What exactly does it mean to be a “left-wing libertarian?”

[Damocles]

According to the traditional depiction of the political compass, a left-wing libertarian occupies the bottom-left quadrant. In the broadest and most general terms, these people generally seek to redress grievances and inequities that fall disproportionately on lower classes, while also challenging the idea that the state is the means through which this must be achieved. Indeed, some anarchist factions believe that the state itself ought to be abolished. Yet, they can also be for or against recognition of private property rights, while also either accepting or rejecting Hegelian concepts of class antagonism.

It’s for this reason, I find, that this quadrant frequently gets memed on from all corners. From the auth-right, it’s seen as a bunch of blue-haired, juuling college students, easily provoked or “triggered” into action at the mildest of inconveniences. From the auth-left, they’re seen as ideological traitors or collaborationists with the bourgeoisie, or even mischaracterized as right-wing. From the lib-right, they’re seen as a bunch of socialists seeking to destroy private enterprise, and are merely a fifth-column for communism.

Part of these dissonant characterizations by ideological opponents be explained by a general lack of consensus of what exactly this quadrant entails, itself fueled by rampant sectarianism. This post is meant to foster a discussion on what it means to be a left-wing libertarian, what sort of philosophies and precepts give rise to the left-wing libertarians, and what sort of policy planks a left-wing libertarian might uphold, and finally, how they apply to the contemporary American political context. When I am able, I will offer my thesis in a later post to attempt to answer all of these questions, and you are free to defend, critique, contradict, or oppose them.

For right now, though, I’ll turn the floor over to you. What exactly does it mean to be a “left-wing libertarian”?

[Damocles]

You are attempting to describe something that doesn't really exist based on an over-broad application of the political compass. That particular way of analyzing politics puts a broad variety of ideologies — the Nordic model of liberalism, anarcho-primitivism, Georgism, anarcho-syndicalism, democratic socialism, various green political movements, and arguably liberal democracy itself — in the same bucket based on their general position on the political compass. "Left-wing libertarianism" seems like a broad generalization that papers over some very real differences among these schools of thought (and not a particularly useful one).

The generalization that all these ideologies "challenge the idea that the state is the means through which this must be achieved" is certainly questionable, at least for those that fall toward the upper edge of the quadrant. Because of the limits of the political compass, you catch a lot of people who do very much believe in the power of state intervention but who nevertheless end up in the bottom left because they don't hate gays or whatever.

Surely, the limitations of the model are very real and are very much there. I used it only because of its ease of access and its omnipresence in most casual political discussions, as a means to foster further inquiry. I don’t by any means believe that entire schools of thought can be reduced down to a point on a graph, but it can be a useful tool for identifying general trends and themes that pervade across multiple ones.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

If you call the left half of the political compass "left-wing" and the bottom half of the political compass "libertarian" you get that pretty much anyone who mostly holds redistributist (left-wing) economic views and mostly holds individual-freedom-focused (libertarian) 'social' views is some version of "left-wing libertarian", including a majority of this forum, but that's not a very useful definition, unless we restrict it to the very corner of the quadrant.

Pretty much what Donerail said.

Also, for Heaven's sake, stop stereotyping the auth-left as communists.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The concept of the elusive left-libertarian is something that grinds my gears on a continual basis - as Baptista indicated, the "lib left" quadrant is basically just standard left-liberal/progressive in most contexts (assuming the up-down scale is "social issues" and not "preferred political system"). Conversely, upper-right/auth-right is standard conservatism. It is for this reason that I have said the political compass should be rotated 45 degrees to the right (so as to be a diamond with authoritarianism of all stripes in the upper quadrant).

As stated variously above, actual "left-wing libertarians" (as in, seen as deviating from standard left-liberal or progressive politics) could be anything from Jerry-Brown-in-the-70s-esque "neoliberals", to Berners who are libertarian only on traditional left-wing grounds, to anarchists who think that power doesn't abhor a vacuum.

[PSOL]

Anarchists. To those who don’t want to abolish the state, I guess it’s mainly based on Green Eco-socialist philosophy.

Using the dumb 4-squares as showing something visible, the centre is the Green Party’s wing influenced by boomer Bookchin and the extreme left end is the IWW which is AnCom. It’s a mainly empty hole outside of factions in the Green Party, some mutual aid networks, and the IWW.

[dead0man]

it seems like one of our worst posters of all time was a proud left libertarian....the only name that comes to mind is Ziggy (who's actual poster name I also can't remember), but I think it was the other train wreck of a poster from around the same time.

[Red Velvet]

Basically hippies

[Benjamin Frank]

The Labor Party leader in the U.K who took on Thatcher in 1983 (and likely would have won were it not for the Falklands War), Michael Foot, described himself as a 'libertarian socialist.'

He was a former journalist who was something of a philosopher (much more so than a practical politician) and he had something of a well thought out philosophy on being a libertarian socialist.  He's hardly the only one either.

