “not regulated at all”. Consumers are not being allowed to do their part to help keep the markets free, because consumers are not fully free to boycott without government permission.
     Markets regulated through consumers' freedom to refuse to buy a product, would regulate monopolies out of existence, especially in the absence of a state. We currently don't have the freedom to refuse to buy some products, though (namely, identification, and everything that the government bails out and subsidizes, like health insurance).
     This means that our right to boycott is being inhibited unfairly, through the threat of violent enforcement of the law (i.e., of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947), and through the process of taxation and subsidization (i.e., extorting working people for money, and handing their income over to companies they might wish to withhold their money from).
     This must end; Taft-Hartley must be repealed, and subsidies to all for-profit agencies (and possibly some non-profit agencies as well) should cease as soon as possible.
     Self-regulation exists as well; for example, in the form of voluntary recalls.

     The libertarians want society and the economy to be self-regulated, and they want firms to be self-regulating too, if possible. Is that so absurd, communists? When you believe workers' cooperatives can manage themselves just the same?

     Socializing workplaces without the help of the state, and organizing large numbers of individuals to unionize together into a union of private contractors - while demanding the repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act, and insisting on the irrelevance of the National Labor Relations Board in permitting or denying strikes - would drastically increase union participation, and recognize the right to boycott again, but without empowering the state. Additionally, it would achieve mass ownership of the means of production which would be held by collectives and cooperatives, while at the same time, that ownership could also be described as "private" (in the sense that those means would not be state-owned).




3. Conclusion

     Without the state, markets would be free from monopolies, and the commons would not be eroded by the public sector inviting-in statism, monopoly, and hoarding of natural resources by "public" politicians and bureaucrats secretly serving private interests which are a mix of their own and their cronies and beneficiaries. Less state interference in society, the market, and the environment will result in a clearer separation of the public and private sectors, and in the growth of additional sectors of which most people are scarcely aware (i.e., the commons, the club sector, and the voluntary / charity / third sector).

     While the Georgists say "Tax land, not man" and "Tax bads, not goods", Lenin's advice is to regulate goods but not people. Although this may seem like the opposite of Georgism, it at least fulfills the libertarians' desire that society go unregulated by external means. And despite these little differences, at least now, we can all agree that something must be taxed and regulated less, but that the centralized state shouldn't do it. We just can't exactly agree on which things should be taxed and regulated less.

     Once society and economic production become uncontrolled by violent state monopolies, "external political governance" (as Lenin put it) will become unnecessary.

     This "withering away of the state" should be our long-term goal, after an era of political upheaval which can either be described as revolutionary, or at least drastic and radical in its degree of reform. Such reform must wholly abolish the monopolistic, territorial, and violent nature of the governing bodies, however, in order to be said to have truly achieved the abolition of the state (inasmuch as it is a local monopoly on the legitimate use of force).

     Disarming and demilitarizing the police (or at least empowering the people to defend themselves and police their own communities in some manner) - in addition to decentralizing political organization, ending unnatural and artificial borders, and ending or reforming illegitimate state governments - will do wonders to start us on the path of abolishing the most egregious abuses which are characteristic of the modern bourgeois nation-state.

     But all of this is only possible - according to the beliefs of both libertarians and communists - once the people become educated enough to regulate themselves and make wiser decisions. We need political, economic, social, and productive technical education. Free development of the individual and the community - and the free development and exchange of libertarian and communist thought - are impossible without them.

Written on April 27th, 2021

Originally posted to the Facebook group
"Communists vs. Libertarians Debate Group"
on April 27th, 2021

Edited and Expanded on April 28th and 30th, 2021

Reaction to the Withdrawal of U.S. Troops from Syria, and Thoughts on Kurdistan

     On December 19^th, 2018, claiming that I.S.I.S. has been defeated in Syria, President Donald Trump announced that within thirty days, the U.S. military would withdraw 2,000 troops from that country, in a complete withdrawal.

     I applaud the move to leave Syria; and to leave any country. I hope to hear more announcements like this about Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, and other countries. I also hope that, as soon as possible, the U.S. dismantles its 800 or more military bases overseas, and stations no troop farther than 100 miles from our shores.

     But while I support leaving Syria, I have some doubts as to whether the president may have ulterior motives in leaving Syria, and may not have peace in mind as a genuine interest or motivation.

     I have written this article in order to make it publicly known what my position is on Syria, and the withdrawal of U.S. troops from that country; by publishing both my immediate reaction to the announcement, as well as my opinions on the story as it has developed between December 19^th and now (January 7^th, 2019).

     Before reading my initial reaction to the news about Syria, it is necessary to explain a bit of background information.

