What if we switch the ‘economic impact of Treaty of Versailles’ for ‘economic impact of the Great Depression’ ? Then wouldn’t have a crisis in capitalism triggered a rise in fascism?

Plus, as we see today, many business owners join hard right to far right movement when they fear crisis might push people toward revolutionary left. I think that’s what is meant when saying nazism build upon capitalism defeat.

Okay, the disagreement on “originate” definition explains a lot of the misunderstanding. I still am convinced that ‘originates’ does not mean a clear and widely spread theory, but only a coherent one. And to my eyes, having people calling themselves or other with the name of the theory, referring to all forms of communism opposed to authoritarianism as it is still today and was in the 20th, is coherent and probably more coherent than the socialism was for example.

Therefore I would claim that it was a coherent ideology contemporary to the second phase of communism (it did not exist at the very beginning of communism, before the communist manifesto and the communist ideas before, we can agree on that point. But it precisely emerged when tensions arised around the authoritarian part of first wide spread branch of communism which is marxism, this is what I called second phase, so starting around the first internationale).

Thanks a lot for your clear and constructive discussion, it feels very good to be able to pinpoint where the tension point is rather than just listing arguments in vain.

Okay, so I think we all agree on the “facts are more important than rethorics” point, especially here among fellow leftists (? I think you are) where we can take time to explain things.

So I really am confused as to where the “some kind of moral superiority” part comes from. I looked back at the previous comments and really saw nowhere where I could have been claiming moral superirity. If this is my tone that seemed condescending, I apologize.

Anyway, since you asked for examples of use of the libertarian label, I propose you a bit of the “french” history of the word Libertaire during the second half of the 19th century :

• First occurence in a writing is 1857, by Joseph Déjacque, in a letter against Proudhon. It is used to differentiate from “liberal”, which was considered by Déjacque as not enough attached to liberty. In details, he opposed the Proudhon’s conservatism on the matter of sexuality and gender.
• Déjacque then creates a newspaper that he calls Le Libertaire. This newspaper is published in New York, so that is a good example of the international aspect of philosophy. It’s not in english, however it is tied to the US. I roughly translated a part of the first article : “[Le Libertaire] has one superior ideal : the Liberty, in every matter and for everyone. It does not accept any other authority than the authority of progress. In every matter and for everyone, it seeks the abolition of all slavery in all of its shapes, the emanciaption of all flesh and of all intellect.”
• This title was used by 3 others newspaper before 1900 : in Algiers (1892), in Brussels (1893) and Paris (1895). The last version was published by Sébastien Faure, who is an important anarchist in France at that time.
• The word has been used around anarchist theories by various authors : Charles Malato associates it with Bakounin and anti-marxist communism in 1891, Elisée Reclus stands against the use of “libertaire” though “some of us are prone to call themselves that way” in 1896 and Kropotkine that says in 1896 that he “believe[s] that modern socialism is meant to take a step toward libertarian communism”.
• During the villainous laws of 1893, the word libertaire seems to have been vastly used as a synonym for anarchist, to escape censorship. It seems there has been a debate among anarchists on the use of this term, as we saw with Reclus before.

Now, this seems enough to me to say that left libertarianism originates in the second half of the 19th century, where it is mixed amongst various theories, though mostly anarchism and anti-authoritarian communism.

If we disagree, I think we in reality do not disagree on the fact but on the definition of one or more words in the sentence above, OR that the fact that it’s in french is still blocking you. I will try to prevent such disagreements but please point out what does not satisfy you if I can’t accomplish this myself.

• If we disagree on the “originates”, maybe it’s because you consider that without a kind of manifesto such as the Communist manifesto, a movment cannot be said to have “originated” or to be “born”. It is strange to me to consider that a philosophy cannot originate before an official manifesto, because not all philosophies have such a clear start (socialism for example), and communism itself started before the communist manifesto.
• If we disagree on the “second half of the 19th century”, I’m not really sure why
• If we disagree on the “mixed amongst various theories”, I can understand that you would search for a clear “libertarian” philosophy, that is clearly separated from anarchism, communism and socialism. I would argue that it is of course impossible to find such a thing, since it is still nowadays deeply tied to anarchism. I would add that anarchism and communism and socialism are themselves mixed together (or at least that anarchism is mostly communism which is a variation of socialism). If you still think that if it cannot be separated from anarchism, it should not be considered another philosophy, then just consider “left libertarianism” to be synonym for “anarchism” and everything should be fine.
• If we disagree on the french part, I would just say that we cannot skip a part of anarchist history just because it’s not in english : it existed and it should be possible to talk about it in english as well. If we disagree on that point, I would be very curious to hear why.

Sorry for this very long and late response, I tried to think of most possibilities we could disagree, because I really am confused as to why we are not on the same side since we seem to use the same methods.