This is Noam Chomsky (yuck) on Libertarian Socialism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3m4aRQ9QvQ

This is RationalWiki on Libertarian Socialism:
Libertarian socialism is the most anti-authoritarian form of socialism. It's often used as a synonym for anarchism, although not all anarchists subscribe to socialist thought and some self-described libertarian socialists, such as Daniel De Leon, reject elements of anarchism. Libertarian socialism often takes elements of democratic socialism, such as decentralized planning and self-managed workplaces, to their extreme, while also opposing things such as police and prisons, hoping for a community-run "restorative justice" system, and hoping to make as many decisions as possible through consensus by assemblies and councils. The former British Labour Party leader Michael Foot described himself as a libertarian socialist in a 1965 interview where he stated that he believed in socialism that was designed to "get the greatest (amount of) freedom for individuals".

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Socialism#Liberal_socialism

[HisGrace]

I'm a bit unclear on this as well. Seems like an oxymoron. I guess it could be someone who takes full blown libertarian position on non economic issues (non-interventionist foreign policy, privacy, free speech, drugs, sex issues) but still has left of center economic views. In which case I would consider that person just not a libertarian.

[PSOL]

The Labor Party leader in the U.K who took on Thatcher in 1983 (and likely would have won were it not for the Falklands War), Michael Foot, described himself as a 'libertarian socialist.'

He was a former journalist who was something of a philosopher (much more so than a practical politician) and he had something of a well thought out philosophy on being a libertarian socialist.  He's hardly the only one either.

This is Noam Chomsky (yuck) on Libertarian Socialism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3m4aRQ9QvQ

This is RationalWiki on Libertarian Socialism:
Libertarian socialism is the most anti-authoritarian form of socialism. It's often used as a synonym for anarchism, although not all anarchists subscribe to socialist thought and some self-described libertarian socialists, such as Daniel De Leon, reject elements of anarchism. Libertarian socialism often takes elements of democratic socialism, such as decentralized planning and self-managed workplaces, to their extreme, while also opposing things such as police and prisons, hoping for a community-run "restorative justice" system, and hoping to make as many decisions as possible through consensus by assemblies and councils. The former British Labour Party leader Michael Foot described himself as a libertarian socialist in a 1965 interview where he stated that he believed in socialism that was designed to "get the greatest (amount of) freedom for individuals".

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Socialism#Liberal_socialism

I'm a bit unclear on this as well. Seems like an oxymoron. I guess it could be someone who takes full blown libertarian position on non economic issues (non-interventionist foreign policy, privacy, free speech, drugs, sex issues) but still has left of center economic views. In which case I would consider that person just not a libertarian.

Social democrats have a habit of describing themselves to be more radical than they actually; Libertarian Socialist, Left-Lib, Democratic Socialist, and even Anarchist.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The 4-quadrant political compass is trash, but libertarian socialism is a real ideological movement with a rich history (not one I personally subscribe to, but definitely one that's still valuable to modern leftists). Just because it doesn't fit neatly into modern American political discourse doesn't make it stupid.

[PSOL]

The 4-quadrant political compass is trash, but libertarian socialism is a real ideological movement with a rich history (not one I personally subscribe to, but definitely one that's still valuable to modern leftists). Just because it doesn't fit neatly into modern American political discourse doesn't make it stupid.

Anarchism has never fit well with any political discourse of liberal democracies due to its rejection of not only the legitimacy of such a system, but even by participating in it due to it being an unjust hierarchal system.

Nowhere in the world will smashing the state be acceptable to glorified pundits who need the state, and chartered organizations given right to operate by said state, to pay their overpayed salaries.

[John Dule]

Nowhere in the world will smashing the state be acceptable to glorified pundits who need the state, and chartered organizations given right to operate by said state, to pay their overpayed salaries.

Anarchists literally think these are the only kinds of people who benefit from state power.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

it seems like one of our worst posters of all time was a proud left libertarian....the only name that comes to mind is Ziggy (who's actual poster name I also can't remember), but I think it was the other train wreck of a poster from around the same time.

Ziggy was an avowed fascist. You might be thinking of Libertas.

[Indy Texas]

The sort of person who would oppose both of these things:

(1) The government requiring you to wear a FitBit and meet with a health counselor as a means of reducing expenses for a public universal healthcare system

(2) Your private company's HR department requiring you to wear a FitBit and meet with a health counselor as a means of reducing their health insurance premiums

Right-libertarians would oppose (1) but be fine with (2) and would say, "Well if you don't like it, you're free to get a different job." Well, many of those other jobs do the same thing. What if this is happening during a recession and high unemployment? And leaving your job without another job available would put you in dire financial straits so you really aren't "free to go."

[dead0man]

it seems like one of our worst posters of all time was a proud left libertarian....the only name that comes to mind is Ziggy (who's actual poster name I also can't remember), but I think it was the other train wreck of a poster from around the same time.

Ziggy was an avowed fascist. You might be thinking of Libertas.

yes, that's it

[PSOL]

Nowhere in the world will smashing the state be acceptable to glorified pundits who need the state, and chartered organizations given right to operate by said state, to pay their overpayed salaries.

Anarchists literally think these are the only kinds of people who benefit from state power.

I’m not getting at with what you are saying here, may you explain what you mean?

