What's with "Libertarian Socialism"?

[phattonez]

I've seen this term or some variant around here, and it makes no sense to me. Someone want to explain how this crazy ideology came about?

 

[Red_Dave]

I've seen this term or some variant around here, and it makes no sense to me. Someone want to explain how this crazy ideology came about?

Wikipedia gives a pretty good overview. It actually predates the "libertarianism" proposed by the libertarian party in the united states. Which is quite a new phenominum.

 

[phattonez]

But how would it actually work? I can't picture socialism without government.

 

[Agnapostate]

I've seen this term or some variant around here, and it makes no sense to me. Someone want to explain how this crazy ideology came about?

You might have seen my explanation of the term to Scarecrow Akhbar, who conducted one of his trademarked escapes from the thread at that point. As Red Dave noted, socialists' usage of the term "libertarian" actually predates capitalist use of the term that renders "libertarian socialism" a seeming oxymoron in America. For example, the term "libertarian" was first used in print in an 1857 letter by the French anarcho-communist Joseph Dejacque, who later published Le Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement social from 1858 to 1861. The later French anarchists Sebastian Faure and Louise Michel then founded Le Libertaire in 1895, which ought to illustrate the term's early usage by anarcho-socialists, largely in an attempt to circumvent anti-anarchist laws. Conversely, the U.S. "Libertarian" Party has only existed since 1971, which means that socialist usage of the term predates its misappropriation by American capitalists by more than a century. As noted by Murray Bookchin, the current American definition of "libertarianism" is merely "the specious identification of an anti-authoritarian ideology with a straggling movement for 'pure capitalism' and 'free trade.' This movement never created the word: it appropriated it from the anarchist movement of the [nineteenth] century. And it should be recovered by those anti-authoritarians . . . who try to speak for dominated people as a whole, not for personal egotists who identify freedom with entrepreneurship and profit."

However, even apart from the historical definition of the term, we can make an even more dramatic claim that capital and libertarianism are actually incompatible and that "libertarian socialism" is really the only variety of libertarianism (and socialism, to some extent) that can exist. For example, most libertarian socialists would posit that capitalism is necessarily inimical to the maximization of liberty because of the authoritarian elements inherent in wage labor, which include the hierarchical conditions of the workplace and the effectively oligopolistic seizure of the financial class over the means of production which serves as the basis for the nature of wage labor in capitalism. Such a state of affairs wherein a tiny elite control such expansive resources would rightfully be condemned as authoritarian in nature were it manifested through the vessel of a state. Hence, we'd argue that libertarian socialism is a redundant term because legitimate libertarianism cannot exist without socialism and legitimate socialism cannot exist without libertarianism. But because "libertarianism" is understood as a laissez-faire capitalist philosophy in this country, we have to use the term "libertarian socialism."

But how would it actually work? I can't picture socialism without government.

That idea is actually based on another misconception about socialism, namely that the authoritarian state capitalism implemented in the USSR and similar countries was a manifestation of it. However, libertarian socialists do not acknowledge this state capitalism as a legitimate implementation of socialism on the grounds that elite party control of the means of production was the norm, rather than the public control of the means of production that socialism necessitates. There are actually few modern socialists that advocate strong government control (the failure of state socialism indicated the folly of that), and will advocate some form of broadly democratic socialism (democratic market socialism is popular, for example) or the more radical libertarian socialism. Libertarian socialists will favor either minimal or no government, which is related to the aforementioned fact that "libertarianism" and "libertarian socialism" were terms first used by anarchists, and anarchism is of course a socialist philosophy that diverged from Marxism some time ago. As put by Peter Kropotkin:

Anarchism, the no-government system of socialism, has a double origin. It is an outgrowth of the two great movements of thought in the economic and the political fields which characterize the nineteenth century, and especially its second part. In common with all socialists, the anarchists hold that the private ownership of land, capital, and machinery has had its time; that it is condemned to disappear; and that all requisites for production must, and will, become the common property of society, and be managed in common by the producers of wealth. And in common with the most advanced representatives of political radicalism, they maintain that the ideal of the political organization of society is a condition of things where the functions of government are reduced to a minimum, and the individual recovers his full liberty of initiative and action for satisfying, by means of free groups and federations--freely constituted--all the infinitely varied needs of the human being.

Libertarian socialism is primarily anarchist in nature, but is also minarchist, just as American "libertarianism" is understood also. That is, all anarchists are libertarian socialists, but not all libertarian socialists are anarchists. For example, council communists, left communists, Luxemburgists and other libertarian Marxists (Anton Pannekoek, etc.) would be examples of libertarian socialists who are not anarchists. Similarly the economic theory of "participatory economics" proposed by Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel is "libertarian collectivist" in nature, but can feasibly be implemented in either minarchist or anarchist society.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I've seen this term or some variant around here, and it makes no sense to me. Someone want to explain how this crazy ideology came about?

