Libertarianism and semantics
Saturday, November 27th, 2004 03:06 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
robinturnerI have complained earlier about the attitude that the etymology of a word, or even the way it was used at some time in the past, somehow gives us a truer meaning than its current use. Andrea Dworkin notwithstanding, "pornography" does not mean "writing about prostitutes" unless you're having a conversation in classical Greek; similarly, "nice " really does mean "pleasant" and not exact, and "naughty" means "mischievous", not "destitute". Semantic drift is a fact of linguistic life, and we should learn to live with it.
However, sometimes semantic drift becomes more of a semantic landslide, and maybe a little linguistic conservatism is in order. Take the word "libertarian", which I am now hearing applied to people in the Republican Party. The problem here is not just that "libertarian" originated in the nineteenth century as a synonym of "anarchist" (after the suppression of the Paris Commune, it was for a time illegal to describe yourself as an anarchist). If anarchists had abandoned the term a few years later, leaving it in some sort of linguistic pawn shop for any ideologist to pick up, I don't suppose its adoption by right-wingers would be that problematic; after all, we do not worry that the original meaning of "Tory" was "Irish robber." However, this was not the case: the word "libertarian" continued into the Spanish Civil War, where the CNT-FAI were described accurately as "libertarian communists" (although most people still preferred the snappier "anarquista"). It gained a new lease of life, again on the far left, in the 1960s, with groups like the Sydney Libertarians. "Libertarian" was still more-or-less the same as "anarchist", but was often associated with two distinct but related positions: "permanent protest", which held that while the State was evil, it would not disappear in the foreseeable future (so all we can do is actively oppose it to stop it taking over society completely), and minimal statism or "minarchy", which holds that if a completely stateless society might well be impossible, a society with a minimal state (assuming the workers control the means of production) would be an acceptable alternative. This position blurred the line between anarchism and ultra-democratic forms of socialism (e.g. the Socialisme ou Barbarie group) but that was not necessarily a bad thing, since these groups did have a lot in common.
However, since anarchism has always had a small but eloquent capitalist strand ("anarcho-capitalism" or "right-wing anarchism"), the term "libertarianism" eventually began to be used by those advocating both capitalism and anarchy, or more commonly, minarchy. Libertarian socialists were not terribly pleased by this turn of events, but no one could really claim that right-wing libertarians like Nozick were deliberately abusing the word. Capitalism and liberty could in theory co-exist; libertarian capitalism may be a contradiction in practice, but it is not a contradiction in terms.
So far, what we have seen is normal semantic drift, and not a very great one at that, since for both right- and left-wing libertarians, individual liberty remained paramount. Things have recently taken a more Orwellian turn, though. With the foundation of the Libertarian Party in America, the more pragmatic right-wing libertarians started to find common ground with the more idealistic proponents of liberal economics (rather like the cross-fertilisation between anarchism and other far-left groups in the 1960s). Because these were ideas which mirrored, in a more radical form, ideas that, unlike socialism, had popular support in America, the word "libertarian" became associated far more with the right than the left. Not wanting to be left behind, Republicans - especially those who were unhappy with their party's lurch into the political Bible belt - started using the word as well. "Libertarian" became a new, if vapid, word to describe extreme economic liberalism, and the anti-state aspect of the word began to fade into the background.
But wait. The word "libertarian" does not have "an anti-state aspect"; it means anti-state (along with anti-anything that restricts liberty). "Libertarian Republican" is another example of the Newspeak that is starting to dominate American politics, like "compassionate conservative".
This leaves libertarian socialists in an unenviable position. They can rail against the co-option of the word "libertarian", or they can go back to good, old-fashioned "anarchism". The first move would probably be unsuccessful (though still worth doing, if only to point out the contradictions in the language of the Right). The second move not only has the problem that people still think of anarchists as people with black cloaks and bombs, it also throws the minimal-state socialists back into the political limbo from which they emerged. A sign of this lexical quagmire is the recently popular term "anti-capitalist", which came to the fore during the WTO protests. If all you can say of millions of activists is that they don't like capitalism, there is something wrong.