[PSOL]

Nowhere in the world will smashing the state be acceptable to glorified pundits who need the state, and chartered organizations given right to operate by said state, to pay their overpayed salaries.

Anarchists literally think these are the only kinds of people who benefit from state power.

I’m not getting at with what you are saying here, may you explain what you mean?

Ooooh. Well not just them, but they are the most visible example the masses are fed through the dominant forms of media distribution services in our society.

[Ferguson97]

Anything between anarkiddies and "I want healthcare and weed", depending on who you ask.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

Traditionally, libertarian was a more polite term for anarchists. So a left-libertarian may mean simply an anarchist.

More likely though, given the colonization of the word by oligarchs, it means some nominal leftist who fell for Ron Paul’s fight the power schtick.

[dead0man]

Traditionally, libertarian was a more polite term for anarchists.

no it hasn't.

To be sure, many non-libertarians seem to think that.  It's why you get stupid sh**t like "Somalia is a libertarian paradise".  Somehow they also get accused of being Trump supporters.  It's almost like some people are ignorant about this stuff on purpose.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

Traditionally, libertarian was a more polite term for anarchists.

no it hasn't.

To be sure, many non-libertarians seem to think that.  It's why you get stupid sh**t like "Somalia is a libertarian paradise".  Somehow they also get accused of being Trump supporters.  It's almost like some people are ignorant about this stuff on purpose.

Speaking of ignorant on purpose, do you actually not know what anarchism is or are you pretending to be offended?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Marxism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-communism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)

All schools of thought predate Von Mises and co’s co-option of the term

[dead0man]

Traditionally, libertarian was a more polite term for anarchists.

no it hasn't.

To be sure, many non-libertarians seem to think that.  It's why you get stupid sh**t like "Somalia is a libertarian paradise".  Somehow they also get accused of being Trump supporters.  It's almost like some people are ignorant about this stuff on purpose.

Speaking of ignorant on purpose, do you actually not know what anarchism is or are you pretending to be offended?

let's see

an·ar·chism
/ˈanərˌkizəm/
noun
belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.

since libertarians do NOT want the "abolition of all government" it is dumb to say libertarianism is a polite term for anarchism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Marxism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-communism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)

All schools of thought predate Von Mises and co’s co-option of the term

k

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

Traditionally, libertarian was a more polite term for anarchists.

no it hasn't.

To be sure, many non-libertarians seem to think that.  It's why you get stupid sh**t like "Somalia is a libertarian paradise".  Somehow they also get accused of being Trump supporters.  It's almost like some people are ignorant about this stuff on purpose.

Speaking of ignorant on purpose, do you actually not know what anarchism is or are you pretending to be offended?

let's see

an·ar·chism
/ˈanərˌkizəm/
noun
belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.

since libertarians do NOT want the "abolition of all government" it is dumb to say libertarianism is a polite term for anarchism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Marxism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-communism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)

All schools of thought predate Von Mises and co’s co-option of the term

k

He asked what it means to be a left-libertarian. I answered that ‘libertarian’ is used as a descriptor for various Anarchist and Marxist currents of thought, especially as anarchist was felt to be imprecise and/or gaining negative connotations.
This obviously has nothing to do with your political party, except in so far as they co-opted their name from the radical left.

[Velasco]

Have you ever heard about "libertarian communism", also known as "anarcho-communism"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-communism

Anarcho-communism, also known as anarchist communism, is a political philosophy and anarchist school of thought which advocates the abolition of the state, capitalism, wage labour, social hierarchies and private property (while retaining respect for personal property, along with collectively-owned items, goods and services) in favor of common ownership of the means of production and direct democracy as well as a horizontal network of workers' councils with production and consumption based on the guiding principle "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". Some forms of anarcho-communism such as insurrectionary anarchism are strongly influenced by egoism and radical individualism, believing anarcho-communism to be the best social system for the realization of individual freedom. Most anarcho-communists view anarcho-communism as a way of reconciling the opposition between the individual and society.

Anarcho-communism developed out of radical socialist currents after the French Revolution, but it was first formulated as such in the Italian section of the First International. The theoretical work of Peter Kropotkin took importance later as it expanded and developed pro-organizationalist and insurrectionary anti-organizationalist sections. To date, the best-known examples of an anarcho-communist society (i.e. established around the ideas as they exist today and achieving worldwide attention and knowledge in the historical canon) are the anarchist territories during the Spanish Revolution and the Free Territory during the Russian Revolution, where anarchists such as Nestor Makhno worked to create and defend anarcho-communism through the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine from 1918 before being conquered by the Bolsheviks in 1921.  

There are few remaining anarchists who spouse "libertarian communism", but I can testify they still exist. On the opposite side of the spectrum, there exist the "anarcho-capitalists" (seemingly anarcho-capitalism is an extreme brand of right-wing libertarianism, while the latter is a more extreme version of the so-called "classic liberalism")

I mean, forget political compass tests. I understand the concepts of "libertarian socialist" or "libertarian communist" are alien to the US political culture, but such ideologies are real and have a long tradition