Fundamental Asymmetry Between Marxist Left and Classical Liberalism / Radical Capitalism

[Strictlylogical]

I have often thought of the fundamental asymmetry between Marxist collectivists and classical liberals / radical Capitalism.

 

The former relies on and is rooted in proactive force and cannot countenance the latter in any way, but instead must overthrow it, eradicate it.  There can be no harmony with the latter's existence.

The latter is pacifist like nothing the hippies would ever have dreamed up, with non-initiation of force at its base.  Rather than outlawing collectivism as such (while of course outlawing collectivist use of force) the latter is perfectly harmonious with any voluntary collective.

The one leaves no one be, even those who would choose to be left alone. The latter leaves everyone alone and equally leaves them free to choose to live in whatever level of collective promiscuity they wish.

The Liberal (Classical) has no place in the Leftist's world view, whereas the Leftist's would have a place in the Liberal's world, only their use of force would be impermissible.

 

This stark contrast, this asymmetry I find fascinating and inspiring, it may be the greatest example of the benevolence of freedom as a foil in the face of naked tyranny and yet it get's little to no attention.

 

Perhaps there are so many who only "group think", who almost always and ever consider themselves, society and government only in terms of "we" (and "them"), and never think of themselves, their lives, and their freedom's in terms of "I" or "me". 

There is a great mass of lost souls, adult children, so mortally terrified of solitude and independence, ... that they must annihilate any solitary minded person or any ideas of individual liberty.

 

Perhaps those who would be left free and would leave others also to be free are at a disadvantage... or perhaps not?  I suppose as long as they are not naive to the naked will to power which possesses the lost cravens who seek oblivion for all, liberty minded persons can survive.

 

 

But we must be vigilant.

 

Anyway.  Why is this asymmetry not more directly spoken of?  Why don't Freedom lovers tell the middle-left (non violent progressives), you could organize yourselves in our world, you just cant use guns to threaten us, or anyone?

 

 

 

[MisterSwig]

On 3/18/2021 at 7:37 AM, Strictlylogical said:

Perhaps those who would be left free and would leave others also to be free are at a disadvantage... or perhaps not?

It is a disadvantage to tolerate the left in public. We place too much value on freedom of speech. It's like some religious dogma we have. No, sometimes speech needs regulation. Let's recognize that when a leftist advocates for socializing property, he's initiating a process of force against private property holders. Left unchecked, we run the risk of losing everything to the left simply because we tolerate them and the loot-thirsty mob that gathers behind them.

It's like listening to a psycho rant about how he's going to rape a woman, and we do nothing about it. Then his psycho friends arrive and they all agree, "Yeah, let's gang rape her!" We just walk away and go home and watch TV. On the news later we find out that she was raped by that gang. The difference is that the left rapes people legally with the institutions of government power. Our tolerance of evil speakers is essentially the same, but it seems okay in the case of democratic socialists because they want to be evil with the permission of voters.

This is why we at minimum need to ban socialists from the government. I would also ban them from speaking on public property. Let them buy private property and speak there, but if they threaten the government they need to be stopped.

Unfortunately we have not banned them, and now they are terrorizing citizens and embedding themselves in our government. 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There are a lot of things I want to say on this thread, but I just don't have the time. 

But here are a few quick notes.

I agree about asymmetry between Marxism and Capitalism. But notice that what is called capitalism these days is not capitalism. It's crony corporatism. The pharmaceutical cartel, for example, is called capitalism, but it is a monopoly racket protected by government-enforced privilege against newcomers and often funded by the government.

Ayn Rand said somewhere that any compromise between good and evil only benefits evil. Good has nothing to gain from evil.

I am not in favor of regulating free speech. I don't like top-down government dispensers of rights.

But I am in favor of this:

53 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

This is why we at minimum need to ban socialists from the government. I would also ban them from speaking on public property. Let them buy private property and speak there, but if they threaten the government they need to be stopped.

This part I really agree with.

Not even the government is required to provide a platform for those who threaten it and preach its destruction. Let such people do that at their own places.

Michael

[Peter]

Michael wrote: “Not even the government is required to provide a platform for those who threaten it and preach its destruction. Let such people do that at their own places.”

A broader approach might be that an advocate of totalitarianism not be allowed to hold office. Our Constitution might be used as the reason. If they do not acknowledge the rights of every person as guaranteed in the Constitution or advocate coercive government, then they “should be barred” from public office.

It might be tough to “prove” that someone is unfit for office. Just look at the likes of Bernie Sanders who cherished the Soviet Union and visited Stalin’s grave to pay homage?  How many times have we seen someone swear an oath to uphold the Constitution and then they set out to “work around” it?

As an aside the Weather Channel was asking a District of Columbia park ranger when the cherry blossoms would bloom and he said around the first week of April. Those trees are the  descendants of the original cherry blossoming trees given to us as a show of friendship by the Japanese near the beginning of the 20^th Century. Then less than 50 years later we fought a bloody war with them.           

[ThatGuy]

On 3/19/2021 at 11:50 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

There are a lot of things I want to say on this thread, but I just don't have the time. 

But here are a few quick notes.

I agree about asymmetry between Marxism and Capitalism. But notice that what is called capitalism these days is not capitalism. It's crony corporatism. The pharmaceutical cartel, for example, is called capitalism, but it is a monopoly racket protected by government-enforced privilege against newcomers and often funded by the government.

Ayn Rand said somewhere that any compromise between good and evil only benefits evil. Good has nothing to gain from evil.

I am not in favor of regulating free speech. I don't like top-down government dispensers of rights.

But I am in favor of this:

This part I really agree with.

Not even the government is required to provide a platform for those who threaten it and preach its destruction. Let such people do that at their own places.

Michael

Ironically, I recently saw someone on a Rand-adjacent group on Facebook argue that Rand was wrong in her HUOC testimony against communists in Hollywood, invoking Voltaire's “I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Someone else answered that one doesn't have to give them the platform, either. To which the response was "but she shouldn't have collaborated with the government to silence them". To which THAT was answered that the government has a DUTY to prevent the likes of communist and fascist takeover in a free society, or, at the very least, to not SANCTION it. I think that goes hand-in-hand with a point of the original post in this thread, regarding that fundamental asymmetry...people being so willing to accommodate the free speech of fascists to their own detriment.

(A point well-made in a Looney Tunes cartoon, of all places..."The mice of a house prepare for war when their appeasement policy fails to end the menace of a cat". Perhaps THIS is why the swamp is really trying to "cancel" Bugs Bunny and pals?)