By Nathan Barton
Not sure who Logan Marie Glitterbomb is (I suspect an alias), but this idea is nuts.
I’ve been involved with the libertarian movement since the formal organization of the Libertarian Party in 1973, and knew people who had been libertarians (even if they didn’t use the name) for several decades before that time. NONE of them ever claimed that the “roots of libertarianism are anti-fascist.” Classical liberalism, which became libertarianism, existed long before there was anything that could be, much less accepted, the label of “fascism.”
Reclaiming the anti-fascist roots of libertarianism is found at the Center for a Stateless Society, by Logan Marie Glitterbomb. And it just doesn’t make sense.
Logan writes: “Let’s face it — the libertarian movement’s flirtations with paleoconservatives over the years have put us in the situation we are in today. Alt-righters and other self-proclaimed fascists, white nationalists, and racial separatists feel that they can use the libertarian movement as an effective recruiting ground: despite their willingness to crush individual liberties in order to achieve their goals. However, the roots of libertarianism are anti-fascist. We should continue to take a strong anti-fascist stance if we are to be consistent and true to our movement’s lineage.”
It does not make sense – I must be crazy.
This is akin to saying that the Way (Christianity) needs to get back to its anti-evil or anti-Satan roots. Even if you want to rewrite history and claim that Mercantilism was some primitive form of fascism, this still does not make sense. Classical liberalism and anarchism (the real thing, not the nihilists) are naturally anti-fascist, as fascism is just a more extreme than most form of statism: of tyrants and authoritarianism and all the rest.
But this Glitterbomb goes on further – in the article we are given revelations about the original “socialist” roots of libertarianism. Socialist? Fascism is nothing more than a particular flavor or style of socialism. Both socialism and fascism are the political (and social and moral) opposites of libertarianism – even MINARCHIST Libertarianism.
If the roots are socialist and anti-fascist as is claimed in this article is so, does that explain the reason that the national LP has seemingly gone insane in recent years? Not according to Glitterbomb, as you read above. By the way, I assume these “paleoconservatives” (or rather, the LP – (we who are anarchist free-market types are out of here) are hobnobbing with are the likes of Bob Barr and Gary Johnson. Are these the people that Glitterbomb is calling fascists? I don’t even think that Bill Weld deserves being branded as a fascist. Stupid and blind, maybe.)
Explain, please, to me, just where did these so-called roots of “social anarchist/libertarian socialist movement” come from? What on earth is a “Libertarian Anti-Fascism Committee?” That makes as much sense as having a “Libertarian Anti-Gun Control Committee” or a “Anarchist Anti-Government Committee.” Fascism and all its sister thuggish forms of government and control – even to “minarchist” libertarians – is antithetical to lovers of liberty and defenders of freedom.
Maybe I AM crazy and stupid. But it seems to me that libertarian political philosophy is simple, and by its very nature, “anti-” a whole long list of political philosophies which justify aggression and control and dominance of some humans by other humans. How simple? My right to wave my fist (or my gun or my flag or my manifesto!) ends where your nose (or your knee or your property) begins. God gave us liberty and freedom, and gave NO ONE the moral right to coerce and control other people. Lovers of liberty – anarchists and even minarchists – are “anti-Fascist” and “anti-Communist” and “anti-Progressive” and “anti-Socialist” and “anti-Democrat” and “anti-Republican” and always have been. But our roots are NOT about being “against something” or in any sort of collectivist philosophy.
And when you get right down to it, “roots” aren’t that important – it is the fruit.
But more on that later.
Mama’s Note: Lots of people write nonsense about a whole world of things they do not understand… and don’t really want to understand. This Logan is obviously one of them.
Unfortunately, the bulk of the “libertarians” lately seem to have jumped over the cliff into a whole raft of ideas and positions that have little or no relationship to the original premise of non-aggression. Those who still claim the label of libertarian, and keep non-aggression as the core and measure of all else, continue to make the most sense. The rest of them… not much at all.
And, as with so many other words, the controllers have co-opted libertarianism and work hard to obscure both the origins and the foundation. I stopped using the words libertarian and “anarchist” a long time ago because I found myself spending more time trying to define them than actually discussing the reality.
Logan and her nutty ideas are not worth our time or effort refuting, actually. Those who have ears to hear the truth won’t give her any credence. Those who like what they hear will not be swayed by our opinion. It’s a shame… but there it is.