Libertarian Socialism

Discussion in 'Political Science' started by Fscheu, May 5, 2016.

  1. BleedingHeadKen

    BleedingHeadKen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    16,562
    Likes Received:
    1,276
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly. Without a government, where would those 20% of people who are psychopaths and criminals find jobs? They have a desire to rule over and control others, and there's no better way to give them that than elect them to office and hire them as bureaucrats and enforcers.

    The question is, are we really better off for it, as you claim?
     
  2. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    This is socialism: Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers. --The Federalist Number Two
     
  3. jdog

    jdog Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2014
    Messages:
    4,532
    Likes Received:
    716
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I do not claim we are better off. We are in fact much worse off because we have taken government to the extreme. Like I said, anarchism is the ideal for the human race, but anarchism requires people who are willing to accept the responsibility for their own lives.

    Libertarianism recognizes that some government is still necessary because we do have psychopath's, and what's worse is that a large percentage of our population even if they are not psychopath's, are functionally irresponsible. They do not want to assume responsibility for their life and actually want government to act as their "loco parentis" because they are too afraid, or have too little self respect for themselves to cut the umbilical chord....
     
  4. BleedingHeadKen

    BleedingHeadKen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    16,562
    Likes Received:
    1,276
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The logical conclusion of the NAP is that the state is illegitimate as it relies on the initiation of aggression to exist. Some forms of libertarianism do not rely upon the NAP, some do.

    The problem with those that do is that it's a fantasy that government can be limited. It is inherently corrupt and will always grow.
     
  5. LiveUninhibited

    LiveUninhibited Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    9,975
    Likes Received:
    3,182
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not really opposites. A liberal socialist and a libertarian would agree on social policy. As for fiscal policy, you'd probably have to believe in true communism to consider libertarian socialism to make sense. In communism power relations on a wide scale are abolished and people work without corporations or governments (Marx's final stage after socialism, though socialism was seen as a step towards that). Though in reality, that could not happen without a vastly different culture than our own, and probably couldn't happen at all.

    The conservative notion that corporate deregulation leads to more individual freedom would sound equally ridiculous to a libertarian socialist.
     
  6. Ritter

    Ritter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2015
    Messages:
    8,944
    Likes Received:
    3,018
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sounds like pure Orwellian Newspeak to me, "Socialism is Libertarianism", "war is peace" etc etc. ;)
     
  7. jdog

    jdog Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2014
    Messages:
    4,532
    Likes Received:
    716
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is why it must be abolished at least in part from time to time. As Jefferson said... "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure."
     
  8. jdog

    jdog Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2014
    Messages:
    4,532
    Likes Received:
    716
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are absolutely full of crap and do not have a clue what you are talking about. The foundation stone of libertarianism is property rights. Without property rights you cannot have any rights whatsoever.
    Socialism does not support property rights in any way shape or form.
    Libertarians believe the State is the slave of the individuals.
    Socialists believe the individuals are the slaves and property of the State.
    The are diametrically opposed points of view.
     
  9. LiveUninhibited

    LiveUninhibited Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    9,975
    Likes Received:
    3,182
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is a biased and narrow interpretation, but I understand it has a historical basis. Fortunately I'm not a lawyer, so I don't make arguments and pretend they have merit based only upon what other people thought. Libertarianism is obviously about liberty, about freedom. Freedom to do what? To speak your mind, associate with who you want, choose your religion? Buy and own lots of stuff is in there somewhere, but hardly a foundation. Usually libertarian has been interpreted as less government as the government has been a powerful force in restricting freedoms as any centralized power has the potential to do. But that doesn't mean that there are not other threats to liberty. Property being the foundation of liberty is totally arbitrary and just a conservative interpretation. I could more easily say health is the foundation of liberty, because without it no other rights/freedoms can be enjoyed. As opposed to property, which really is just another branch of freedom rather than a foundation.

    Socialists do not believe individuals are slaves to the state, they believe the state is more benevolent than the corporations (or other private ownership class).

    For context I am a former libertarian and not a socialist.
     
  10. Steady Pie

    Steady Pie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    24,509
    Likes Received:
    7,250
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male


    I've never been opposed to such communities, so long as they do not use force to prevent others from existing. Localism and tolerance is something I believe we should all get behind.
     
  11. Fscheu

    Fscheu Banned

    Joined:
    May 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I find anarcho-syndicalism very compelling, but I still don't completely understand it. Is one still considered an anarcho-syndicalist if they support others forms of collective ownership in additions to worker ownership through revolutionary Union movements? When it comes to natural resources for example I think the community as a whole ought to have a large amount of the control in addition to the workers that are involved in the organizations managing the resources.
     
  12. PreteenCommunist

    PreteenCommunist Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    1,075
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Gender:
    Female
    The difficult thing about anarcho-syndicalism is that it isn't really very theory-heavy; there is some theory, of course, but most of it was developed in the practical contexts of the anarchist and unionist movements in Europe, most notably Spain. The CNT, for instance, was more preoccupied with fighting the fascists (and the Soviet puppets) than theorising what would happen in the ultimate society which would be created through anarcho-syndicalist struggle. Presumably the ultimate goal of anarcho-syndicalism would be the same as that of anarcho-communism, which would involve an end being brought to the division of labour and the decentralised organisation of production by communities on the bases of location and economic sector. But what you're suggesting appears to be centralised (the community as a whole), and anarchists aren't too fond of centralism. Once again in Spain, the left wing during the civil war was essentially split along the axis of centralism vs. decentralism: the Marxist-influenced socialists of all stripes strongly supported centralism, while the anarchists strongly disagreed.
     
