Occupy Wall Street has come under fire from some libertarians, on the grounds that it’s relatively silent about the role of big government, and its proposed remedies lean heavily toward increased government intervention.
But it’s quite understandable that many in the Occupy movement position themselves in opposition to the “free market” and in favor of government intervention. After all, ever since they were born they’ve heard loathsome cretins like Dick Armey, Tom Delay, along with the usual suspects on CNBC and the WSJ editorial staff, defend corporate capitalism as we know it and the unbelievable concentration of wealth and power as the result of “our free market system.”
Every time you look at a debate on economic policy, the liberal is saying the free market can’t be left to itself because the inevitable result is polarization of wealth and corporate tyranny. And the conservative is saying corporate tyranny and polarization of wealth are good things, and that government should stay out of it.
All the things the Occupiers are rightfully against, like the plutocratic oligarchy and abusive corporate power, they’ve seen defended — or attacked — in terms of “our free enterprise system.” If I thought the free market meant what Dick Armey said it was, I’d hate it too.
It’s not their fault they’ve never heard a free market critique of corporate power, never heard anyone pointing out that big business is the biggest beneficiary of big government, and never heard a case for why genuine, freed market competition would be dynamite at the foundations of corporate power.
Even many libertarians who pay lip-service to condemning corporatism, it seems, are inclined to react defensively when they see what Nixon used to call the Dirty Effing Hippies criticizing big business.
There’s a virally popular graphic making the rounds, a wide-angle photo of Occupy Wall Street demonstrators, with objects tagged “Cameras from Canon,” “Phone from Apple,” etc. This is just the umpteenth iteration of a recurring meme, each time presented with a knowing smirk as if it were some sort of original or witty observation — despite the fact it’s already been dragged out by everyone, including a third-rate hack reporter at CNN.
It’s a right-wing mirror image of the popular liberal “argument”: “But how would we get our roooaaads?!!” To look at the technological products which arose within a corporate-state economy, and to argue that anyone who uses those products is a hypocrite for criticizing corporate statism, is about as wooden-headedly stupid as Elizabeth Warren arguing for some sort of “social contract” where everyone’s obligated to pay “their fair share” because they rely on taxpayer-funded roads or police.
One might as well take a photo from Tiananmen Square or from Moscow in the last days of the Soviet Union, and attach tags like “Bauxite from the Ministry of Non-Ferrous Metallurgy,” “Cameras from Ministry of Consumer Electronics,” etc.
As Charles Johnson, of the advisory board at the Center for a Stateless Society, puts it: “… if your aim is to use visual rhetoric to lodge a criticism of the people at Occupy Wall Street, then an image whose upshot is, roughly, ‘the activities of giant corporations inescapably pervade absolutely every aspect of your everyday life’ … may not actually be as effective a criticism as you think it is.”
There’s nothing hypocritical about making the best choice available from the limited range of alternatives, despite paying rents in the process to companies in whose interest that range of alternatives was restricted, and simultaneously criticizing the injustice of hooking those companies into this system of state-enforced monopoly. That’s for the very same reason that there’s no hypocrisy involved in using state roads or post offices as the best alternative given one’s limited choices, while still criticizing the state.
The folks occupying Wall Street are right on the mark when it comes to identifying the central evil in our economic system, regardless of sometimes fuzzy perceptions of the causality at work and wrongheaded proposals for remedying it: The unholy alliance of big business with the state, and the plutocracy that’s enriched itself beyond human comprehension by extracting rents from the rest of us.
There are libertarians who get mad when they see Dirty Effing Hippies attacking big business, and there are libertarians who get mad when they see “libertarians” defending it. Whether or not libertarianism is a relevant movement for our time depends on which side wins the battle for its soul.
Citations to this article:
- Kevin Carson, Which Side Are You On?, Deming, New Mexico Headlight, 10/18/11
- Kevin Carson, Libertarians and Occupy Wall Street, Counterpunch, 10/14/11
I think this movement has potential, but where I am from, Indianapolis, the group that is planning Occupy protests is nothing but middle of the road liberal reform advocates. I was Involved in the early planning stages of an event in Indy last weekend and it became apparent very fast that the individuals involved were more concerned with getting permits and appeasing the police then forming a coherent message. The week leading up to the event and the past week I have tried countless times to engage these people in a polite way in order to get a grasp on what they were demanding. But once again, they are more concerned about praising the police and bandishing tired bromides then actually engaging in activities that might disrupt something. Hopefully in other cities this goes a better direction.
I've been to Occupy Kansas City five times, and to Occupy Lawrence's first march and rally last night. Of course, I don't support use of words like "effing" when what you mean is "fucking." They were dirty fucking hippies, and I am a dirty fucking neo-hippie. If you cannot say "fuck," as Lenny Bruce pointed out many years ago, you cannot say "fuck the state."
Obviously, I don't expect the protests to succeed, but to fail, or to be co-opted into some political movement. However, I do expect to reach many minds open to the ideas of anarchism at these events. I don't expect the strategy of confronting the state, or smashing the state, nor the strategy of appealing for redress of grievances, to work. But agorism will be in the minds of many of those who see these protests fail, because of engagement by people like me.
