Friday, June 22, 2012

Rothbard: Left & Right

"[T]here developed in Western Europe two great political ideologies … one was liberalism, the party of hope, of radicalism, of liberty, of the Industrial Revolution, of progress, of humanity; the other was conservatism, the party of reaction, the party that longed to restore the hierarchy, statism, theocracy, serfdom, and class exploitation of the Old Order…. Political ideologies were polarized, with liberalism on the extreme "left," and conservatism on the extreme "right," of the ideological spectrum."
 ~ Rothbard

"Thus, with Liberalism abandoned from within, there was no longer a Party of Hope in the Western world, no longer a 'Left' movement to lead a struggle against the State and against the unbreached remainder of the Old Order. Into this gap, into this void created by the drying up of radical liberalism, there stepped a new movement: Socialism. Libertarians of the present day are accustomed to think of socialism as the polar opposite of the libertarian creed. But this is a grave mistake, responsible for a severe ideological disorientation of libertarians in the present world.  As we have seen, Conservatism was the polar opposite of liberty; and socialism, while to the 'left' of conservatism, was essentially a
confused, middle-of-the-road movement. It was, and still is, middle-of-the-road because it tries to achieve Liberal ends by the use of Conservative means.  Socialism, like liberalism and against conservatism, accepted the industrial system and the liberal goals of freedom, reason, mobility, progress, higher living standards for the masses, and an end to theocracy and war; but it tried to achieve these ends by the use of incompatible, conservative means: statism, central planning, communitarianism, etc."
 ~ Rothbard

"[T]he libertarians, especially in their sense of where they stood in the ideological spectrum, fused with the older Conservatives who were forced to adopt libertarian phraseology (but with no real libertarian content) in opposing a Roosevelt administration that had become too collectivistic for them…. By the end of World War II, it was second nature for libertarians to consider themselves at an "extreme right-wing" pole…."
 ~ Rothbard

"Every element in the New Deal program: central planning, creation of a network of compulsory cartels for industry and agriculture, inflation and credit expansion, artificial raising of wage rates and promotion of unions within the overall monopoly structure, government regulation and ownership, all this had been anticipated and adumbrated during the previous two decades. And this program, with its privileging of various big business interests at the top of the collectivist heap, was in no sense reminiscent of socialism or leftism; there was nothing smacking of the egalitarian or the proletarian here. No, the kinship of this burgeoning collectivism was not at all with socialism-communism but with fascism, or socialism-of-the-right, a kinship which many big businessmen of the twenties expressed openly in their yearning for abandonment of a quasi-laissez-faire system for a collectivism which they could control…. Both left and right have been persistently misled by the notion that intervention by the government is ipso facto leftish and antibusiness. "
 ~ Rothbard

3 comments:

  1. Interesting quotes, but I don't agree that socialism is inherently statist nor "conservative." There are plenty of strains of libertarian Marxism and socialism, that all attempt at achieving the fullest expression of liberty but through a different social construction and philosophy than the one Rothbard supports.

    However, the interpretation on power is essentially the same.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't believe that Rothbard uses "socialism" in the same sense of Proudhon or the Mutualists; but rather in the sense of "State-Socialism".

    ReplyDelete
  3. For Rothbard, I believe it is an issue of ends versus means; that the ends of Proudhon's "socialism" however laudable, do not justify the "conservative" or "fascist" means to effect "socialist" ends (and of course, those means, contradict those ends, which makes one question the motives of "Statist-Socialists"). Therefore it is that "socialism" which employs the arm of the State, in its violence/force/coercion/extortion/theft against which Rothbard contends...

    ReplyDelete