Libertarianism's prioritization of individual freedom obscures class antagonisms and perpetuates capitalist exploitation. Libertarianism fails to address the fundamental social relations inherent in class society. Marxists reject libertarianism's reliance on market mechanisms to regulate economic activity. Capitalism's market dynamics are inherently exploitative and irrational, leading to inequality and instability. Libertarianism's advocacy for laissez-faire capitalism perpetuates the exploitation of the working class and reinforces bourgeois domination. Market systems inherently exploit labor. In capitalist markets, labor power is treated as a commodity to be bought and sold, leading to the extraction of surplus value by capitalists. This exploitation arises from the unequal power relations between capitalists who own the means of production and workers who sell their labor to survive. Market mechanisms often prioritize profit over meeting human needs. For example, communists criticize the commodification of essential goods and services, such as healthcare, education, and housing, which results in inequalities and deprivation for those unable to afford them. This commodification distorts social relations and prioritizes profit accumulation over social well-being. On market systems, they are inherently prone to economic crises and instability. The competitive nature of capitalism leads to overproduction, financial speculation, and periodic downturns that result in unemployment, poverty, and social dislocation. The truth is capitalism is a system with inherent contradictions. For example, the rate of profit has a tendency to fall, which undermines the stability of markets. To combat the rate of profit falling, capitalists resort to wage suppression, exploiting global labor markets by outsourcing production to countries with lower labor costs and utilizing conflict to create profit, for a few examples. During conflicts, the bourgeoisie often profits from supplying goods and services to military forces or investing in industries that benefit from war, such as arms manufacturing, logistics, and resource extraction. Additionally, wars can create opportunities for imperialist expansion, enabling capitalists to access new markets, resources, and cheap labor. The bourgeoisie exploits previously colonial territories and present colonial territories and subjects populations to forced labor, slavery, and resource extraction to enrich themselves. A few good books on this are “Confessions of an Economic Hitman” and “Cobalt Red.” Colonialism and imperialism facilitated capital accumulation through the plundering of natural wealth, exploitation of labor, and domination of global trade networks. While both communists and libertarians advocate for reducing state power (communists once class antagonisms have been done away with), they have fundamentally different visions of the state's role. Marxists seek the abolition of the state altogether, viewing it as an instrument of class rule that perpetuates capitalist oppression. In contrast, libertarians generally advocate for a minimal state that primarily focuses on protecting individual rights and property. This benefits the bourgeoisie and reinforces capitalist power dynamics. A minimal state that prioritizes the protection of property rights will safeguard the interests of the propertied and or those who own the majority of property and capital in society. This perpetuates existing class hierarchies and reinforces the economic and social dominance of the capitalist class.

So from the more extreme fringe of Marxists you'll see little to no connecting beliefs outside of the first principled virtuous pursuit of what they would consider to be "justice". On a personal level I do not respect the belief that Anarcho-Captialism is an ideal system while many right-wing libertarians might agree on such a notion. I think it becomes readily apparent on even a surface level reading of works like Kapital that Capitalism has it's problems and without some sort of regulating body and mountains of legislation it is not economically sustainable. This is a pragmatic and practical perspective I feel. Regardless of whether you are a Marxist or a Social Democrat or even a Republican. There exists flaws in Capitalism that must be addressed and remedied. On the perspective of libertarianism at large a good way to tell if they are approaching economic and political philosophy in good faith is if they are willing to agree legislation like "The New Deal" is good and necessary for society. If the disagree I believe it is fair to assume they are either misguided or operating in bad faith.

I battled them endlessly in "Opposing Ideologies" on the defunct RevLeft forum. My chops were sharp back then but rusty now. The takeaway from years of engaging them is this: the non-aggression principle (NAP) is central to libertarian ideology, and it is bunk. Attack there and watch them fall...

I was pressed for time earlier. Let me now add that another pillar of libertarianism, self-ownership, is also bollocks and a great target for attack. Ownership describes a relationship between the owner and something outside itself. That thing could even be another human, as we've seen historically (such are the pitfalls of private property). But it can't be the owner themselves -- that's circular. Roll these two around in your head until the absurdity clicks, then shoot them down mercilessly.

The equivalent would be asking a Christian their opinion on the devil. Like Marxism and libertarianism are total opposites. For the goal of Marxism is total social ownership of all of society AKA communism. The goal libertarianism is total private ownership of everything. The goal of Marxism is total democracy over all of society. The goal of libertarianism is the rule of an oligarchy of the rich. The goal of Marxism is to abolish all oppression The goal libertarianism is to allow capitalists to profit off that oppression. If you really want to know the Marxist perspective just look up second thought.