I mean, do you really think political theories, especially ones that promotes international unity, developed themselves separately in each country? If you really wanted to use words from the thinkers of communism, you should at least know that :

• a good part of them were french
• a good majority of them lived in france at some point
• a huge majority of them were from Europe and traveled across many countries to avoid political repression

In fact, terms you actually use for anarchy, socialism and communism are both directly translated from french and influenced by philosophies elaborated in France. It does not even matter that it’s France specifically. England and Germany both have a huge role in this, Switzerland has a great role in the development of anarchist theories. Spain had a lot of influence on the notion of Libertaire. Russia and China of course brought a lot to the communist theories though mostly not for the better. All of these countries influenced each other, it is still the case.

Libertaire/libertarian was never a standardized label and still isnt, but it was used and not only in France, since half the 19th century. Just because it’s english language does not mean it should only analyze the political theory of english-speaking country. Without this analysis you cannot understand half the anarchist history of at least France and Spain.

Just because a word has evolved to a specific sense does not mean we should forget its previous meaning, nor does it mean it cant evolve back.

The word “Libertaire” (french for left-wing libertarian, the amercian libertarian is called “Libertarien”) was created in 1857 to differentiate from “Libéral” (which could be seen as an equivalent to nowadays liberals). In France it is still used as a synonym for ‘Anarchist’, though it has a wider sense, since it describes any left-wing movement that opposes authority/power (so libertarian communists that do not accept the “anarchist” label are still included in the “Libertaire” label). The Wikipedia page seems well written from what I know.

@LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net Good luck in your reclaming of the word. There are parts of the world and languages in which it is still a powerful and unifying word for anti-authoritarian left, english language can still evolve this way !

Maybe not a universal truth, but it does seem to be a common one I like this way of seeing things, be assured I will steal this formulation

That lies on the the other side of the libertarian spectrum, the anti-capitalist one, which you can call anarchy to avoid confusion. Does not really match your meme that keeps the capitalist aspect of income as a key concept. Anarchy and (capitalist) libertarianism are really incompatible, since one fights against capital and the other fights for it. In french we distinguish those two philosophies with two words, libertaire (anarchist) and libertarien (libertarian). Since it does not exist in English, i strongly recommend you use Anarchism or social Libertarianism when you want to mean anti-capitalist Libertarianism, it helps avoid the confusion.

Agree with you, depending on the anarchist theory hierarchy disappears more or less but never entirely. It depends on the system chosen and modified by peoples though, so these example may not apply to some anarchist societies, especially the part about the children if you consider what anarchist thinkers wrote and experimented about education

Yeah, sorry for the long answer mb

Agree with you on most points, especially that we should be cautious with the parallel we draw : we can and sometimes should draw them, but always keeping in mind the risk of promoting or minimizing horrors. My previous answer did not promote that enough, you’re right reminding it.

The question "is it comparable " always kinda triggers me because the answer is always yes.

Comparing does not mean saying X and Y are the same, nor are equal. It means evaluating how much X and Y are similar or different on various point. Like “Taylor Swift is a human and so is Julius Caesar. But Taylor Swift is alive, and Julius Caesar is not”. This is comparing, according to what I know of the term. So in theory, everything is comparable : when we say that something is not comparable, we mean that there is a difference on a specific point that should obfuscate all common traits we can find. In our case, it seems to be the death toll.

First I’m hoping you are in full support of Palestina and that deprecate Israel (different subject but if you value the death toll that much in political analysis, this would necessarily lead to this, which is fine by me)

Now on the subject of USA death toll, counting is kinda hard. Should we take into account the strategically kinda useless atomic bombs dropped at the end of the war? Should we take into account every war and massacre caused indirectly by the CIA? Should we take into account death caused by American weapons? Should we take into account death caused by capitalism (though obviously China “communist” dictature helped there too, so maybe this one would complicate things)?

I’m profoundly anti-state, so as much anti west imperialism than anti east imperialism, and maybe this is a bias for me. But to my eyes, this is comparable (not the same, sure, but comparable, even if it is to conclude that communist dictators were more cruals and usa more sneaky)

Still vote for them if you need though, just important to know who they are than blindfolding imo

Upvote for the trump point, im with you on this one Other questions are meaningless here imo, just because X did not commit the crimes Y did, does not mean they should be treated differently if they did crimes of their own

(Still better voting blue than voting red though, fuck trump)

I get that there is lot more nuances than russo-ukrainian, but imo there is a lot more similarities than you seem to imply : both Russia and Israel claimed that the land belonged to them before, that they should get it back, and use violence to kill local people who tried to resist or move them. The only difference is that Israel did it with the help of western countries and partially according to their laws, so they get like an aura of legitimity, but the acts remains quite close.

I do not like when people basically do not accept violent behavior but accepts them when they are allowed by some law or authority.

(Also yes Hamas is doing bad things and should be held accountable in some way, just like Ukraine to my eyes. But still, for me it remains obvious who kills more, who steals more, who oppresses more)