Also, a lot can happen. The kings could die. The horse could die. I could die. And the horse might learn to
sing.
This piece is an eminently useful piece of intellectual ammo – good work Kevin! To everyone else – spread it far and wide; this needs to be read by everyone in the liberty movement!
My recent post Credit Unions and the Wall Street Occupation
I think this movement has potential, but where I am from, Indianapolis, the group that is planning Occupy protests is nothing but middle of the road liberal reform advocates. I was Involved in the early planning stages of an event in Indy last weekend and it became apparent very fast that the individuals involved were more concerned with getting permits and appeasing the police then forming a coherent message. The week leading up to the event and the past week I have tried countless times to engage these people in a polite way in order to get a grasp on what they were demanding. But once again, they are more concerned about praising the police and brandishing tired bromides then actually engaging in activities that might disrupt something. Hopefully in other cities this goes a better direction.
A good piece, Mr. Carson. Good stuff; those of us on the libertarian Left need to give our misguided friends on the libertarian Right a whack with a clue bat.
The key is education. One-to-one communication with the protestors that educates them is best.
America is a place where the Super Bowl Mentality dominates. That's why you see the smirking "so you use an iPhone and iPad while protesting Wall Street? HAH!" sorts of attitudes.
People in this culture are raised to see Good Guys and Bad Guys with the divide being placed artificially (somewhere other than where it really is, I mean) by infotainment media. And it is very tough, sometimes seemingly impossible, to get someone who sees himself and his partisanship as siding with "Good Guys" to actually imagine that his "Good Guys" are indeed the Bad Guys.
I think the more successful route is to get people to focus on what they have in common, rather than what divides them.
Unless, of course, the goal is division.
I like how – in chomsky’s latest speech in oslo- he refers to libertarians as ultra capitalists
It’s quite understandable that many in the Occupy movement fear and loathe libertarians. After all, ever since they were born they’ve heard loathsome cretins like Neal Boortz, Glenn Beck, the Koch brothers, Bob Barr, and self-appointed spokesman for the Libertarian Party, Wayne Allyn Root (W.A.R.) calling themselves libertarians.
I cringe when I see "libertarians" cheer on W.A.R. as he boasts of his exposure on right-wing talk radio spreading his "Reagan-Libertarian" message which sounds suspiciously just like every other statist right-wing pundit heard in radioland.
So, when many people hear "libertarians" talk about free markets, of course they assume that this means corporate fascism.
I'm not going to choose a 'side' if the entire Occupy movement turns out to be nothing more than a statist argument over *who* gets to hold the government's gun…
Well, to some extent it really is their fault: to the extent that they have independent powers of enquiry. Was I spoon fed these things, or was Kevin Carson himself? No, it took going and looking. It’s easy enough to see if you do, if only you can get preconceptions out of the way.
That's correct, it IS their fault!
Forget dualism, it limits your scope.
"There are libertarians who get mad when they see Dirty Effing Hippies attacking big business, and there are libertarians who get mad when they see “libertarians” defending it. Whether or not libertarianism is a relevant movement for our time depends on which side wins the battle for its soul."
Extremely true. But do it on cultural issues, consistently, if you really want to win. The current left-libertarian movement merely replaces a hostile rich white male movement with a clueless and useless poor white male movement. If you are part of the female 50% or the non-white majority, it's still a waste of precious time better devoted to happiness and to survival.
I believe it was Lew Rockwell who disseminated the picture you spoke of. He’s a what minarchist, Ancap? I guess I was surprised that it was him using such a facile rhetorical device.
The Dirty Fucking Hippies Were RIght http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YadT2EmDW_c
Author still hasn't explained why libertarians (of the free market variety) should protest side by side with those who protesting *against* big business but *for* the state. Why on Earth would we support such stupidity? Because they have an excuse called brainwashing. Don't we all? Free market libertarians have had the same public education system and the same Main Stream Media to contend with, so if we can escape the clutches of propaganda, they have no excuse.
Furthermore, many are supportive of Barack Obama despite the obviousness of his role in corporatism and the warfare state. What's their excuse there?
And the movement is financially endorsed by George Soros, a corporatist oligarch. What's their excuse there?
This is not just a case of brainwashing, and more than the repeated support of Obama despite the fact that he wages even more wars than Bush did, which had them UP IN ARMS back then.
This movement is about ideology in favor of collectivism and statism, not against it. There is nothing for free market libertarians to support in this movement. The enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend.
Well, which is the bigger of the two evils, the corporate half of "corporate statism", or the state? You seem to be arguing it's the corporations, I would argue it's the state.
Eh? I am in Indy… But haven't been down there yet…….
xyzzy: I think it's the state that gives corporations their power — they'd be nothing without it. But it's reaching the point where it's misleading to consider them as separate entities. To a great extent, corporations are the state.
My recent post New Book in the Works