Sure.

People wanted to promote socialism, and being socialists, they did what socialists always do.

They lied.

Socialism, the ideology of chains, slavery, and poverty, is totally incompatible with libertarianism, the ideology of freedom and the individual's right to own his own life and his own wealth.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

But how would it actually work? I can't picture socialism without government.

you can't picture libertarianism without government, too, so your argument is off base.

In socialism, the government exists to wield the machine guns to keep everyone in line, except for those they don't want in the soup line.

In libertarianism, the minimal government possible is still a government that's needed to defend the basic liberties so the society doesn't collapse into anarchy.

Anarchy, of course, it not a libertarian ideal, either.

 

[danarhea]

Sure.

People wanted to promote socialism, and being socialists, they did what socialists always do.

They lied.

Socialism, the ideology of chains, slavery, and poverty, is totally incompatible with libertarianism, the ideology of freedom and the individual's right to own his own life and his own wealth.

Libertarian Socialism has a completely different meaning than Libertarianism as we see it here in the US. It is not a matter of Socialism being incompatible with Libertarianism. The Libertarianism of Europe is an entirely different animal, and came about at an entirely different time than American Libertarianism. Both concepts happen to use the same word, but they are completely different, as if they were two different words.

Thus, your argument makes no sense. Nobody lied. The Libertarian Socialism construct was based on a definition of Libertarianism, one that existed long before a different definition arose in America. It's all about context, and you have the context wrong.

 

[Agnapostate]

Sure.

People wanted to promote socialism, and being socialists, they did what socialists always do.

They lied.

Socialism, the ideology of chains, slavery, and poverty, is totally incompatible with libertarianism, the ideology of freedom and the individual's right to own his own life and his own wealth.

Not at all. I've already explained precisely why your claims are invalid and unsound, but you did not care to reply. Effectively, since you have a false conception of state capitalism as being a legitimate example of "socialism," your entire understanding of related political economy is corrupted. The problem is that libertarian socialists condemned that authoritarianism from the point of its origin.

you can't picture libertarianism without government, too, so your argument is off base.

Of course you can. Libertarianism includes both minarchism (minimal government) and anarchism (no government).

In socialism, the government exists to wield the machine guns to keep everyone in line, except for those they don't want in the soup line.

This is merely continued inaccurate reference to state capitalism. :roll:

In libertarianism, the minimal government possible is still a government that's needed to defend the basic liberties so the society doesn't collapse into anarchy.

Anarchy, of course, it not a libertarian ideal, either.

That's false. "Anarchy" as it relates to political philosophy does not mean chaos or disorder, but is instead focused on non-hierarchical social organization, and as noted, the term "libertarian" was first used and adopted by European anarchists. Your claims are effectively wrong across the board. I've encountered few people with such a poor grasp of political theory and economy, but it's always unpleasant to repeat the ordeal.

 

[DarkWizard12]

Libertarian Socialism, they way I understand it, is Socialism via Direct Democracy. Basically, instead of electing representatives to vote themselves paychecks, it's every single citizen voting for their paycheck.

Basically, it's little different from the outdated greek-style direct democracy. Seriously though, by looking at the debates here, in short, this is how they would line up:

Capitalism: An Employer tells you what to do.
Socialism: The Government tells you what to do.
Fascism: The government tells an employer to tell you what to do.
Communism: Papa-smurf tells you what to do.
Dictatorship: George Bush tells you what to do.
Libertarian socialism: Your co-workers tell you what to do.
Anarchy: You tell yourself what to do, but you can't do anything because someone else thought it would be great to murder you...and since it is anarchy, murder is legal.

 

[DarkWizard12]

That's false. "Anarchy" as it relates to political philosophy does not mean chaos or disorder, but is instead focused on non-hierarchical social organization, and as noted, the term "libertarian" was first used and adopted by European anarchists. Your claims are effectively wrong across the board. I've encountered few people with such a poor grasp of political theory and economy, but it's always unpleasant to repeat the ordeal.

Not intentionally, but chaos and disorder is the effect of anarchy, whether you like it or not. It's just reality. A people without laws is a lawless people.

 

[Agnapostate]

Libertarian Socialism, they way I understand it, is Socialism via Direct Democracy. Basically, instead of electing representatives to vote themselves paychecks, it's every single citizen voting for their paycheck.

Basically, it's little different from the outdated greek-style direct democracy.

That's not correct. There have traditionally been non-hierarchical and participatory elements that render management processes in libertarian socialism traditionally more vibrant than the Greek system, even aside from the obvious elitism of the latter inimical to true democracy. There's also the matter of decreased focus on material wealth in a socialist economy, especially in the marketless socialist economy supported by many anarcho-communists, where wealth accumulation is rendered effectively meaningless.

