T Nation

Pete Eyre


For anybody interested in both lifting and liberty, Pete Eyre (formerly of the Motorhome Diaries) is a libertarian activist who's also apparently a fairly serious aspiring bodybuilder. I just discovered his blog and it's worth checking out.



Its hard to understand what type of libertarian he is. If you check out his list of qoutes, many of them are qoutes of socialists.

here are theire names:
max stirner.
emma goldman.

and other are die hard markedliberalists:
ayn rand.
milton friedman.

on a nother note: cool to see a bodybuilder that qoutes proudhon, goldman and stirner.


If Socialists, they were simply captured in a moment of lucidity.


to be specific they where anarcho-socialist.

whats funny is that some of the qoutes are made by men who where for a state.


Go far enough back in time and modern-day "left" and "right" apply less. Some people who called themselves "socialists" (e.g. Tucker) were actually strongly against a planned economy and didn't like the USSR when it appeared. Emma Goldman was pretty hard on the progressives of her day (and rightly so, in my opinion.)


Actually, Left and Right referred to which side of the 18th century French court people sat on. Napoleon swept that away, so that by 1812 the terms had a distinctly archaic ring.

By the later 19th century, using the term right wing conjured up the image of a very geriatric noble tottering along in knee breeches and being genuinely confused that people didn't seem to want kings anymore. This is when the terms Left and Right in their modern sense started to be used -- long after they ceased to apply to anyone, and became ways to dismiss other groups. (Closest thing we might have in the US is some old guy tooling along in a zoot suit who is completely out of touch and wonders when things like the Civil Rights movement happened.)

Finally -- and this is a major peeve of mine -- the terms were used mostly in Europe but were imported to the US where they had even less applicability. Left and Right are almost utterly meaningless anymore, but probably the greatest single political coup in recent memory has been having the Democrats use them and actually convince the Republicans they are "right wing". Nope. Republicans are classical liberals and when I was living in Europe I had to almost consistently explain this to everyone. Very annoying it was too.

-- jj


weird you had to explain to europeans that the republicans are liberalists. When I hear conservative I hear liberalist. When an american says liberal a european says socialliberalist. to sum up this rant: european rightwing consist of liberalist and conservativist partys, the difference between them are small.

about the left and right wing paradigm: It started out describing royalists and aristocracy( right ) and rebublicans and commoners ( left ), but since the republicans( not to mistaken with the party today ) did win and altered the political system and the industrial revolution altered the economical system, the labels lost theire original meening. When the new class paradigm of proletarians vs capitalists replaced the old of aristocray vs commoners, the left and right got new meaning. the right today describes those who want to conserve the capitalist system. the left describes those who want to change it. Thats why the right also can be described as conservative and the left can be described as progressive or radical. The democratic party in us is not a leftwing party, they are rightwing. The same can be said about the norwegian labour party. a party is left or rightwing based on have it acts an which class it support.


So, out of the two parties in America, Republicans are progressives...


no they are conservatives because they want to preserv the establishment and they dont act like a interrest party for the lowerclasses. This is the same for the democratic pary. The closest you get to a progressive party with some popularity in america are ralph naders green party. In norway its the red electorial alliance.


You're misunderstanding.
I believe Florelius is talking historically. The republicans were on the left side of the court, while the royalists were on the right.

So I suppose, it may look like

Change--------------Stay the same.

Change--------------Stay the same.


This just goes to show us that words are less important than the actions they refer to.


But they donate more money to the lower classes and poor.


Well from the personal actions of Republicans, they are more focused on the poor and needy through their affiliation with Churches and personal charity. I'm not talking about which company steals money from who to give to who. I am talking about legit focus on charity to the lowerclass.


charity is a act of good, but it doesnt solve the problem.

A true progressive wants to free the lowerclasses from theire class. The only true progressive goal is to abolish the classstate, any other action just serves as to buy off the proletariat so they dont revolt. So my point is that welfarecapitalism( I guess that is a good term for the system in western europa and Usa ) is conservative in nature, becuase it exist to conserve the power of the capitalist class. To back this up with some real world evidence, we can look at the weimar republic. Bismarck buildt the first modern welfare state and the reason was to prevent a proletarian revolt.

ps. If the lower classes want change they cant except someone to to it forethem, they must do it themself. So a true leftwing party would be representet by the workingclass themself.


That's what Libertarians want a classless nonstate.


How can government possibly remove the lower class from that state since they are the ones who created that state?

Let's pretend for a second government could actually do this -- history show us that so far it cannot -- at the very least there will still always be a "ruling class" since government officials by definition are part of that class and everyone else is not.

A classless society is not possible since classification will always exist as a market function -- and certainly not so long as you put government in charge of ending it.

However, I do think you come close to a workable solution. The real way out of poverty -- which is what I think you really mean by a "class" society -- is work.


just to clarify, are you saying that libertarians and anarchocapitalists are the same?
and do you say you want a society where your labour are your rightfully property aka no explotation of labor by capital?


anarchocaps are libsertarians, but not all libertarians are anarchocaps.

What do you mean by exploitation of labor by capital?


It boils down to the definition of class, and there is many.

The burgeois revolution in 1700s and 1800s abolished the feudal classsystem wich where constituted by law. In the new republican paradigm everyone where equal before the law.

In our day we still have classes, but we dont have titles and property lended to us by the state, so its not so easy to spot it. In short: The upperclass is the people who owns the means of production. Throug this possesion they have more than average control over society and they are more than average wealthy ( capitalist/burgeois ). The lower classes are the people who dont own any means of production and therefor must sell theire labor to make ends meet ( proletariat ). As a individual a proletarian have little influence over society and is powerless against his counterpart the capitalist in any hypotetical conflict. The only way he can gain influence is by joining togheter with other proletarians. In the workplace they often form unions to counterbalance the power of the capitalist. In the political sphere they often form partys to pursue theire interrests. If they did not do this we would not have all the rights we posses today, and most people would have a worse life and the class difference would have been bigger. My point is that a politician who serves the interrests of the workers doesnt not belong to the upperclass, and to think he does is to follow a definition of class that only make sence in a feudal society. I have said this before, but I say it again: If I where to go back in time, let say america 1790. I would probably be a jeffersonian republican, because in that context it makes sence to be in line with jefferson. Today in our industrial society with supercapitalists who control large portions of our society, free-market-libertarianism does not make sence as a ideology of liberty and egalitarianism. The reason for this is because it does serve as a defence of the freedoms of the rich and powerfull, not the yeoman-farmer, the artisan and other small burgeois occupations in the early era of the american republic. This is probably why it also have lost it popularity over the years, because it doesnt serve the peoples interrests only the rich.

to get back on track, I would say that no working for another human being does not set the proletariat free. Since you guys know have important property is, you can say that the proletariat are free when they owns the fruits of theire labor and by that are no longer the proletariat. proletar= without property.


explotation of labor by capital is a marxist term. It means that everything the worker produce in terms of value in money that is above his pay is taken from him by the capitalist. The capitalist is able to do this because the states understanding of property grants him that and if the worker trys to claim what he have produced, the state will stop him with guns if necessary.
you might say that he agreed on this terms in the first place, but the problem for the workers as a collective is that they dont posses any material value and that a small group of people does and theire property are protected by the state. The only solution to this is if the workers rebel and abolish the state and the paradigm of the capitalist unerstanding of property. Whant happens next have argued between all sorts of socialists since bakunin and marx had theire argue that splitted the first international.