However, sometimes semantic drift becomes more of a semantic landslide, and maybe a little linguistic conservatism is in order. Take the word "libertarian", which I am now hearing applied to people in the Republican Party. The problem here is not just that "libertarian" originated in the nineteenth century as a synonym of "anarchist" (after the suppression of the Paris Commune, it was for a time illegal to describe yourself as an anarchist). If anarchists had abandoned the term a few years later, leaving it in some sort of linguistic pawn shop for any ideologist to pick up, I don't suppose its adoption by right-wingers would be that problematic; after all, we do not worry that the original meaning of "Tory" was "Irish robber." However, this was not the case: the word "libertarian" continued into the Spanish Civil War, where the CNT-FAI were described accurately as "libertarian communists" (although most people still preferred the snappier "anarquista"). It gained a new lease of life, again on the far left, in the 1960s, with groups like the Sydney Libertarians. "Libertarian" was still more-or-less the same as "anarchist", but was often associated with two distinct but related positions: "permanent protest", which held that while the State was evil, it would not disappear in the foreseeable future (so all we can do is actively oppose it to stop it taking over society completely), and minimal statism or "minarchy", which holds that if a completely stateless society might well be impossible, a society with a minimal state (assuming the workers control the means of production) would be an acceptable alternative. This position blurred the line between anarchism and ultra-democratic forms of socialism (e.g. the Socialisme ou Barbarie group) but that was not necessarily a bad thing, since these groups did have a lot in common.
However, since anarchism has always had a small but eloquent capitalist strand ("anarcho-capitalism" or "right-wing anarchism"), the term "libertarianism" eventually began to be used by those advocating both capitalism and anarchy, or more commonly, minarchy. Libertarian socialists were not terribly pleased by this turn of events, but no one could really claim that right-wing libertarians like Nozick were deliberately abusing the word. Capitalism and liberty could in theory co-exist; libertarian capitalism may be a contradiction in practice, but it is not a contradiction in terms.
So far, what we have seen is normal semantic drift, and not a very great one at that, since for both right- and left-wing libertarians, individual liberty remained paramount. Things have recently taken a more Orwellian turn, though. With the foundation of the Libertarian Party in America, the more pragmatic right-wing libertarians started to find common ground with the more idealistic proponents of liberal economics (rather like the cross-fertilisation between anarchism and other far-left groups in the 1960s). Because these were ideas which mirrored, in a more radical form, ideas that, unlike socialism, had popular support in America, the word "libertarian" became associated far more with the right than the left. Not wanting to be left behind, Republicans - especially those who were unhappy with their party's lurch into the political Bible belt - started using the word as well. "Libertarian" became a new, if vapid, word to describe extreme economic liberalism, and the anti-state aspect of the word began to fade into the background.
But wait. The word "libertarian" does not have "an anti-state aspect"; it means anti-state (along with anti-anything that restricts liberty). "Libertarian Republican" is another example of the Newspeak that is starting to dominate American politics, like "compassionate conservative".
This leaves libertarian socialists in an unenviable position. They can rail against the co-option of the word "libertarian", or they can go back to good, old-fashioned "anarchism". The first move would probably be unsuccessful (though still worth doing, if only to point out the contradictions in the language of the Right). The second move not only has the problem that people still think of anarchists as people with black cloaks and bombs, it also throws the minimal-state socialists back into the political limbo from which they emerged. A sign of this lexical quagmire is the recently popular term "anti-capitalist", which came to the fore during the WTO protests. If all you can say of millions of activists is that they don't like capitalism, there is something wrong.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-11-28 02:23 am (UTC)I agree that meanings change over time, and that language evolves. That's not only acceptable, it's a good thing. Dictionaries are but snapshots, they don't and shouldn't seek to freeze time.
However, I do think that etymology can inform our use of words. Your example, "nice" is a good one. It's considered to be roughly synonymous with "good" and "kind" - but knowing the source can help in using it precisely ('nicely').
Etymology is what helps us see the difference between "fantastic", "excellent", "amazing" and "awesome" - all used interchangeably in common English - all with different shades of meaning.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-28 05:39 am (UTC)Reading your piece here I googled the phrase: 11 references to a single instance.
I can say "you heard it here first" and be nearly factual!
:-)
no subject
Date: 2004-11-28 02:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-28 11:26 pm (UTC)I too like the example of fantastic ('of a fantasy'), incredible ('impossible to give credence to'), wonderful ('giving to wonder'), excellent ('excelling in its area') and amazing ('causing amazement').
All are used, correctly, as synonyms - but I enjoy the shades of meaning that can be drawn upon if desired.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-30 06:46 pm (UTC)I agree that there is a potent "Newspeak" mechanic going on -- but I don't think it's related to the association of "libertarianism" with "economic liberalism," which I would argue is a completely reasonable association (provided we're speaking of the "capitalist strand" of the former which you described above). Rather, I think it's the association of "economic liberalism" with the corporatism and nationalism advocated by the mainstream of the Republican Party, and others who present themselves as proponents of that ideology.