  13. FaerieGodfather

    FaerieGodfather New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2015
    Messages:
    248
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    A libertarian socialist is someone who believes, and not without merit, that capitalism is fundamentally incompatible with individual liberty. They fight to maximize individual liberty by reducing the power of both the State and the institutions of capital to coerce and exploit people. They are more typically associated with anarchist movements than "state socialism", but it's possible to be both a libertarian and a democratic socialist, as long as you believe that certain human rights should be beyond the reach of democratic whims.
     
  14. Fscheu

    Fscheu Banned

    Joined:
    May 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't think that communities as a whole controlling certain things requires centralization. It can be done through small sovereign directly democratic communities working together with other small sovereign directly democratic communities.
     
  15. PreteenCommunist

    PreteenCommunist Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    1,075
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Gender:
    Female
    Sure, communities as a whole controlling things does not require centralisation (what you're suggesting is completely compatible with anarcho-syndicalism, I assume: the co-operative, free association of autonomous communities). But the community as a whole does. As soon as we're dealing with a single entity, we're in centralist territory.
     
  16. Fscheu

    Fscheu Banned

    Joined:
    May 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I apologize. I should have specified, that is what I meant. I'm curious of what you think about these communities based on free association. I'm assuming that they would allow some sort of way for people to kind of opt-out of participating. What exactly might this look like? Would these political entities exist in the communist society that I assume you are in favor of?
     
  17. PreteenCommunist

    PreteenCommunist Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    1,075
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Gender:
    Female
    I guess if someone didn't want to participate they'd be allowed not to, in an anarchist commune-type situation, but perhaps they would not have access to communal resources if they wanted to go it alone (e.g. they wouldn't be able to just walk into the communal store and take a bunch of candy or whatever without people yelling at them). If they wanted to be deliberately disruptive, however, maybe they would be ostracised or something; though I'm not sure why anyone would want to do that.

    I'm not actually an anarchist, I'm a Marxist, so my interpretation of socialism is slightly different. The main point of contention I would have with an anarchist would be on the necessity of the state during a transition period between capitalism and communism; I think conquest of state power by the working class is needed before the state can wither away, while anarchists want to abolish the state right away. In theory, we Marxists have the same end goal as anarchists, and we do by and large, but for one difference. A lot of anarchist theory (and practice) advocates decentralised, federated communes, and while these aren't all that different from the structures advocated by Marxists - we would have levels of confederation, just like anarchists - we advocate a more centralised society. Socialism for us is a global community run as a whole community, not little autonomous villages (and the latter smacks of primitivism, in my opinion).
     
  18. JoakimFlorence

    JoakimFlorence Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Messages:
    1,689
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Libertarian socialism purports to combine individual freedom with economic freedom (i.e. putting consumer spending power into the hands of consumers) so that no one suffers a loss of freedom due to poverty.

    The inherent problem, of course, is that when it is the government dishing out the money, the government is ultimately the one in control, and there is the potential for a big loss of individual liberty. Especially if the government begins attaching all sorts of strings to these payments, which we have already seen in the past.
     
  19. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    16,248
    Likes Received:
    3,014
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Its BS. I looked up "libertarian socialist", read a half dozen descriptions, none were concise, all were wordy and went to great lengths trying to explain why it was not socialism or libertarianism. Some explanations were contradictory, some were self-contradictory.

    People who like socialism and communism come up with all kinds of excuses to explain the total failure of top-down government rule, they create all kinds of new names and twists on standard old socialism/communism, like libertarian socialist or anarchist socialist, but its all the same scam.

    The end result of all of them are a small group of elites have the power and control the masses. And if you think some inane idea such as having the workers own the means of production rather then the state will not result in power being concentrated into a small group of "workers", then you must believe in unicorns and the leprechaun pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
     
  20. reallybigjohnson

    reallybigjohnson Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2012
    Messages:
    8,849
    Likes Received:
    1,415
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Capitalism is just another term for market economy. You can't have "worker owned' anything and not be at odds with Libertarianism. What we do have in this country is crony capitalism which is NOT laissez-faire economics and it hasn't been so for over a century. Probably the most free economy you will find are the Swiss as they are less regulates than the US currently is.
     
  21. Fscheu

    Fscheu Banned

    Joined:
    May 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's not necessarily true, there are various forms of market socialism. I'm not sure why you don't think worker control and libertarianism can coexist. A government doesn't need to get involved for workers to control their own productivity.
     
  22. AnarchistPhilosopher

    AnarchistPhilosopher New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2016
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not only is Libertarian Socialism not an oxymoron but many of the earliest societies on Earth have been libertarian socialist. The Diggers,the Essenes,the Didaches,the Puritans,the Quakers,the Gnostics and the Enragés are all examples of primitive libertarian socialist communities.
     
  23. AlNewman

    AlNewman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    There is no such thing as a libertarian socialism as this oxymoronic term is only used by the ignorant unsure of reality and the meaning of words, harboring a belief system rife with contradictions, one so instilled with indoctrination, the real world has no meaning.



    So just how do you expect one to discuss an oxymoronic view?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Yes and they are. No guessing about definitions at all.
     
  24. AlNewman

    AlNewman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Really, what was the clue, Democratic Socialism?
     
  25. AlNewman

    AlNewman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    No argument on that point!!!

    I would suggest you buy a good dictionary and start using same.

    So those freedom socialist (a free slave?) wants to own what exactly? And using your special little dictionary, just what is laissez-faire economics? And just how did you come up with that little philosophy that libertarianism somehow stresses liberty and lack of authority when their platform is for a limited government, not very free nor anti-authoritarian is would seem.

    And just what is contradictory to what conditions bought about by capitalism? Do you have any clue as to what you are trying to imply?
     

Share This Page