     Concerning the first paragraph below: Murray Bookchin was a libertarian communalist political philosopher and social theorist, who developed a school of thought which has come to be known as Bookchinism. Shortly after Trump's announcement that the U.S. would pull out of Syria, Murray Bookchin's daughter Debbie, an author and a supporter of Kurdish autonomy, tweeted in criticism of the announcement. The autonomous region of Turkey called Rojava, is populated by Kurds, and is governed according to Bookchin's principles; namely, it is a decentralized federation that values regional autonomy.

     Concerning the end of the second paragraph: I consider our alliance with Israel to be a significant contributing cause to the reason why the U.S. was in Syria to begin with. Israel and Syria aren't just neighbors, they have a border dispute; over the Golan Heights. The claims that I.S.I.S., and supposed Iranian proxy terrorist group Hezbollah, are in the country, may well be true, but they also serve as convenient excuses for the U.S. to promote joint U.S.-Israeli interests in the region. If we want to fight Iran, then we should fight Iran directly, not its proxies (not that I want us to fight Iran, I don't).

     Concerning the third paragraph: Former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was described as calling for the destruction of Israel when he quoted Ayatollah Khamenei, who said “The regime that is occupying Jerusalem will vanish from the pages of history.”, which could be merely an expression of grief over the tragedy that led to the occupation of Palestine, the Nakba, in which 750,000 Palestinians were displaced, when the Israeli state was founded.

     The following is the original text of my first published reaction, written on December 21^st, 2018, and posted to Facebook.

     Noam Chomsky and Murray Bookchin's daughter both say that Trump's move to pull troops out of Syria will only put the people of Rojava in danger. Rojava is quite possibly the best example of a libertarian communalist society in the Middle East, if not the whole world, right now. They may not even be able to survive without American help.

     But on the other hand, America simply leaving them the fuck alone could cause Rojava to grow stronger. Aside from it being none of our business in the first place, because we're not supposed to have strong allies like Israel anyway.

     The fact that there's a link between Syria and Hezbollah and Iran, is meaningless to me. Iran doesn't want to destroy Israel; the comments of Ahmadinejad (quoting the Ayatollah) were willfully distorted to achieve that appearance.

     Also, we have a giant military base in Southeast Turkey, at Diyarbakir, which is a staging facility for our wars in the Middle East. So maybe dismantle that base, and Rojava will be fine.

     But what the fuck do I know?

     Two days later, on December 23^rd, 2018 - after a friend rebuked me for being too cautious about the possible negative consequences of the U.S. military leaving Syria, and too open to the idea of keeping U.S. troops there - I wrote a second reaction to clarify my position. That reaction read:

     To be clear, we should get the fuck out of Syria and Afghanistan as soon as possible, leaving neither troops nor bases behind.

     It's hard to say that, knowing that us moving out could expose Syria to a power vacuum that could be filled by Turkey, which the U.S. has had too good relations with, despite its [Turkey's] abuses.

     I don't fear the Syrian power vacuum being filled by Iran, because Western media have lied about Iran's intentions so much. Not to say that there would be no problems if that vacuum were filled by Iran, or even Russia.

     Whenever we get out, and whatever happens, I hope that leftists, Democrats, and libertarians are not ashamed to admit Trump "being right", if it means ending our involvement in one of the many wars we're currently involved in.

But we also need to be aware of how the filling of the Syrian power vacuum by Turkey – which I think will be the inevitable result of our exit – was really enabled by America and other Western actors to begin with.

     We need to not only get out of Syria, but also think about ending our ties with abusive regimes such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and other nations that have committed serious human rights abuses (long imprisonment, cruel and unusual punishment, corporal punishment, human trafficking, gender oppression, etc.).

     I'd like to add some comments, clarifying my position on human rights, the nations that abuse them, and the fallacy that imposing import tariffs help restore human rights to nations which abuse them.

     I would not consider Israel immune from allegations and investigations of human rights abuses (with its occupation of territory in defiance of international law, and its refusal to promise not to sell nuclear weapons to other countries, and a number of other problems). Nor would I consider it inappropriate to wonder whether China's human rights and labor abuses should be criticized. Every country should be looked at; every government and every authority should be questioned; not excluded, Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria.

     I say that we should suspect every country of abuses, full well knowing that if we do not trade with a country, then we are likely to have war with that country. That is why I do not support tariffs, because they don't work. Tariffs impose a cost on domestic importers in America, not the foreign firms they're intended to target, so they don't hurt the governments and firms that are carrying out the abuses. The state and its cronies can change the law and legally steal people's money, in a way that deflects and defers and externalizes the costs of the tariffs onto other people, and they do.

