Posted on 05/24/2022 9:02:02 PM PDT by libertasbella
Are libertarianism and socialism diametrically opposed? The libertarian socialist would say no.
The political philosophy of libertarian socialism categorically rejects state interference in social affairs and instead proposes the abolition of authoritarian institutions that inhibit freedom and justice.
The rejection of state socialism and the current mixed economy define libertarian socialism. Instead, the libertarian socialism project calls for decentralized institutions that use direct democracy or voluntary associations to break up centralized institutions and institutions captured by rent-seeking capitalists.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.libertasbella.com ...
The libertarian socialist believes in a free society, where individuals do not have to worry about being coerced by corporations or oppressive states. The political philosophy is focused on freedom and the individual’s quest to break free from institutions that shackle human thought and creativity.
Unlike their state socialist counterparts, libertarian socialists do not push central planning, state-owned enterprises, or outright nationalization. However, they do not reject the idea of collective ownership of property. The ability for free individuals to determine their own property-holding arrangements is crucial for socialist libertarians.
If people band together and collectivize the ownership of private property ona voluntary basis, this is perfectly in line with these precepts. There are numerous cases where private property is acquired through dubious means and is used by elites to cement their economic status and lord over the working classes.
A social libertarian stresses the importance of defending civil liberties, which made them staunch opponents of totalitarian socialist regimes throughout the 20th century. Since Vladimir Lenin successfully led the Bolshevik Revolution starting in 1917, Communism and its socialist cousins have been directly associated with totalitarianism.
What Is a Libertarian Socialist Approach to Governance?
Libertarians of all stripes never approved of one-party states. Communist regimes and totalitarian socialist adjacent political movements were marked by such arrangements. Ironically, these regimes banned many dissident socialist parties, which validated the initial libertarian socialist skepticism towards these kinds of regimes.
Instead, libertarians with socialist inclinations favored voluntary associations, economic democracy, and local governance. One of the contradictions they spotted with regards to 20th century communist experiments was how wealth inequality still persisted thanks to the concentration of power in the state.
This was a sign of how centralized political structures can allow for massive wealth and power consolidation. Which is why political decentralization is key for ensuring equality of political and economic opportunities. In sum, states have a tendency of centralizing and creating benefits for parasitic individuals, thus requiring a new way forward.
Unlike conventional free-marketers, libertarian socialists are concerned about economic inequality. A society marked by wealth inequality is oppressive and socially unstable. By phasing out the state, individuals would be free to live up to their economic potential now that they’re no longer shackled by the state’s laws and regulations.
Similarly, being free from excessive corporate power allows for people to chart their own economic paths free from sub-optimal employment arrangements. Additionally, individuals and communities would then be afforded the opportunity to set up economic institutions that provide real value to consumers while providing dignified work.
Although market interactions would be respected, many socialist libertarians called into question a number of economic assumptions and offered alternatives at the local level to address certain inequalities and worrisome social problems that corporate capitalism generally brought about.
It only works in a commune.
Or a Kubutz.
it means that you voluntarily agree to give away all your stuff to the government. Which means no one will want it. In practice, however, it means those who don’t want it are killed.
This is what some religions have practiced, and I have no problems with that.
It’s an interesting concept I’ve mused about previously, the major problem with it being that the vast majority of Socialists also tend to be authoritarian and totalitarian control freaks once you scratch the surface, and would wind up eroding our freedoms over time if given the opportunity.
What’s described isn’t socialism. And it soon wouldn’t be voluntary, if implemented.
A classic contradiction in terms.
Voluntary shared ownership seldom works well on a scaled or continuing basis, though some co-ops in some circumstances do; but if done on an even vaguely libertarian basis they are not really socialist at all.
If some utopian, withered-state communism, that’s been demonstrated to be a fantasy that is never realized anyway.
Better to remember that socialism has been developed and promoted by a centralized, controlling elite as an opiate of the masses.
No form of socialism “works”. Not to where any sane freedom loving people want to live under such a system, anyway. Not in any financial sense either.
National socialism, nope.
Soviet socialism, nope.
Chinese socialism, nope.
Cuban socialism, nope.
Nowhere its been tried, has it ever “worked”.
Its fundamentally flawed. Its premises are flawed. It cannot be implemented properly in the real world.
Further, socialism is just a stage to change things to communism. The flaw here is evident. The ideal communist state that socialism is supposed to progress you towards, is impossible to create. The top leaders know that. They know they will always be needed and never have to give up their power, they will forever be socialist oligarchs. They know it can’t work.
No.
It doesn’t.
It does work on a family sized type unit.
It doesn’t work anywhere else.
“In sum, states have a tendency of centralizing and creating benefits for parasitic individuals, thus requiring a new way forward.”
The human race always has parasitic individuals who will find a way to attach themselves to whatever form of government or production of wealth exists. This includes your fantasy libertarian socialism.
There is a reason all the hippie communes of the 60’s and 70’s failed. Eventually the productive people left because they got tired of the free riders and it all falls apart.
It happens even in social units as small as the family. Just about everyone has a family member, whether immediate or extended who just never seems to pull his weight and is always borrowing or grifting from anyone they can and not because of lack of ability or misfortune.
Even families can have parasitic grifters. Ne’er do wells.
Noam Chomsky has stated that he is that type of libertarian. Libertarian in Europe basically means anarchist.
And they are tolerated, because of love.
Hey! Stop piling on Hunter. It’s difficult being the son of such a vaunted, heroic, and wise man as Joe Biden.
No and no.
Socialism. The usual turd with new sprinkles.
“Instead, libertarians with socialist inclinations favored voluntary associations, ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY, and local governance. One of the contradictions they spotted with regards to 20th century communist experiments was how wealth inequality still persisted thanks to the concentration of power in the state.”
What on earth does “ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY” mean?? Does that mean that half of the population determine what an individual can and cannot do?
And whatever that is, how would that be enforced if not by the heavy hand of a state?
“However, they do not reject the idea of collective ownership of property. The ability for free individuals to determine their own property-holding arrangements is crucial for socialist libertarians.”
Isn’t that what public companies already are today? Stockholders collectively and voluntarily own a corporation.
This is just another half baked idea and an attempt to put lipstick on the socialist pig.
Back in the middle ages, a problem with people desiring the monastic life came up. Part of entering monastic life was that the individual would need to take an oath of poverty, meaning that he or she could not own any land or money. The abbot or abbess had already taken that same oath. So Pope Innocent IV implemented the idea of a “juridic person” and allowed monasteries to take on that status. The juridic person of the monastery didn’t have an oath of poverty and so could receive the property given by new monks/nuns.
By the way, just because a monk or nun takes an oath of poverty, that doesn’t equate to them living in destitution it just means they can’t own property in their own name. An individual monk isn’t allowed to own a car. The monastery can own a whole fleet. If the monk needs a car, then he uses a car according to the rules of the community.
If a group of libertarian socialists wanted to establish a community they could easily use that type of framework to establish their community. Make money by selling crops, honey, handcrafts, cybersquatting software, custom automobiles, or whatever they agree to do. If they want to do whatever they want without demanding government assistance from me and without negatively impacting my life, more power to them.
If they want to live as nasty hippies depending on support from me while they sit around and smoke dope (a lot of people call themselves libertarian only because they want no rules in drugs), they aren’t libertarian socialists. They’re just socialist bums.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.