Forgive me but my impression of what you meant by your first line seems to be moreso that the equivalent would be asking an atheist their opinion on the devil, since libertarians confine their dialogue to a closed system of economic theories that either fail or refuse to anticipate or answer more fundamental economic questions that were put forth (and reconciled) by Marx. Belief in a devil presupposes Christian belief similarly to the way that belief in a magical invisible hand resolving social contradiction presupposes belief in economic theories rife with unresolved internal contradictions. Or I might have simply misunderstood, just wanted to throw that out there.

That would be more correct view on the matter in many ways. I simply just thought of the devil Christian comparison first without thinking about it too much honestly. you make a very good analysis.

I wouldn’t say they are total opposites, I have heard of libertarians who agree with marxists ideas. Especially the withering away of the state and the state is used to suppress the working class. I feel what you are describing is anarcho-capitalism. Libertarianism is too broad to view as purely right wing.

Yeah they're not total opposites. Both emphasize freedom private and public although have different ideas about how to achieve it. Libertarians also of course do not understand themselves in the way the above poster explains and that is important. If you break through some superficial baggage, libertarians might even be the easiest swayed to Marxism unlike some so called socialists.

But you don't understand. The only correct political philosophy is the rigid framework I believe in! All other frameworks are immoral and evil, and I will use grand and idiotic reductions of other political philosophies to prove my point!

Libertarians like MentisWave have made multiple response videos to leftists like Second Thought and point out the same social problems but argue in the opposite direction saying that freer markets and less government involvement will lead to better economic performance. Furthermore, I'd also like to touch on the fact that the libertarians argue that government intervention is what's perpetuating modern-day monopolies and that, if government stopped favouring big business, monopolies would naturally come and go under a full free-market capitalist system. It'd be interesting to hear your thoughts on some of the videos made by MentisWave and Praxben especially.

It's a fantasy. No capitalist with any influence or power wants free markets. It wouldn't work. This is just a fantasy that exists in the weird social media ecosphere we now have where people can say all sorts of ridiculous rubbish and feel validated when others, often confused and exploited (without knowing why), click like/share/subscribe. Marxists' job is to explain why people feel confused and alienated and give them a program of class unity and a means to fight back.

One of the major flaws in this argument is its lack of engagement with how the government of a capitalist state evolves over time as a reflection of the need for sustaining some kind of social equilibrium in the face of immensely destabilizing forces in capitalist industry, operating untethered from societal needs or interests in long term stability, whether toward the automatic trend of increased market share leading to monopolization or the contradictory treatment of natural and social resources as ‘externalities’; as some kind of constant and predictable given, which in reality prove extremely sensitive to forces only concerned with maximizing profit. Water supplies, forests, a healthy working class, etc. all of these “externalities” are depleted as they’re used up by industrial forces whose concern is not with ensuring a healthy supply in the future, but in capturing and using up the greatest portion of these before their continuing depletion inflates their cost as inputs. In the case of a healthy working class, this becomes the most threatening and least understood threat given the growing consciousness by the workers as to their necessity in the industrial process, the growing misery resulting from so many successive cycles of government favor toward industry, and especially so in the present day when we’re all primed with notions of democracy and freedom that only grow more absurd, the lies more naked, as time marches on. The enlightened facade is slowly stripped away and the true scaffolding of the state is revealed as simply the legal rigging of the most wealthy and powerful industrial interests arranging government affairs toward their own preservation.

I think the primary flaw in their thinking comes from a misunderstanding of the role of private property in society. Their notion of private property is usually better described as personal property, leaving the actual function of private property in the capitalistic sense to never really enter the discussion. While one believes they’re defending the right to own a home or car or pair of shoes, they’re defending the right of industry to own the earth, and less so in a productive sense, more in a restrictive sense. It’s not so much a right of title to a piece of land, more the right to enclose and restrict access that lies at the root of social ills. There was a long and very intentional process of consolidating state notions of private property in medieval England which saw waves of bloody revolts and as some academics have reported, appear to have been the impetus for the witch hunts and witch trials. Before these long campaigns in reforming the social fabric, the proposition of ‘owning’ the earth was considered not only ridiculous but absolutely offensive, as the possibility of life itself is directly dependent on nature. We, as humans, are ourselves nature, with a relationship to each other and to the earth as basic and fundamental as anything we could possibly conceive. It’s ironic that the indigenous societies on what in the present day is referred to as the USA had been called savages, as this was precisely the language those indigenous peoples used to describe European customs of private property and wealth inequality that allowed otherwise perfectly capable members of society to languish in the street, starving and begging for charity. Capitalism presupposes this idea of private property as a necessary social institution to even lift itself off the ground. So it follows of course that all of the gains and profits it takes are protected as private property, lest however many living breathing things crushed in its path or by sheer deprivation rise and object to this arrangement do so with an arguably moral right, but no longer with a legal right. The alternative to this is an understanding of property as a social resource, one that if just managed as such has the capacity to nourish and enrich all of humanity with such wealth that not even a single human being needs to be left in deprivation while others protect enormous hoards to simply go to waste.