     Foreign tariffs only make money for the foreign government, at the expense of foreign exporters and American importers. Money in the hands of governments will never be used to help workers, nor to make-up for nor prevent abuses, but only used to continue and sustain those abuses. If Americans can understand that, then we should also be able to understand that our foreign trading partners might not want to pay a tariff that effectively results in the donation of money to the U.S. military.

     Think about it: If money is fungible, and any tax can be matched with any spending purpose, then isn't that what is happening? The tariff helps the U.S. government balance its budget (as if it ever does that), or at least helps the government sustain itself, so that it can run the military, the Office of the Trade Representative, and every other thing it does.

     My point in saying this is that we ought to have free trade – that is, free movement of labor and capital – with every country that does not commit, or condone, human rights and labor abuses, and other types of deprivations of civil rights and civil liberties. We shouldn't have a situation in which we try to simply tax our problem away, by taxing things that don't make sense to tax. Taxing the importation of goods only makes that good more expensive, more costly, available in fewer places, or all of the above.

     We should make sure that we are not ourselves guilty of the crimes of which we accuse other countries, and raise our standards for ourselves first, to set a good example, instead of expecting other countries to be better than we are. And if we want to identify certain countries, and their governments, as ones that support and condone abuses, then we should apply our standards equally to all nations. But, of course, we cannot go to war with all governments at once, based on the idea that all countries commit abuses. But we should decide which countries are the worst, and start thinking about how ready we are to wage war against them.

     If a country is worth going to war with, then we should cease trading with it immediately – not restrict trade, not have highly regulated trade, not set up an intricate system of licenses and permits for trading – we should stop trade entirely. I say that, full well knowing that if we do not have trade with a country, then we are more likely to have war with it. But if it is decided that allowing trade with a certain country is only helping its government clamp-down control on its people, then we should declare civil liberties violations and human rights abuses as the reason for the war, seek formal congressional authorization of a declaration of war, and fight that war quickly and efficiently, finish it, and bring all troops and bases home.

     Additionally, if we are going to have war with a country because its government is harming its people, then we should make no distinction between an abusive government, and its cronies which are legally entitled to property and wealth under that regime. If the government is condoning those abuses, and the “private” firms receive any form of taxpayer funding, then the government is complicit in any workplace abuses occurring at government sponsored firms.

     The next section, concerning the future of Kurdistan and the relevance of Syria's location to the oil industry, is based on notes written on January 3^rd and 4^th, 2019.

     The areas in northeastern Syria and northern Iraq which were formerly held by I.S.I.S., are on or near areas predominantly occupied by Kurds. I suspect that the U.S. military desires to maintain the presence of Turkey, the U.S., and their N.A.T.O. partners. I believe that the U.S. military can achieve those objectives with or without its own presence there, through leaving the task to Turkey and others.

     It is possible that the U.S. has found a way to leave Syria and achieve its own objectives as it pertains to the future of the Kurdish people. It's even possible that the Trump Administration is planning to support an independent, autonomous Kurdish state, which the United States would co-opt, so as to maintain the illusion that the Kurdish people's interests are really being put first in that country (instead of the interests of Western actors who don't want a truly free Kurdistan and invite more Western influence and interference).

     Although I do support Kurdish autonomy and independence, I'm not certain that statehood would be best for the Kurds. Granted, in a world of nation-states, statehood is practically the only way they can get the world to take them seriously. But I believe that, given enough time, nearly any state will oppress (and even mass-murder) a certain percent of its own people, and therefore, the world does not need another state.

     It is a consolation to me that the Kurdish state would likely be federated and decentralized, as Kurdish-majority regions in Syria and Iraq tend to be. Decentralization at least helps to diminish and diffuse the risks associated with centralizing power too much. But a Kurdish government oppressing its own people too much is not my only concern.

     I am also worried about the hubris of the American government, in thinking that it can help bring peace to the Middle East; after all the damage it has caused, and after even conservative hero Ronald Reagan admitted that we have continued to underestimate the complexity and irrationality of Middle East geopolitics.

     Western media tell us that the British and French government simply “messed up”, and “didn't care” where they drew the national boundaries that resulted in the Sykes-Picot Agreement and the modern-day borders. As a matter of fact, those boundaries were delineated deliberately by the British government, as part of a “divide and conquer” strategy. The idea was to keep tribes of different languages, different sects of Islam, and different religions, all fighting against each other, instead of banding together against their common enemy, the British imperial invaders. That the location and diversity of peoples in the Middle East were ignored in that process, was intentional, not accidental. And not just including the Kurdish people, but especially the Kurdish people, who were (and are) scattered across four nations as a result of that agreement.

