Total Posts:106|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Libertarian socialism

Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2010 8:27:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Chomsky on Libertarianism...

I thought you all might enjoy it.
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2010 10:54:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
lmao. libertarian socialism is a contradiction in terms. you can't guarantee one without violating the other. i grant you its logically POSSIBLE that people will choose to act in such a way as to fulfill both halves of the ideology at all times but if that were so anarchy would be perfectly sufficient as no one would ever do anything harmful to anyone else. sooooooo... not a fan :P
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2010 10:00:28 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/9/2010 10:54:32 PM, belle wrote:
lmao. libertarian socialism is a contradiction in terms. you can't guarantee one without violating the other. i grant you its logically POSSIBLE that people will choose to act in such a way as to fulfill both halves of the ideology at all times but if that were so anarchy would be perfectly sufficient as no one would ever do anything harmful to anyone else. sooooooo... not a fan :P

Oh, belle. You are so ignorant.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2010 10:02:30 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
No actually, I agree with belle. Let's hear a rebuttal.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2010 10:10:59 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/9/2010 10:54:32 PM, belle wrote:
lmao. libertarian socialism is a contradiction in terms.

This is false. Libertarian is opposed to authoritarian and socialism is any radical change in the capitalistic/feudal system intended to help the plight of wage-earners.

"[I am] convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality" - Mikhail Bakunin

you can't guarantee one without violating the other.

On the contrary they complement each other. Once the State is abolished there is no doubt that the laborer will be much better off.

"Our program can be summed up in a few words:

Peace, emancipation, and the happiness of the oppressed.

War upon all oppressors and all despoilers.

Full restitution to workers: all the capital, the factories, and all instruments of work and raw materials to go to the associations, and the land to those who cultivate it with their own hands.

Liberty, justice, and fraternity in regard to all human beings upon the earth.

Equality for all." - Mikhail Bakunin
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2010 10:12:34 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/9/2010 10:54:32 PM, belle wrote:
lmao. libertarian socialism is a contradiction in terms. you can't guarantee one without violating the other. i grant you its logically POSSIBLE that people will choose to act in such a way as to fulfill both halves of the ideology at all times but if that were so anarchy would be perfectly sufficient as no one would ever do anything harmful to anyone else. sooooooo... not a fan :P

EXACTLY! You cannot have freedom and equality as coexisting values.
Besides, Chomsky is a nut. He lives about 5 minutes away from me, or at least he did. Boy did he have a son that was messed up. I never understood why a linguist was taken so seriously in his political rantings.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2010 10:16:47 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/10/2010 10:12:34 AM, innomen wrote:
EXACTLY! You cannot have freedom and equality as coexisting values.
Besides, Chomsky is a nut. He lives about 5 minutes away from me, or at least he did. Boy did he have a son that was messed up. I never understood why a linguist was taken so seriously in his political rantings.

On the contrary. Equality, properly understand, is the same as freedom, properly understood.

"[B]eing all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions…. And, being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us that may authorise us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for ours." - John Locke
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2010 10:21:03 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/10/2010 10:16:47 AM, Reasoning wrote:
At 5/10/2010 10:12:34 AM, innomen wrote:
EXACTLY! You cannot have freedom and equality as coexisting values.
Besides, Chomsky is a nut. He lives about 5 minutes away from me, or at least he did. Boy did he have a son that was messed up. I never understood why a linguist was taken so seriously in his political rantings.

On the contrary. Equality, properly understand, is the same as freedom, properly understood.

"[B]eing all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions…. And, being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us that may authorise us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for ours." - John Locke

Nice words, but it is wrong. We are not equal in ability in our circumstance in life and in our experience. To force the equality in anyway requires a redistribution, and in that you will deprive someone of their liberty. I'll try and find a Mills quote later.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2010 10:36:33 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I have to agree with innomen, belle, et al. You cannot have any notion of freedom when wishing to impose equality of outcome on people. As innomen correctly pointed out, circumstances and individuality deems us all different in some way or another, which will result in differences of income, of education, and of ability. Socialism deems these differences as bad, and seeks to dissolve them and make all individuals equal in their conditions - something that requires individual freedom to be stomped on to the fullest extent.

However, "libertarian socialism" isn't necessarily a contradiction in terms, in a semantic way. Libertarianism is technically about the reduction of state power over individuals, while socialism is pretty much about equality of outcome. Now, it's common sense to say the state is the best way to produce the results socialism demands, but it isn't the only way.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2010 10:36:45 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/10/2010 10:10:59 AM, Reasoning wrote:
At 5/9/2010 10:54:32 PM, belle wrote:
lmao. libertarian socialism is a contradiction in terms.

