The Libertarian Support of Dictatorship

I'm Watermark

Diabetic
In one of my favorite essays, Lev Kamenev discusses the idea of bourgeois dictatorship:

However, at present, even the most unenlightened peasant, in the most backward of all countries drawn into the war, knows that the government of his country in 1914-1918 was, as a whole and in every detail, a clear, simple, elementary refutation of these regulations of bourgeois democracy. Democracy, parliaments, elections, freedom of the press, remained — in so far as they did remain a mere screen; in reality all the countries drawn into the war — the whole world — were governed by the methods of dictatorship, which utilized, when it happened to be convenient and profitable, elections, parliaments and the press.

One must be a blind fool or a conscious deceiver of the masses not to see, or to conceal, this fundamental fact; at the most critical period of their history, at the moment of their struggle for existence, the bourgeois States of Europe, Asia and America defended themselves not by means of democracy and parliamentarism, but by openly passing over to the methods of dictatorship.

It was the dictatorship of the general staffs, of the officers’ corps, and of large industry, to whom belonged, not only actually, but also formally, all power both in the army and in the country; who commanded, not only lives, but also the property of the whole country and of every citizen, not only living at the time but yet to be born (the military debts of Messrs. Romanoff, Hohenzollern, Clemenceau and Lloyd George will cover the lives and work of future generations). During several years, before the eyes of the whole human race, a picture of the practice of dictatorship is unrolled — a dictatorship ruling over the whole world, determining everything, regulating everything, penetrating everything, and confirming its existence by 20,000,000 corpses on the fields of Europe and Asia. It is natural, therefore, that to the question, “What is dictatorship?” the Communists should answer: “Open your eyes, and you will see before you a splendidly elaborated system of bourgeois dictatorship, which has achieved its object: for it has given that concentration of power into the hands of small group of world imperialists which allowed them to conduct their war and attain their peace (of Versailles). Do not pretend that dictatorship — as a system of government, as a form of power — can frighten anyone except the old women of bourgeois pacifism. The dictatorship of the proletariat suppresses, not ‘equality,’ ‘liberty,’ and ‘democracy,’ but only the bourgeois dictatorship, which in 1914-18 showed itself to be the most bloody, most tyrannical, most pitiless, cynical and hypocritical of all forms of power that ever existed.”

http://www.marxists.org/archive/kamenev/1920/x01/x01.htm

Does this sound familiar? Yes, it probably does. Today's centralization of global control over presses, governments and most all industry, is simply another form of dictatorship. And this dictatorship, while wearing the masks of republicanism and democracy, is dictatorship akin to any other, and supported by those we call libertarians.
 
Who are these libertarians supporting government control over the media (like the AP Scandal), military action overseas (like possible actions in Syria, Iran, Egypt and the drone program), and cronyism to engineer campaigns? I'm just not seeing it.

In fact, Ron Paul wants to end the US presence in the ME (to include protection for oil companies) and has been very outspoken in attacking the surveillance program. I guess he must not really be a libertarian...
 
Who are these libertarians supporting government control over the media (like the AP Scandal), military action overseas (like possible actions in Syria, Iran, Egypt and the drone program), and cronyism to engineer campaigns? I'm just not seeing it.

In fact, Ron Paul wants to end the US presence in the ME (to include protection for oil companies) and has been very outspoken in attacking the surveillance program. I guess he must not really be a libertarian...

He's also been firmly against corporate welfare and protectionism. As are all Libertarians.
 
Rose is very judgmental about what he/she only presumes to understand.

Too bad, I was liking it for a while, until attacked unprovoked.
 
Rose is very judgmental about what he/she only presumes to understand.

Too bad, I was liking it for a while, until attacked unprovoked.

Allow me to apologize for that. After reading this post, I now understand your habit of spilling arguments into unrelated threads.

I'll admit that I misunderstood you, but really now... original posts exist.
 
Who are these libertarians supporting government control over the media (like the AP Scandal), military action overseas (like possible actions in Syria, Iran, Egypt and the drone program), and cronyism to engineer campaigns? I'm just not seeing it.

In fact, Ron Paul wants to end the US presence in the ME (to include protection for oil companies) and has been very outspoken in attacking the surveillance program. I guess he must not really be a libertarian...

The reason I posted that essay was to broaden the definition of dictatorship.

3d, what would you call a class dictatorship?
 
The reason I posted that essay was to broaden the definition of dictatorship.

3d, what would you call a class dictatorship?

