What's with "Libertarian Socialism"?

[Agnapostate]

What failure of their approach?

The capitalist-built computer you're using to access the capitalist internet to post silly notes on this capitalist-based bulletin board completely refutes your argument.

You mean the one created in a heavily interventionist economy? I guess socialism works after all. :2wave:

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Socialism is about extending freedom into the economic realm,

That can't be true, when the first premise of socialism is that all property is theft.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

You mean the one created in a heavily interventionist economy? I guess socialism works after all. :2wave:

No, I mean the one created by American entrepreneurs.

The Soviet Union was opposed to the Internet.

Hell, your people even tried to ban VCR's.

 

[Agnapostate]

That can't be true, when the first premise of socialism is that all property is theft.

Do you happen to know where the phrase "property is theft" came from? No? I didn't think so, but I'll enlighten you. It was coined by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, the first self-described anarchist (he also declared "property is liberty.") So much for your false claims that anarchism and socialism are contradictory. Regardless, I'll explain to you Proudhon's meaning. The seemingly contradictory nature of "property is theft" and "property is liberty" is best explained through exposure of the distinction made between private property and personal possessions in the socialist tradition, where private property is constituted only by monopolistic or oligopolistic control over a resource sufficiently expansive or influential as to affect the lives and circumstances of many others (thus permitting the private property owner to compel others into servitude for him or her through threats of resource deprivation), whereas personal possession rights are based around matters of individual consumption and the appropriation of the product of one's labor. That monopolistic or oligopolistic ownership and control of productive resources enables owners to compel non-owners to engage in wage labor characterized by hierarchical subordination through the threat of resource deprivation if they refuse. This economic authoritarianism exercised under capitalism is not greatly distinct from political authoritarianism exercised under statism.

No, I mean the one created by American entrepreneurs.

The Soviet Union was opposed to the Internet.

Hell, your people even tried to ban VCR's.

Actually, "my people" were the first ones persecuted and killed in the Soviet Union. What you're doing now is effectively accusing the Elders of Zion of being responsible for the Holocaust. :2wave:

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Do you happen to know where the phrase "property is theft" came from? No? I didn't think so, but I'll enlighten you. It was coined by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, the first self-described anarchist (he also declared "property is liberty.") So much for your false claims that anarchism and socialism are contradictory. Regardless, I'll explain to you Proudhon's meaning. The seemingly contradictory nature of "property is theft" and "property is liberty" is best explained through exposure of the distinction made between private property and personal possessions in the socialist tradition, where private property is constituted only by monopolistic or oligopolistic control over a resource sufficiently expansive or influential as to affect the lives and circumstances of many others (thus permitting the private property owner to compel others into servitude for him or her through threats of resource deprivation), whereas personal possession rights are based around matters of individual consumption and the appropriation of the product of one's labor. That monopolistic or oligopolistic ownership and control of productive resources enables owners to compel non-owners to engage in wage labor characterized by hierarchical subordination through the threat of resource deprivation if they refuse. This economic authoritarianism exercised under capitalism is not greatly distinct from political authoritarianism exercised under statism.



Actually, "my people" were the first ones persecuted and killed in the Soviet Union. What you're doing now is effectively accusing the Elders of Zion of being responsible for the Holocaust. :2wave:

So, what's that internet rule again, that Nazis will always manage to find their way into the discussion and the first one to bring the Nazis into the fray are the losers?

You lost.

 

[Agnapostate]

So, what's that internet rule again, that Nazis will always manage to find their way into the discussion and the first one to bring the Nazis into the fray are the losers?

You lost.

I didn't mention the Nazis in my post. Apparently, your grasp of Godwin's Law is as advanced as your grasp of socialism. :2wave:

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I didn't mention the Nazis in my post. Apparently, your grasp of Godwin's Law is as advanced as your grasp of socialism. :2wave:

Oh, close enough, I ain't quibbling here, that's what you're paid for.

The clods that wrote the Protocols of the Zions of Elder were proto-Nazis.

 

[CriticalThought]

I would say this document presents a superb argument...

http://jeffvail.net/atheoryofpower.pdf

It certainly provides a new way of viewing the concept of ownership in regards to individual freedom.

 

[Agnapostate]

[drivel]

As thrilling as all of your insights have been, do you have anything to say that's relevant to the topic of libertarian socialism?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

As thrilling as all of your insights have been, do you have anything to say that's relevant to the topic of libertarian socialism?

You mean besides the fact that it's a contradiction in terms, no matter how you look at it?