This is false. Libertarian is opposed to authoritarian and socialism is any radical change in the capitalistic/feudal system intended to help the plight of wage-earners.

you can't guarantee any benefit to the wage earners without taking aggressive/authoritarian actions towards capitalists. do they like... not count? :P

and of course if you protect the capitalist freedom to do what one will with their property then you can't guarantee any kind of benefit to the wage earners so socialism fail.


you can't guarantee one without violating the other.

On the contrary they complement each other. Once the State is abolished there is no doubt that the laborer will be much better off.

how so reasoning?

"Our program can be summed up in a few words:

Peace, emancipation, and the happiness of the oppressed.

War upon all oppressors and all despoilers.

Full restitution to workers: all the capital, the factories, and all instruments of work and raw materials to go to the associations, and the land to those who cultivate it with their own hands.

Liberty, justice, and fraternity in regard to all human beings upon the earth.

Equality for all." - Mikhail Bakunin

and even assuming that this quote is accurate, its not libertarian. the workers have the freedom to commit acts of force against the owners of the capital, factories, and instruments of work and raw materials that is apparently "rightfully theirs".
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2010 10:39:52 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I see the contradiction Belle et. al are pointing out, but I also understand Chomsky's point: by abolishing the "state" to protect from tyranny, we are simply creating much more potent tyrannies in the private sector. Furthermore, I find the semantical discussions on DDO to be the least desirable part of the site. We often assume definitions of words and insist on our versions of them, ignoring the history of how the particular terms evolved. What is consumerism? Is it people buying things they need and driving the economy, as modernity would have it? Or is it people devouring resources without replenishing them, as it was once used? Is "ambition" the driver of ingenuity/innovation and hard work in our capitalistic system, or is it a force of evil used by the powerful to acquire wealth and power?

Libertarianism, I would greatly doubt, was intended for the ends we are using it for today. Tyranny is tyrrany, whether it is public or private in nature.
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2010 10:58:21 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/10/2010 10:00:28 AM, Reasoning wrote:
At 5/9/2010 10:54:32 PM, belle wrote:
lmao. libertarian socialism is a contradiction in terms. you can't guarantee one without violating the other. i grant you its logically POSSIBLE that people will choose to act in such a way as to fulfill both halves of the ideology at all times but if that were so anarchy would be perfectly sufficient as no one would ever do anything harmful to anyone else. sooooooo... not a fan :P

Oh, belle. You are so ignorant.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to play this semantics game. Your "socialism" and Chomsky's socialism are quite different and I'm sure you would agree that his is antithetical to libertarianism.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2010 11:01:08 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/10/2010 10:39:52 AM, Rob1Billion wrote:
I see the contradiction Belle et. al are pointing out, but I also understand Chomsky's point: by abolishing the "state" to protect from tyranny, we are simply creating much more potent tyrannies in the private sector. Furthermore, I find the semantical discussions on DDO to be the least desirable part of the site. We often assume definitions of words and insist on our versions of them, ignoring the history of how the particular terms evolved. What is consumerism? Is it people buying things they need and driving the economy, as modernity would have it? Or is it people devouring resources without replenishing them, as it was once used? Is "ambition" the driver of ingenuity/innovation and hard work in our capitalistic system, or is it a force of evil used by the powerful to acquire wealth and power?


I completely agree except with:
Libertarianism, I would greatly doubt, was intended for the ends we are using it for today. Tyranny is tyrrany, whether it is public or private in nature.

The intent is as it should be (except for those who are libertarians for the sole reason of drug legalization - they have other motives). As with every system, there will be and cannot be purity or extreme - we just contain too many variables as a people to be contained in a singleminded system.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2010 11:05:11 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/10/2010 10:36:33 AM, Volkov wrote:
I have to agree with innomen, belle, et al. You cannot have any notion of freedom when wishing to impose equality of outcome on people. As innomen correctly pointed out, circumstances and individuality deems us all different in some way or another, which will result in differences of income, of education, and of ability. Socialism deems these differences as bad, and seeks to dissolve them and make all individuals equal in their conditions - something that requires individual freedom to be stomped on to the fullest extent.

Your definition of Socialism is a straw man.

However, "libertarian socialism" isn't necessarily a contradiction in terms, in a semantic way. Libertarianism is technically about the reduction of state power over individuals, while socialism is pretty much about equality of outcome.

