Rothbardian Left and Right
Rothbard did not use the terms Left and Right in the usual one-dimensional sense.
Yes, the Left was radical or progressive and the Right was conservative or reactionary, but this split then had to be applied to political distinctions in other dimensions.
At a time when the so-called Progressives were plunging American society head-first into full-bore statism, Rothbard was proudly part of the Old Right -- the reactionary resistance.
But within bourgeois liberalism, he was on the Left: radical libertarianism. And bourgeois liberalism itself he saw as part of a larger divide in history between the progressive forces of liberty and the reactionary forces of statism. This too put him on the Left.
Socialism was not leftist when seen from this larger historical perspective, because its strategy (and some would say its ultimate goal) was conservative: centralized power. The confusion came from the fact that Socialism's rhetoric and stated goal was progressive, borrowed from the language of liberalism.
Personally, I'm happy to use the terms Left and Right to refer to the egalitarian and anti-egalitarian branches of the dominant political thinking of our time: social democracy. To me, libertarianism is neither left nor right.
But many of my comrades (random sample) want to emphasize this Rothbardian understanding of the Left. They may also have various other reasons for emphasizing the left side of a Left/Right distinction. I'm sure the reasons vary.
Anyway, for my allies among the Left Rothbardians, I offer the following designs ideas:
Yes, the Left was radical or progressive and the Right was conservative or reactionary, but this split then had to be applied to political distinctions in other dimensions.
At a time when the so-called Progressives were plunging American society head-first into full-bore statism, Rothbard was proudly part of the Old Right -- the reactionary resistance.
But within bourgeois liberalism, he was on the Left: radical libertarianism. And bourgeois liberalism itself he saw as part of a larger divide in history between the progressive forces of liberty and the reactionary forces of statism. This too put him on the Left.
Socialism was not leftist when seen from this larger historical perspective, because its strategy (and some would say its ultimate goal) was conservative: centralized power. The confusion came from the fact that Socialism's rhetoric and stated goal was progressive, borrowed from the language of liberalism.
Personally, I'm happy to use the terms Left and Right to refer to the egalitarian and anti-egalitarian branches of the dominant political thinking of our time: social democracy. To me, libertarianism is neither left nor right.But many of my comrades (random sample) want to emphasize this Rothbardian understanding of the Left. They may also have various other reasons for emphasizing the left side of a Left/Right distinction. I'm sure the reasons vary.
Anyway, for my allies among the Left Rothbardians, I offer the following designs ideas:
4 Comments:
I see these t-shirts as trying to tap into a libertarian version of the sentiment that led to Che's monochrome portrait becoming trendy. Che wasn't an intellectual, though. He was a revolutionary. While I'll be the first to acknowledge and praise these revolutionary *thinkers*, it wasn't Marx that became a romantic figure in the eyes of many -- it was Che, Mao and (perhaps) Lenin.
I don't know of any explicitly an-cap revolutionaries in the conventional sense of the word. There are a few generally libertarian ones that can be inspiring, though. Sam Adams comes to mind immediately. Maybe Ethan Allen.
From the anarcho-socialist side of things, there's always Nestor Makhno (who we have actual photos of to go off of). That would perhaps muddle the message a bit, though.
Then there's Tank Man from Tianenmen Square in 1989.
The less pacifisticly inclined may find inspiration in the exploits of street fighters like Mark Molnar from the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. I'm not aware of any photos of him in particular, though, and my understanding is that the popular will at the time was not anti-communist so much as a desire for a less totalitarian communism somewhere between democratic socialism and the nigh-anarchistic "Council Communism".
If we want to reach back into the depths of history and legend, we might look for any famous classic artistic depictions of figures such as Robin Hood, William Tell or Spartacus.
He was no revolutionary, but a certain romanticism has attached to outlaws like Jesse James. I have to confess that I have NOT studied the mans life and exploits in sufficient depth to attempt to mount a radical libertarian defense and praise of him -- but I have a nagging suspicion that it might be possible.
I LOVE the more explicit (2nd) Left Rothbardian t-shirt design and would purchase one promptly!!
Another possible symbol: Google "Diggers on the hill" and you'll find a pretty neat historical painting of a bunch of peasants trying to reclaim an enclosed common, and Cromwellian thugs attacking them.
I also like Left Rothbardian. I'd be willing to wear it.
But I honestly don't know what the real difference between a Left Rothbardian and a Rothbardian is. Does it mean a Rothbardian in the sense of Rothbard when he was more favorable to the New Left, as opposed to in his paleo stage?
Because, in principle, Rothbardianism is just plumbline libertarianism, isn't it? Sure, it has its interesting specifics on fractional reserve banking and homesteading, etc. But don't most Rothbardians agree on those particulars? And to the extent that they don't, do their differences really denote a left-right distinction?
Post a Comment
<< Home