Seriously though, by looking at the debates here, in short, this is how they would line up:

Capitalism: An Employer tells you what to do.
Socialism: The Government tells you what to do.
Fascism: The government tells an employer to tell you what to do.
Communism: Papa-smurf tells you what to do.
Dictatorship: George Bush tells you what to do.
Libertarian socialism: Your co-workers tell you what to do.
Anarchy: You tell yourself what to do, but you can't do anything because someone else thought it would be great to murder you...and since it is anarchy, no one is going to arrest him.

Your definitions of socialism and communism are again based on the popular misconceptions about state capitalism, and the definition of anarchism is also based on the popular misconception of it involving "chaos" or "disorder." The fact that anarchism is the major existing form of libertarian socialism should indicate otherwise, however.

 

[Agnapostate]

Not intentionally, but chaos and disorder is the effect of anarchy, whether you like it or not. It's just reality. A people without laws is a lawless people.

As I said, "chaos" is a valid meaning of the term, but not one that's ever had any valid relation to the actual political philosophy, which actually involves a high degree of social and political organization, simply horizontal rather than hierarchical organization. Furthermore, the term "people without laws" is somewhat misleading, as prohibitions of anti-social acts are of course facets of anarchist organizational principles.

 

[DarkWizard12]

That's not correct. There have traditionally been non-hierarchical and participatory elements that render management processes in libertarian socialism traditionally more vibrant than the Greek system, even aside from the obvious elitism of the latter inimical to true democracy. There's also the matter of decreased focus on material wealth in a socialist economy, especially in the marketless socialist economy supported by many anarcho-communists, where wealth accumulation is rendered effectively meaningless.



Your definitions of socialism and communism are again based on the popular misconceptions about state capitalism, and the definition of anarchism is also based on the popular misconception of it involving "chaos" or "disorder." The fact that anarchism is the major existing form of libertarian socialism should indicate otherwise, however.

Your confusing theory with reality. In theory, Communism is a utopian society and the best thing in the world and mankind. In reality, it ALWAYS, and will ALWAYS end up as just state-run oligarchial capitalism, with the victims being the individuals in society itself.

 

[Agnapostate]

Your confusing theory with reality. In theory, Communism is a utopian society and the best thing in the world and mankind. In reality, it ALWAYS, and will ALWAYS end up as just state-run oligarchial capitalism, with the victims being the individuals in society itself.

That's to some extent true of large 'C' Communism, but significantly less true of small 'c' communism. I honestly don't see the purpose of referring to communism or other forms of socialism from an idealistic perspective that emphasizes ending hunger or poverty or some similarly utopian goal; it's just a matter of bottom-line efficiency, which capitalism cannot achieve but socialism generally can. I certainly do agree that attempts to implement "state socialism" inevitably degenerated into "state capitalism" and would do so in the future also. But libertarian socialists (the only legitimate variety, really) always expressed opposition to the authoritarian organizational methods favored by "state socialists" and predicted their ultimate failure. :shrug:

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Libertarian Socialism has a completely different meaning than Libertarianism as we see it here in the US. It is not a matter of Socialism being incompatible with Libertarianism. The Libertarianism of Europe is an entirely different animal, and came about at an entirely different time than American Libertarianism. Both concepts happen to use the same word, but they are completely different, as if they were two different words.

Thus, your argument makes no sense. Nobody lied. The Libertarian Socialism construct was based on a definition of Libertarianism, one that existed long before a different definition arose in America. It's all about context, and you have the context wrong.

Well, libertarianism is libertarianism.

If the Europeans are calling any form of socialism "libertarianism", they're merely engaging in the same old pattern of deceit the socialists have been using since socialism was invented.

My argument makes perfect sense.

The Europeans have to steal someone else's language, not mine.

Socialism is about stealing, libertarianism is about liberty. Liberty cannot exist in a society that values thievery.

 

[Agnapostate]

Again, you expose your ignorance of political economy. The term "libertarian" was coined and first used by anarcho-socialists more than a century prior to its misappropriation by American capitalists.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Not at all. I've already explained precisely why your claims are invalid and unsound,

Since my ideas are both valid and sound, you're just wrong.

Since I don't do doublespeak, I'm happy with that state of affairs.

Since you do doublespeak, you're happy with that state of affairs.

That's false. "Anarchy" as it relates to political philosophy does not mean chaos or disorder,

Yes it does.

We've already been through this, you've already lost the argument.

 

[CriticalThought]

But how would it actually work? I can't picture socialism without government.

Libertarian socialism works best as a protest movement.

Non violent protesters like Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King exemplify libertarian socialist philosophy in which authority is challenged through noncompliance in a nonaggressive manner.