That is a pedestrian understanding of Socialism.

Now, it's common sense to say the state is the best way to produce the results socialism demands, but it isn't the only way.

"No dictatorship can have any other aim but that of self-perpetuation and it can beget only slavery in the people tolerating it; freedom can be created only by freedom." - Mikhail Bakunin
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2010 11:09:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/10/2010 11:05:11 AM, Reasoning wrote:
Your definition of Socialism is a straw man.

Actually, it's integral.

That is a pedestrian understanding of Socialism.

It's integral to socialism.

"No dictatorship can have any other aim but that of self-perpetuation and it can beget only slavery in the people tolerating it; freedom can be created only by freedom." - Mikhail Bakunin

I gave you an opening to say that there are other ways of going about socialism. You give me a smart arse Bakunin quote. Know thy enemies.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2010 11:11:10 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/10/2010 10:36:45 AM, belle wrote:
you can't guarantee any benefit to the wage earners without taking aggressive/authoritarian actions towards capitalists. do they like... not count? :P

You can't return the stolen goods to the burgled without taking it back from the burglars.

and of course if you protect the capitalist freedom to do what one will with their property then you can't guarantee any kind of benefit to the wage earners so socialism fail.

You can do what you will with your justly-acquired possessions as long it does not infringe on the rights of others, correct.

you can't guarantee one without violating the other.

On the contrary they complement each other. Once the State is abolished there is no doubt that the laborer will be much better off.

how so reasoning?

Without a parasitic class leaching off the productivity of the toilers it is quite apparent why their life would be better off.

"Our program can be summed up in a few words:

Peace, emancipation, and the happiness of the oppressed.

War upon all oppressors and all despoilers.

Full restitution to workers: all the capital, the factories, and all instruments of work and raw materials to go to the associations, and the land to those who cultivate it with their own hands.

Liberty, justice, and fraternity in regard to all human beings upon the earth.

Equality for all." - Mikhail Bakunin

and even assuming that this quote is accurate, its not libertarian. the workers have the freedom to commit acts of force against the owners of the capital, factories, and instruments of work and raw materials that is apparently "rightfully theirs".

You always have the right to take back that which is rightfully yours, by force if necessary.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2010 11:27:37 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
reasoning: workers own the means of production even though someone ELSE put up the capital to build them and came up with the plan? saying the workers own what someone else paid them to make is a little cockeyed don't you think?
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2010 11:29:27 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
additionally, even granted that, once your collective gets off the ground- a collective process of decision making is only non-coercive if every member of the collective agrees to the course of action being taken. so unless "the workers" agree about everything that should be done (which seems unlikely) your libertarianism still goes out the window.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2010 11:49:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/10/2010 11:27:37 AM, belle wrote:
reasoning: workers own the means of production even though someone ELSE put up the capital

Yes. If I steal a bunch of money and then buy something with that money, what I purchased clearly does not rightfully belong to me.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2010 12:26:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/10/2010 11:52:46 AM, belle wrote:
the only way to accumulate capital is by stealing it, eh?

The far most common way, yes.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
brycef
Posts: 160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2010 6:02:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/10/2010 11:27:37 AM, belle wrote:
reasoning: workers own the means of production even though someone ELSE put up the capital to build them and came up with the plan? saying the workers own what someone else paid them to make is a little cockeyed don't you think?

Under a system in which workers own the means of production, planners and organizers would be treated as workers themselves - they get a say on what is produced, as do the other workers.
Workers get democratic ownership over what they use to make a product, and they get a democratic say over what they produce. They're democratically paying themselves/each other.
The point is to get back the true value of their labor, rather than a reduced amount paid to the workers by bosses - again, there would still be people to plan and organize, but they would be treated as workers themselves.
The idea is that the group would decide how much the labor of each worker is worth, and all would get a say. Not everyone would necessarily be paid equally - skill and other factors, such as duration of employment, would be taken into account. However, the workers would have less incentive to take advantage of each other than an employer, whose interest is in paying the workers as little as possible that they're willing to work for, and whose only contribution may be ownership over the materials that the workers need to produce their product.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2010 6:18:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
http://www.theonion.com...
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2010 7:10:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/10/2010 6:51:19 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Whom do those evil, greedy, selfish capitalists steal it from, exactly?

The workers, generally.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2010 7:16:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/10/2010 7:10:57 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
And how do they go about that?

Through a number of government-granted privileges. Such as artificial titles to land.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran