All modern revolutions eventually strengthened the state. (Albert Camus)
this month is celebrating the 40th anniversary of the events of May '68 (May 2008). Old-guard politicians fondly remember those events, and no shortage of young people, including opponents of the government of Hugo Chavez, who seem to identify with this (fake) student epic. Those events whose spark was ignited in the Sorbonne, Paris, and repeated in other parts of the world, are viewed idealistically by those leftist "anti-authoritarian." However, in May of '68 brought negative consequences. They are wrong, unfortunately, those who believe that "dreams" of disenchanted youth that were not met.
May '68, the French May is, if you will, the most important event of the so-called New Left. A left appeared in the mid-twentieth century, apparently disappointed the Soviet model, but that he believed blindly in individuals just as authoritarian and intolerant as Fidel Castro. A left anarchism consists of discoverers who, however, did not think
contradictory to be against authority and worship a hero like Che Guevara , responsible, among other things, the murders of numerous Cuban opposition, not necessarily "lackeys of the empire." Advocates
riots as of May 68
speak of a student movement as opposed to capitalism and authoritarian socialism. The flags with the hammer and sickle used by Parisian protesters suggest otherwise. In any case, the new left, "libertarian" not only ended, in part, joining the government apparatus to which criticized. Ended up allying with the most rabid militarism, adding a radical ecological discourse quite reactionary and retrograde, and a dose of xenophobia Third (even among his supporters the first world). As a result we have those World Social Forums, with military escort hippies. The rise of neo-communism, also called the XXI century socialism, not only due to the failure of so-called neo-liberalism, but the seed sown in the late 60's, which allowed 10 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall The revival of despotic socialism.
Another important derivative of the New Left was forced moral link between liberalism and socialism. Liberalism, from its inception, defended freedom individual, the right to do with our lives as we wish provided they do not offend against the rights of others. That part of the liberal moral was taken by the New Left, and also by certain social democratic parties "modernized."
Liberals, unfortunately, failed to popularize their ideology, certainly to use an academic discourse, and this facilitated the trangiversación. left only needed to take ownership of the ethical discourse of liberalism, and conservatives accuse the defenders of individual liberty.
Libertarian Liberalism: the real choice before the state power To May 68, the anti-capitalist propaganda had depth and even among those who were considered enemies of totalitarianism. Since 1929, the United States, considered by the ignorant as an example of radical capitalism had opted for an interventionist economic model closer to the social doctrine. All thanks to the ideas of English John Keynes, applied from the New Deal. United States was the main enemy power of the Soviet Union, but it was "the most capitalist country in the world" and his "imperialist" Statism that responded more to private enterprise.
In the 60's, Liberal economists like Murray Rothbard, free market advocates, had questioned not only the statist economic model of America.
went further and questioned any state intervention in private life, including controversial cases such as sexual orientation or drug use . Murray Rothbard's categorized as "victimless crimes", and liberal society, should be the rule, it will charge to punish the aggression of one individual to another, not to himself.
Anyway, Rothbard believed that the state should not exist. His stance against the Vietnam War, was also of outright rejection. Simply considered contradictory to the state to fight communism , and war as a respect for freedom.
A nice little speech to the Status Quo, even among those who considered themselves "defenders of capitalism." These American liberals, as Rothbard, champions of individual freedom, have been classified as "libertarian" (libertarians), later, the Central American left had already appropriated the label "liberal." They were, and remain, some hippies, but "right." His position is not contradictory, then, economic freedom, ie the right property and free trade should not be restricted or taken away by the state.
Rothbard thought on a possible alliance with the new American left, which, being quite plural, defended many values \u200b\u200brelated to libertarian thought, but recharazan the market. The alliance, of course, never happened. The neo-leftists became worshipers of exotic and revolutionary authoritarian, and continued to be considered enemies of capitalism. Moreover, Rothbard did not have something important: the radical environmental discourse, can be criminalize polluting industrialization. Economic freedom not matter if the world warmed. That came later.
is to Rothbard, and not Marcuse, who had been read students May 68. Books like "Libertarian Manifesto" is a real alternative to authoritarian left and right, providing solutions beyond criticism, not stilted language style of the Frankfurt School. It is unfortunate to think that the work of thinkers like Marcuse, representing a critical left that was running out of ideas and approaches, and was in a dead end, have been so influential. Best
had consequences of phenomena such as Prague Spring, when the Czechs in 1968, protested the invasion of Russian troops in his country. The Czech Republic today is a nation with considerable economic growth and civic freedom, like other Eastern European countries. In contrast, the legacy of May '68 in France itself, is quite the opposite: a country in decline, destined to worsen because of the interventionist state.
(Via: A political animal 