Capitalistic libertarianism - "Everyone has a right to life, liberty, and property"
Neutral libertarianism - "Live and let live"
Socialistic libertarianism - "Be the change you wish to see in the world"

 

[Agnapostate]

[drivel]

I'm not interested in observing repetitive exhibitions of your deep ignorance of political theory and economy and the historical record. If you have new or innovative arguments to provide, produce them. However, it appears that you're content to rely on the same typical inanities. :shrug:

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Again, you expose your ignorance of political economy. The term "libertarian" was coined and first used by anarcho-socialists more than a century prior to its misappropriation by American capitalists.

Wow, it's amazing how fast you can cut and past your own arguments so many times and still be wrong every time.

The word "libertarian", in the year 2009, means those who embrace maximum personal liberty for the individual with limits to that freedom defined only by the extent to which those liberties begin to infringe on the liberties of others, and this includes the individual's freedom to own property, both real and intellectual, and the ability to pile up as much money as they are able and willing to earn.

Socialism means, in the year 2009, as it meant the day it was invented over 200 years ago, the limitations of liberty, the end of private property, and the death of all that is good and noble.

The socialists, being liars, don't like this honest approach, and being liars, they lie about their goals.

What were your goals again?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I'm not interested in observing repetitive exhibitions of your deep ignorance of political theory and economy and the historical record. If you have new or innovative arguments to provide, produce them. However, it appears that you're content to rely on the same typical inanities. :shrug:

That's good.

Cuz I ain't ignorant.

I'm certainly knowledgeable enough to see the heap of bull you're passing off.

 

[Agnapostate]

The word "libertarian", in the year 2009, means those who embrace maximum personal liberty for the individual with limits to that freedom defined only by the extent to which those liberties begin to infringe on the liberties of others, and this includes the individual's freedom to own property, both real and intellectual, and the ability to pile up as much money as they are able and willing to earn.

Not at all. Consistent libertarianism necessitates opposition to capitalism on the grounds that the authoritarian social relations produced in presently existing conditions of wage labor are just as effectively hierarchical and dictatorial as they would be were they manifested through the vessel of a state. Legitimately libertarian principles can only be maximized through the democratic workers' self-management that socialism entails, since that constitutes a maximization of individual liberty that capitalism is unable to provide.

Socialism means, in the year 2009, as it meant the day it was invented over 200 years ago, the limitations of liberty, the end of private property, and the death of all that is good and noble.

Once again, this is merely based on your ignorant depiction of authoritarian state capitalism as "socialism." However, as noted by the individual anarchist Benjamin Tucker, "the fact that State Socialism . . . has overshadowed other forms of Socialism gives it no right to a monopoly of the Socialistic idea." And more importantly, early libertarian socialists quickly condemned and disavowed the authoritarian methods of the state capitalists that falsely masqueraded as "socialists."

The socialists, being liars, don't like this honest approach, and being liars, they lie about their goals.

What were your goals again?

Seriously, how did you make it out of high school? Isn't there a required poli. sci. course or something? :2wave:

 

[CriticalThought]

Socialism means, in the year 2009, as it meant the day it was invented over 200 years ago, the limitations of liberty, the end of private property, and the death of all that is good and noble.

The socialists, being liars, don't like this honest approach, and being liars, they lie about their goals.

What were your goals again?

Socialism, like capitalism, is just a theoretical economic system. It distributes resources based on need rather than on want. Planned economies based on socialistic principles have proven to be ineffective and inefficient, primarily because they create no incentive for people to work. However, the capitalistic system also leads to market failure due to the fact that it creates negative externalties such as pollution, health care costs, outsourcing of labor, etc. As such, mixed economies have proven to be the most stable economies.

Libertarianism is simply a political ideal that authority should be limited and when combined with socialistic principle, it argues that resources should be distributed based on need, not by authority, but by the will of people. Gift economies, while only applicable to small localized communities, are probably the best examples of libertarian socialism in action.

If you wish to demonstrate how gift economies exemplify lying and theft, then I would love to see it.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Your confusing theory with reality. In theory, Communism is a utopian society and the best thing in the world and mankind. In reality, it ALWAYS, and will ALWAYS end up as just state-run oligarchial capitalism, with the victims being the individuals in society itself.

Look at THAT!

And you people keep trying to pretend there's a difference between communism and socialism.

When the end results are the same, does it make a difference which lane of the eight lane freeway you ride down to get there?

Y'all take the same turn off, so no, it makes no difference at all.

 

[WI Crippler]

I've seen this term or some variant around here, and it makes no sense to me. Someone want to explain how this crazy ideology came about?

On the surface, it appears to be a philosophy that says you can do whatever you want, and not suffer any consequences for your behavior.