A Marxist Critique of Libertarianism: Reflections on my Debate with Yaron Brook

Last Thursday, I participated in a debate with Yaron Brook, the president of the Ayn Rand Institute, on the topic of the morality of Capitalism. And it was just as... interesting... as I expected. It's interesting when your opposition is plainly visible: a plethora of white men in suits.

As anticipated, Brook's arguments were basic anti-communism and simplistic posturing. But I'd like to consider some aspects of libertarianism to aid in the Marxist critique of the trend.

So firstly, what is libertarianism? Though it, like many ideologies, is marked by a strong degree of diversity, its fundamental idea is the complete identification of the free market with liberty.

The fundamental principle of libertarianism is its fundamental flaw. Let's look at it historically. It is true that in a limited sense that the rise of capitalism and the "free" market was a liberating phenomenon. Bourgeois revolutions and processes broke up the old system of feudalism. In that sense the development of capitalism was historically progressive.
 
However, the liberation of the market necessitated too the literal enslavement of peoples. As Marx eloquently remarks in Das Kapital: "The discovery of gold and silver in America, the extirpation, enslavement and entombment in mines of the aboriginal population, the beginning of the conquest and looting of the East Indies, the turning of Africa into a warren for the commercial hunting of black-skins, signaled the rosy dawn of the era of capitalist production." Even the birth of capitalism was contradictory. To produce free labor, unfree labor was necessary. The creation of capital thus was was a product of the most intense exploitation.

Brook's response to the question of slavery expressed many of the fundamental flaws inherent to libertarianism: idealism, ahistoricity, moralism. The whole basis of his outlook was the embrace of those "positive" aspects of capitalism; the rebirth of the rhetoric of freedom and liberty, the development of the surplus, etc. while denying the factors which underpin them. All of the problems which capitalism has produced were attributed to feudalism, or, more ridiculously, socialism.

He even denied the role of resistance by the oppressed in bringing about reform under capitalism, specifically in regards to the abolition of slavery. Brook argued that slavery was wiped out in the South due to the Northern capitalists recognition that feudalism was outmoded in terms of capital accumulation. What nonsense! Northern capitalists wanted to prevent the extension of slavery, not to abolish it. Only the struggle of slaves themselves in the Civil War and the agitation of abolitionists pressured the Northern government to campaign for abolition to ensure victory in the war.

The logic of Brook's response was present in his whole analysis of reform under capitalism: reduce reform to the imperatives of capital, deny the agency of the oppressed in struggle.

Libertarians claim to see everything in terms of the individual. This focus leaves them blind to their own position.

Though libertarians seek to deny the existence of class, their positions are a distinctive indicator of their class position: that of the petty-bourgeoisie. The petty-bourgeoisie exists as an intermediary class between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in capitalist society. Their position as an intermediary class is always under threat, and thus they are driven to extremes on the left and right. Ultimately, sections of the petty-bourgeoisie express themselves through libertarianism because of the material interest small business owners have in challenging big capital while maintaining the overall system. But the funny thing is libertarianism is doomed to historical irrelevance precisely because it reflects the interests of the petty-bourgeoisie and not the bourgeoisie!

The capitalist state manages the common affairs of the capitalist class, and the capitalists recognize and compete for access to the state. No section of the capitalist class has a legitimate interest in the overall reduction of penetration of the state in society.

On the questions of history and analysis, libertarianism provides nothing. And even at the level of ideals, it flounders:

Liberty and self-interest today are only accorded to the 1%.

Socialism means liberation for the 99%