If you look at the word "libertarian" correctly, as in "an ideology dedicated to the maximization of individual freedoms without infringing on the freedoms of others", socialism's goal of abject individual slavery isn't compatible.

If you use your definition, ie, libertarianism is secret decoder ring stuff meaning "anarchy", then socialism's dependence on totalitarian governmental extortionate use of force to compel slavery is contradictory.

But that's only if you care what words mean, like I do.

 

[Agnapostate]

Anyone at all?

 

[Anikdote]

For the sake of keeping this thread going....

Most models of socialism (maybe all) include a provision for creating worker co-ops or full worker ownership, the problem arises at the time of transition, a person takes the risk to invest and create said firm, in the event this firm becomes profitable and large he must relinquish his ownership to those he's created jobs for, to me this is a clearly theft and would be inconsistent with a belief in personal fiscal liberty.

 

[Agnapostate]

Well, aside from the fact that a significant portion of the capitalist's income is derived not from profit gained through risk but from risk-free interest, we're aware that mere risk taking alone is not a sufficient basis for pecuniary reward, since there's no fixture in place to compensate unsuccessful investors or entrepreneurs. When we also consider the fact that entry conditions for investors of any sort are not in any way sufficiently equitable to incorporate many persons, the premise of investors or entrepreneurs having fairly established a presence to begin with seems dubious. This isn't intended to imply some conscious malevolence on their part, but is simply an observation on the skewed conditions of the establishment of "risk-taking" in general.

Again, had a feudal lord devoted a portion of his resources to investments, this would not justify his ownership of whatever property or assets he had invested in because the conditions of feudalism were created by unjust acquisitions and coercion to begin with. The same is true here to a lesser extent.

 

[Anikdote]

Well, aside from the fact that a significant portion of the capitalist's income is derived not from profit gained through risk but from risk-free interest, we're aware that mere risk taking alone is not a sufficient basis for pecuniary reward, since there's no fixture in place to compensate unsuccessful investors or entrepreneurs.

Social safety nets do exist, whether their sufficient to drive risk aversity is another issue. But the initial investment was without a doubt a risk, and thus subsequent growth occurred as a result of this endeavour. So while future profits aren't reliant on future risk taking, they are reliant upon the initial gamble.

When we also consider the fact that entry conditions for investors of any sort are not in any way sufficiently equitable to incorporate many persons, the premise of investors or entrepreneurs having fairly established a presence to begin with seems dubious. This isn't intended to imply some conscious malevolence on their part, but is simply an observation on the skewed conditions of the establishment of "risk-taking" in general.

Placing entrepreneurs in the same boat as investors? Both take risks but to varying degrees, while I may submit that employees should at least have similar access to ownership as investors (which is already the case) -- neither of these groups has the entitlement that the entrepreneur does, without him the firm doesn't exist, again unless you can prove that these employees and investors would spontaneously congregate to create an identical firm producing identical products.

Again, had a feudal lord devoted a portion of his resources to investments, this would not justify his ownership of whatever property or assets he had invested in because the conditions of feudalism were created by unjust acquisitions and coercion to begin with. The same is true here to a lesser extent.

We aren't talking about feudalism or feudal lords, but citizens who risk their times, capital and skills to create an enterprise and the right he ought have to the products of his own creation.

 

[ConservaBill]

The historical libertarian beliefs can not be reconciled with modern libertarianism. So a in a historical sense it may have been debatable, but it is indeed an oxymoron when referring to modern libertarianism..

The new reference to it is purely rhetoric provided by progressives (Dems and Reps) who most desperately want to maintain the 2-party system.

Attempting to justify historical and modern libertarianism is simply a non-starter and playing the progressives game.. the slow, steady, and certain march toward totalitarianism.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Again, had a feudal lord devoted a portion of his resources to investments, this would not justify his ownership of whatever property or assets he had invested in because the conditions of feudalism were created by unjust acquisitions and coercion to begin with. The same is true here to a lesser extent.

All, the old false analogy syndrome.

Henry Ford wasn't a feudal lord. He had property, put it at risk, grew his company, got filthy rich, and paid all his employees the wages they agreed to work for.

His employees were always, 100% of the time, completely free to seek alternative employment if they wanted to. Doesn't mean they'd find it, doesn't mean they were guaranteed to find a better paying job, but they had the freedom to leave, whenever they wanted to.

And they had no claim, none whatsoever, on Ford's wealth outside of their paychecks.