More libertarian critique befuddlement from Digby. Digby, who has previously asserted that there is no such thing as an intelligent version of libertarianism is now exhorting readers to consume Chomsky's "left libertarian" critique of american libertarianism, i.e., "right-wing hippies." I'm not exactly not sure why Digby is suddenly referencing Chomsky, given that she has previously admitted to being neither a student nor a fan of his politics, but I suppose it has something to do with trying to debunk this.

Now the term "right-wing hippies," or "hippies of the right" actually originates with Ayn Rand as a derisive term to describe libertarians, whom see viewed as not only ripping off her ideas, but substituting anarchism for capitalism, and rejecting objectivist ethics. In other words, it was her term for "anarcho-capitalists." John Mackey is certainly not a "right wing hippie" in the Randian sense. The article Digby cites redefines the term as a culturally liberal entrepreneur who has read Rand and Friedman--in other words, the term now refers to a "Randian in disguise." Digby warns the "tribe" about these nefarious poseurs.

The cultural trappings of conservatism and liberalism are used as shorthand to recognize your tribal brethren. And most of the time it works fairly well. But there are hippie wingnuts and Randian New Agers and infinite other permutations, so you can't always use those heuristics. Therefore, it's important to understand what these people really want and what will happen if they get it.

What is that they aspire to?

Their goal is a Randian paradise of uber-wealthy overlords answerable to no one but themselves.

It is important to keep the "tribe" pure because:

But political movements require philosophical coherence and ideological consistency to make sense to people and give them a sense of solidarity. There may be certain discrete issues on which some shared principles among competing movements exist, but they are few and far between. For the most part, right wing libertarians and the conservative movement have an entirely different worldview from left libertarians and liberals. They are not compatible.

Now, by left libertarian, she, of course, is referencing Chomsky, meaning, I suppose, anarcho-syndicalism is the standard to measure "left libertarianism." If you are not an anarcho-syndicalist, in terms of calling yourself a libertarian, then you are merely a "right wing libertarian," a "Randian in disguise." Actually, I think this is a bit sophisticated for the likes of Digby(calling Nader a "left libertarian" sort of validates the point that she is just pulling Chomsky out of her butt), but that's what she is really saying. Still, it's pretty laughable. Now Chomsky is indeed a "left libertarian," but his "libertarian socialism" is more characteristic of the European understanding of the term "libertarian," not the American. There's has always been an capitalist/anti-capitalist split in libertarianism. Chomsky's critique of american libertarianism, however, is not a validation of the progressive worldview. Frankly, there is much more compatibility between anarcho-capitalism("right-wing hippies" in the Randian parlance) and anarcho-syndicalism than between anarcho-syndicalism and corporate liberalism(progressivism). Chomsky's occasional proclivity for big government anarchism aside, which has been criticized here, Chomsky has nonetheless admitted many times that his views of are often in substantial agreement with the right-wing hippies. Indeed, a fact that is probably fairly well known to libertarians, but apparently not so well known to progressives like Digby, is that Chomsky used to predominantly write for Inquiry, published by Cato; it was the only institutional publication outlet for his political writings at one time. Finally, I would invite Digby to take a small gander at the writings of the anarcho-syndicalist movement; there's not much love for Digby's State or her corporate liberalism. Anarcho-syndicalism is firmly rooted in a radical libertarian class analysis of the State.

For someone like Digby, who can only make sense of politics through a partisan left/right lens, libertarianism is an almost alien creature. It can only be accommodated, understood by whitewashing it in the typical objectivist sheer. The progressive crack-up in large part can be characterized by those who are willing to look beyond the traditional left-right categories and those who are not; the actual left-right is not so much about republican vs democrat, but about politics itself vs the people. Those who support politics for the sake of the party, no matter what public choice boondoggle is being offered up, are the right-wingers. They support the continuation, even the increase, of current institutional power. Those who do not are the left-wingers. But this institutional analysis encompasses all aspects of the Corporate State, not just Health Care. Thus, wingnuts who continue to politicize the institutions of the National Security State are phonies. Their phony political debate is "capitalism vs socialism." Cast in terms of libertarian class analysis, the actual debate, regarding political institutions, is much clearer.