I'll be honest, I thought ->I<- was the first person to notice the Dictatorship methods of Libertarians. A very cultist group that does and will not take input from other groups.

But I'll be even more honest, I plan to vote for Rand Paul who is close to Libertarian, yet not classified as the Dicatatorship Libertarians.

A basic overview of Fox News is , "You make me wear a helmet when riding my motorcycle? I'm not free! I'll shoot you!"

Considering the risk vs. necessity, I think it's pretty dictatorship to use guns to force your perspective. I think it's pretty dictatorship to tell me you are going to kill me if I force you to obey a law that the majority rule on.

If you don't wear a helmet when riding your bike, it hurts your ego and nothing more. If you don't wear one...........it directly effects the liberties of the people who may have to pay more in insurance because you had an accident and were too stupid to wear one. It even leaves your family behind without the person they cared about only because you were a stone age bone head that didn't want to take a simple safety precaution.

The "If you use a gun to my head to make me do something by law' statement is one Fox News created to inspire narrow minded citizens to get involved in politics. No laws were made with a gun to the head and none are. But if you draw a gun on someone hired by the majority and they kill you?......Good bye Mr.Libertarian."
 
Rose: I would certainly not call a class a "dictatorship."

NP: The libertarians would not fire a single shot over the silly helmet law. They would instead tell everyone that it is an improper use of government power. Also, are you capable of writing a single sentence on this forum without mentioning Faux Noise?
 
I'll be honest, I thought ->I<- was the first person to notice the Dictatorship methods of Libertarians. A very cultist group that does and will not take input from other groups.

But I'll be even more honest, I plan to vote for Rand Paul who is close to Libertarian, yet not classified as the Dicatatorship Libertarians.

A basic overview of Fox News is , "You make me wear a helmet when riding my motorcycle? I'm not free! I'll shoot you!"

Considering the risk vs. necessity, I think it's pretty dictatorship to use guns to force your perspective. I think it's pretty dictatorship to tell me you are going to kill me if I force you to obey a law that the majority rule on.

If you don't wear a helmet when riding your bike, it hurts your ego and nothing more. If you don't wear one...........it directly effects the liberties of the people who may have to pay more in insurance because you had an accident and were too stupid to wear one. It even leaves your family behind without the person they cared about only because you were a stone age bone head that didn't want to take a simple safety precaution.

The "If you use a gun to my head to make me do something by law' statement is one Fox News created to inspire narrow minded citizens to get involved in politics. No laws were made with a gun to the head and none are. But if you draw a gun on someone hired by the majority and they kill you?......Good bye Mr.Libertarian."


No libertarian watches Fox news.

Regroup, use some thought, try again.
 
You sure have an aversion to accepted definitions of terms.

Accepted, but not without vaid criticism. ;)

Capitalism has created deceptive definitions in its own defense. I'm fine using some of them, the way in which it defines things like libertarianism, dictatorship and property is where problems arise.
 
Capitalism doesn't define libertarianism, because it was created in 1776, and libertarianism didn't come into use until about 1960. Capitalism was one of the schools which assigned a definition to liberalism, and that definition is often used by libertarians to describe their acceptance of market liberalism.
 
Capitalism doesn't define libertarianism, because it was created in 1776, and libertarianism didn't come into use until about 1960. Capitalism was one of the schools which assigned a definition to liberalism, and that definition is often used by libertarians to describe their acceptance of market liberalism.

It assigned a definition to liberalism, as it assigned a definition to libertarianism. Or how about this, it misassociated market liberalism and libertarianism. Or it just (mis)defined libertarianism.

There are a number of ways of putting it, I guess.
 
Accepted, but not without vaid criticism. ;)

Capitalism has created deceptive definitions in its own defense. I'm fine using some of them, the way in which it defines things like libertarianism, dictatorship and property is where problems arise.

All of those principles pre-date capitalism by more than a few years (well, Libertarianism is debateable), so your insistance that they are capitalistic in nature only further compounds the confusion. Also, because of this, we must call your definition of capitalism itself into question.
 
The word libertarian is a mid-20th Century invention. It was therefore not part of the dialogue of 19th Century ideology. Certainly, it is rooted in the 19th Century definitions of liberalism.
 
All of those principles pre-date capitalism by more than a few years (well, Libertarianism is debateable), so your insistance that they are capitalistic in nature only further compounds the confusion. Also, because of this, we must call your definition of capitalism itself into question.

In no way did I write that the principals were created by capitalism. I'm saying that I disagree with capitalism's way of defining and explaning them.
 
Back
Top