     Even if America can have a seat at the negotiation table (with Kurdish, Turkish, Syrian, Iraqi, and Iranian leaders), it probably shouldn't, because American leaders would just tout their own role in resolving the problem so much, that it irks the other countries that have to make major concessions just to come to the table. Considering the American track record in the Middle East, it would not only be pointless to have America at the negotiating table, it would make the road to Middle East peace and Kurdish autonomy longer and bumpier.

     Another reason that the prospect of Kurdish autonomy is worrisome, is that former Vice President Joe Biden might try to take advantage of the issue in order to jump-start a likely run for president in 2020. I believe that Biden might try to portray himself as a longtime supporter of Kurdish independence, since he has been promoting the idea of partitioning Iraq into three areas (one mostly Sunni, one mostly Shi'ite, and the other Kurdish).

     While a Biden presidency could very well result in a rapid acceleration of a project to achieve Kurdish independence, there is no guarantee that that project would not deteriorate into an overly centralized, excessively Western-influenced country that is full of American military bases. Additionally, Biden has a sexual harassment scandal brewing, which, if he is the Democratic nominee, Donald Trump is sure to bring up during the debates. If that happens, it will not end well for Biden, and Trump will easily win a second term. I want to prevent that, but not at the cost of allowing Joe Biden to run the country. I would vote for someone else, or not vote at all.

     I would like to note that, in addition to promoting Israel's interests in Syria, another major reason for U.S. presence in Syria is the relevance of Syria's location to the interests of the oil industry.

     Syria has very little oil – and, at that, only on its outskirts – but the fact that it is situated between the Mediterranean sea to the West, and oil-rich Iraq and Iran to the East, makes it a very important area of geopolitical and economic strategic interest.

     The U.S. and its allies want to build a new oil pipeline - the proposed Qatar-Turkey pipeline - across parts of northern and eastern Syria. The proposed pipeline supported by the Russians and Iranians – the Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline – would run the pipeline through only the Western part of Syria, near the Mediterranean Sea.

     Both proposed pipelines would brush the southern edges of Kurdish-majority territory. As far as I.S.I.S. goes, the Western-backed pipeline would cut across territories formerly controlled by I.S.I.S., while the Eastern-backed pipeline would not.

     It's hard to tell which pipeline would result in more havoc, environmental damage, or interference in the everyday lives of the Syrian people, or the Kurdish people for that matter. For all we know, Syria could feel worried about interference from both East and West, and favor neither pipeline. Stuck between Iraq and a wet place (the Mediterranean and the Western oil interests), if you will.

     That's why I have decided not to draw any conclusions on foreign policy from these facts relevant to oil. I merely wish to point these facts out, so that anyone wishing to develop their own opinion on the relevance of oil to the Syrian and Kurdish conflicts, and to U.S. involvement in the region, may do so.

     Another cause for my concern about whether our leaders' claims that we are leaving Syria are genuine - and that the exit is going according to plan, and that what we think is happening is really what's happening - came up just the other day.

     On January 6^th, 2019, National Security Adviser John Bolton said that, while we will be leaving northern Syria, our exit from Syria does not have a timetable for withdrawal of ground forces. He also said that the U.S. will not leave until Turkey's government guarantees the safety of U.S.-allied Kurdish fighters who helped defeat I.S.I.S..

     It has also been reported that Bolton reassured Israeli leaders that the U.S. will continue to help protect Israel from Iran after the U.S. withdraws troops from Syria.

     It's possible that a complete U.S. withdrawal from Syria might be delayed, or made only a partial withdrawal, due to Israel's influence. Although the Israeli narrative and Netanyahu's reputation have weakened significantly in recent months, the State of Israel will remain America's #1 ally in the region for the foreseeable future, barring a radical change in either U.S. foreign policy or Israeli leadership (or both).

     I would like to see the U.S. have the same policy towards Israel, Syria, Kurdistan, and all the other countries of the world alike: the U.S. military should withdraw all troops and dismantle all bases in all other countries, and whether the lack of U.S. presence in a country causes its government to grow weaker or stronger, more independent or less, it should be none of our business.

     Regimes in the Middle East will come and go, they don't need Western arms dealers arming them to the teeth – publicly nor privately – to make them look guilty by association, and look tyrannical because they have the means to attack others (whether they do or not).

     I won't call it unfair to argue that the U.S. should at least stay in Syria, or wherever else, long enough to fix the damage it has done over the decades. But what are the chances of that happening, really? Like I said before, it would require a radical change in U.S. policy.

     Still, though, I would rather have the U.S. simply stop interfering in other countries' internal conflicts, instead of sit around waiting for the American government to suddenly be run by honest people with decent, respectable, and realistic goals.

Written on December 21^st and 23^rd, 2018, and January 3^rd, 4^th, and 7^th, 2019

Originally Published on January 7^th, 2019