Using their meta-contextual language to win over the Left

Perry De Havilland

Libertarians come in many hyphenated flavors, but very few genuine libertarians see themselves as being on the political left.

So called socialist-libertarians are not libertarians at all. They are as oxymoronic as meat-eating vegetarians: Any value set that would deny economic free-association and property rights denies personal liberty, and you are not a libertarian unless you advocate personal liberty as first amongst civil virtues.

Thus, from this fairly self-evident proposition, most libertarians see themselves as being on the "right" -- or at least they do not see themselves as being on the "left." However just what do left and right really mean in this post-Cold War era?

I would contend that within the context of libertarianism, left and right are actually meaningless, ideologically speaking. Conservatives and socialists ascribe various meanings to these terms, based on their respective statist perspectives.

Whilst conservatives and socialists see what differentiates them, as libertarians our perspectives allow us to see the shared statist axioms that in fact make them so similar. Libertarians can see that there is actually little to choose between "conservatism" and "socialism" circa 2001 in real terms of policy and underpinning assumptions as to the role of the state.

What libertarians need to understand is that there are indeed important differences between the left and right, but they are meta-contextual rather than ideological. That is to say, the left and right come from very different traditions that strongly color their respective views of how the world really works, and thus how they interpret any ideological issue presented to them.

Bearing this in mind, libertarians need to realize that by mentally allying themselves to the right, they are actually not making a useful ideological distinction at all. In fact, by doing so, they run the risk of clothing themselves in cultural meta-contextual baggage that is often profoundly unhelpful.

What is needed is a more dispassionate analysis as to what other people understand by left and right and a more pragmatic use of that meta-contextual baggage for our own purposes.

For example, a key "vibe" of the left tradition is the view of the world as a struggle from the bottom against forces of hierarchy. Thus, an anti-business proposition that portrays the corporate boardroom as an essentially hostile power center to the "common man" employee is an "easy sell" when presented to someone who views the world from within that meta-context.

However, a meta-context is just a tradition of thought, not a philosophy per se.

Let us take the fact that as the airline industries across the world are said to be in dire troubles, various interventionist governments are pouring tax monies into these companies to prop them up.

This is not really the sort of issue to greatly exercise people on the traditional left, who view economic intervention as perfectly normal, or the right, who view "helping" companies as perfectly normal, provided they are big companies. However, this issue can indeed be made to resonate with the left by framing it precisely in the terms that fit their traditions of thought:

"Yet again the boardroom is using its corrupting influence with politicians to screw the common man and take our tax money to reward poor management by the board and bail out some fat cat shareholders. It is hard to say who is worse, the incompetent directors who did not plan for unforeseen problems, the greedy shareholders, or the money-for-the-boys politicians doling out our tax money."

What have we just done? We have just made a seemingly "anti-business" argument designed to fit within the meta-contextual world view of the left. We have also just made an argument in favor of laissez-faire.

Many on the left are actually natural allies of the libertarian view on civil liberties -- yet they cannot extend the same logic to economic liberties. Part of the problem is the fact that libertarians, largely speaking from the meta-context of the right, frame economic issues in such a manner as to predispose opposition from the left.

If we are to rescue the left from collectivism, we must learn to speak the language of the left and tap into deep traditions of resistance and non-deferential social values that could serve us well. It is not just a case of picking the issues to attract people from the left, but how we present them.

Hostility to business regulation is almost invariably presented as a right issue and framed in the language and meta-contextual frames of reference of the right. Yet why not pitch this very issue to the left in terms that resonate for them as well?

"See how entrenched businesses work with their political stooges in government to keep undercapitalized common people from competing with them? They raise regulatory barriers to keep the working class would-be entrepreneurs out by raising the cost of establishing a new business, thereby keeping the market safe for the forces of oligopoly."

Rather than the usual "right" arguments, involving imposed costs to the business being regulated, we take an equally true consequence of regulatory imposition and serve it up with a left spin.

Whilst the use of language may be cynical, no ideological compromise is required and there is nothing dishonest about the argument being made.

Once we realize that left and right are just traditional meta-contextual frames of reference and do not have any real objective political content in and of themselves, we can effectively inject our libertarian memes into both the left and right world views. By doing this, we broaden our ability to communicate with people who might otherwise see us as being "one of them" rather than "one of us."

When in the ring and fighting the good fight, do not deny yourself a good left hook.

- - - - - -

Perry De Havilland is a British libertarian. This essay is appeared reprinted from the Libertarian Alliance’s Tactical Notes No. 29

Perry, the best way for you to understand how this could be is to study the thinking of a subset of the libertarians on the right, by which I mean the individualist anarchists. Have you ever read people like Spooner, Tucker, etc?.

If you have, then you will understand that the question of individual vrs collective can get pretty extreme. For example, you yourself, are you willing to have the nuclear family as an "economic unit" or would you insist on economic relatuionships between marital partners, parents and children, etc.

OK, suppose you DO accept the "family" as the sort of "collective" which does not violate YOUR sense of "individualism" (you accept "sharing" within the family). Then where precisely do you draw the line? The family could certainly be a "clan" (as in many clan oriented societies, the clan is the "corporate" property "owner" and its members merely present instantiations). Keep in mind, this isn't "biology" because who counts as "relatives" and who doesn't is a social contruct. So what we get (within Anarchism) is a continuum for "collectivism" with only the STRICT individualist anarchists being totally non-collectivist.

This whole article is nothing more than another vain attempt to redefine the "right" (conservatives) as pro-capitalist and anti-working class and the "left" (liberals) as anti-capitalist and pro-working class.

Sorry, Charlie. The vast majority of people don't define the terms that way. And for good reason. Until you learn to use the terms the way most people use them and quit trying to re-define them for your own purpose, the sooner you'll be able to clearly make your message known. Of course, given what the ultimate results of carrying out what your message would entail, I can understand your desire to camouflage it as best you can.

I would have to say that most anarchists value free association as a key part of any anarchist society. And while most anarchists consider both collectives and markets as forms of free association, there remain several barriers to cooperation.

(1) Many "an-socs" think markets are a silly way of organizing. Many "an-caps" think the same of the different forms of collective. I tend to think they are complimentary.

(2) In the same way "an-socs" may accept internal markets as a choice of a given community, and "an-caps" may accept internal collectives as a choice within the market. This presents a chicken-and-egg problem: does the community consensus create the markets or do the market forces create the communities? And when does a given community have the right to shut down a given market? How far can it go in doing so?

Anarchy is stupid. One day you'll understand, maybe when you leave college, get a job and have kids of your own.

How do you plan to bring about your anarchistic society?

How are you going to abolish the current system?

What are you going to do about the people who don't want to play the game by your rules (or lack of them)?

Does anyone actually have any plans, or is this all just a sit-around-drinking-coffee-and-fantasizing-about-how-it-would-be-if-you-got-to-run-things thing?

Signed,

Curious