Editor of "Truth Seeker" (LP member) Scared of Libertarian Socialism

Jamal Hannah x342446 (jah@iww.org)
Thu, 27 Jun 1996 09:12:46 -0700 (PDT)

Forwarded message:
(old header removed)

Hi folks. This is a message I got from the editor of "Truth Seeker",
after I saw a link to it on "The Memory Hole" Individualist web page
and I wanted to determine if it was a "pure" individualist oriented
magazine, or if it had been infiltrated by the Libertarian Party
(they go after everything that is individualist, athiest, etc
that they can).. it turns out that the editor is a member and propagandist
for the party, truly ideologicaly commited.. and he was blown over
when he heard the term "libertarian socialism", and immediatly assumed
it was a "sham". Even after looking at my web page he refused to accept
even the evidence I presented. So much for seeking the "Truth". (if you
ever see a publication named "truth" or "objective".. run away real fast)

I assume this is the reaction the great number of Libertarian Party people
will have to libertarian socialism and how they will ultimately
respond will be unpredictable. Some will most likley
try to co-opt the concept or "sneak in" capitalism, as Bryan Caplan has.
Others will do as James Donald is doing and visciously attack, relentlessly.
A few may actualy eventualy leave the right-libertarians and realize
they owe their allegence to the working class, not the bosses, but
dont bank on it.
- Jamal Hannah
Forwarded message:
From: Jamal Hannah x342446 <jah@iww.org>
Subject: Re: No Need for Hyphens
To: TSEditor@aol.com
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 08:41:36 -0700 (PDT)

> It's taken a lot of argument, time and energy to create an understanding
> of what "libertarian" means. If the word comes to mean socialist to the
> TV masses, what word would you next use to describe what we now know as
> "libertarian?" Do you really want to repeat the education process?

And how do you suppose libertarian socialists felt when they saw
the word "libertarian" used by capitalists? It's not the
word that matters as much as what people do. "libertarian socialist"
was always used to describe what "anarchism" meant after the press
convinced people that "anarchism" was not "anarchism" but something
else. I would say that the "education process" of the Libertarian
Party was a misleading one. But as for the TV folks, the average working
person who is not going to own property, a business, or
a rental apartment can already see that the "Libertarian Party"
is meaningless to them. The Republican Party already answers the
needs of those groups, and the Democratic Party
answers the needs of those who want Social Democracy. Is
the democratic party democratic? Not in my opinion... the
"Democratic" in "Students for a Democratic Society" was not the same
"Democratic" as the "Democratic Party". But no one minded this.
a word is a word.

> I don't. I think we must defend the meaning of the word.
> Libertarian-populist, libertarian-socialist, libertarian-facist and of
> late, libertarian-Republican and liberatrian-Democrat are equivalent to
> libertarian-authoritarian. They are opposites and completely incongruous.

Part of the Libertarian Party "education" is to always say the word
"Socialist" with the word "fascist" in the same sentence. This
may convince people that the two words have some relation if they
see it repeated over and over, but it does not reflect reality. Youre
own fealings towards workers who refuse to accept the authority of a boss
or landlord is fundimentaly different from the fealings that a worker
will have... why should workers accept your "Liberty"? It's simply
a synonym for "capitalism". You do not seem to want to accept that it
is possible to resist capitalism without being authoritarian...
something that was made to seem plausable by the Bolshevik era (which is now

> It's one thing to be 80% libertarian and be unsure or unconcerned with
> the other 20%. It's another to claim to be 80% libertarian and hold
> dearly to authortarian positions on the other 20%.

These numbers and percentages have to do with the whole scheme that the LP
came up with about "how authoritarian so-and-so is"... something
based on accepting the premise ahead of time that capitalism
is somehow not authoritarian in any way. To millions all over the world,
thats just a load of nonsense.

- JH

> Bill Holmes, TSEditor@aol.com, 72010.3003@compuserve.com
> Manager, Synergy Enterprises, http://users.aol.com/TSEditor/
> LIBertarian LETters to the editor (LIBLET) national distributor
> You have the right to YOUR life, YOUR liberty and YOUR property, not mine.

Liberty for the People web page: