This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Socialism vs Libertarianism The great debate.

OP

K

Kindly do all of us a favour and stop trying to umpire a debate with your meaningless sperg. Believe it or not, we are capable of interpreting and arguing by ourselves.

When I first started this debate on page 1 it was rather dry. Believe it or not I said it to keep it moving.

Reply 61

Ocassus

12

Original post by the mezzil

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2010/07/how_communist_is_china.html

Maybe, then again maybe not..

No, I guarantee you. As defined by the father of socialism; Karl Marx, the common ownership of the tools of production is the primary facet of socialism. Everything else is window dressing.

Reply 62

Ocassus

12

Original post by blueray

When I first started this debate on page 1 it was rather dry. Believe it or not I said it to keep it moving.

If it is dry it is because nobody is interested. I have no interest in debunking a load of pathetic assertions from a bunch of students who have read no socialist literature whatsoever.

Reply 63

Раскольников

7

Original post by lukewarm3

Can you explain why Cuba has a better education and health system than USA? (and most other capitalist countries)

But on the flip side the people in Cuba lack some freedoms, and also access to certain material things, that are taken for granted in many other places. I guess it is all about finding the right balance.

Reply 64

the mezzil

3

Original post by Ocassus

No, I guarantee you. As defined by the father of socialism; Karl Marx, the common ownership of the tools of production is the primary facet of socialism. Everything else is window dressing.

I wasn't saying it wasn't! I was merely pointing out to somebody else that there is socialist nature in the economy and the politics of the country, although of course it has stong elements of captalism!

Reply 65

Ocassus

12

Original post by the mezzil

I wasn't saying it wasn't! I was merely pointing out to somebody else that there is socialist nature in the economy and the politics of the country, although of course it has stong elements of captalism!

No it is capitalist with egalitarian facets. Socialism is an entire economic system.

Reply 66

PicardianSocialist

6

Original post by Tedaus

Exactly. Lower classes would be destroyed in a Libertarian society and (I know it's the old cliché) the gap between the richest and poorest would be incredible.

That's not a fair society for me. Sometimes I wonder if I'm a Marxist because of how strongly I feel about class injustice.

The rich are the beneficiaries of state-capitalism, not the victims. There's a reason why they are called he ruling class! Without the state to create artificial scarcity and cut off opportunities to the poor, we would live in a much more egalitarian society.

If you are a lefty who wants to understand libertarianism, I would approach it from the left, rather than the right. Groups like The Center For A Stateless Society and people like Kevin Carson (especially if your a Marxist), Roderick Long, Gary Chartier, Charles Johnson and Brad Spangler who pay more attention to poverty, social justice and class analysis will be far more appealing than those on the libertarian 'right' or mainstream like the Ludwig von Mises Institute or Cato.

Reply 67

jesusandtequila

12

Hello all, this should be fun. Personally I'm a geolibertarian - believing that land values should be socialised but labour and capital completely privatised. I believe in a negative income tax system - where all are covered to meet a guaranteed adequate standard of living. I believe Libertarianism would do far more to alleviate poverty, promote equality of opportunity, reduce the power of vested interets, promote economic prosperity and be a far more stable economy than we currently live in. We'd be freer, safer, richer and happier - all across society, especially at the lower end.

This is why I'm a libertarian, and I have no interest in arguing against socialists that wish to have social justice on their ends, but on the means to get there.

Reply 68

chrisawhitmore

14

Original post by the mezzil

Try telling that China!

Well, I would, but they get a bit touchy, largely because when they tried for full socialism about 50 million people got killed.

Reply 69

Muscovite

8

Original post by Rosalind

I could swear your motto is "that's for child molestors"

that too

Reply 70

gweintraub94

Original post by Tedaus

The world isn't all about money. To me it's about fairness and empathy in people who suffer. Socialism is not taking money off of hard working people and giving it to underachievers, it's actually about fairness.

You've probably heard the class argument; why should those born into an poor family suffer because of that?

But what about if you worked as hard as you could, but got made redundant because of job losses in your work place, and were so far up the ladder that you couldn't find another job that your skills suited most? This is a person who has worked hard, got made redundant, but should be told "Tough. Work harder you scrounger."

I actually agree that Marijuana should be made legal and obviously that paedophilia should be illegal, but to me, what you're talking about isn't really Libertarianism. It's more about being able to be free to do things, within reason, which is actually what I believe in. But I think where we differ is that I think things should be illegal should the majority disagree with them. In my opinion this is the foundation of democracy.

I don't think that's the difference in the views in the slightest. I think the major issue not being considered is that the public tends not to take all factors into consideration when deciding on the legitimacy of a given freedom (see marijuana example above)... If we allow/deny a freedom, which other freedoms are being protected/encroached upon?

Reply 71

GHSilver

Original post by Tedaus

The world isn't all about money. To me it's about fairness and empathy in people who suffer. Socialism is not taking money off of hard working people and giving it to underachievers, it's actually about fairness.

You've probably heard the class argument; why should those born into an poor family suffer because of that?

I'm a right wing libertarian and I believe that everyone should have equal (or near equal) opportunity to better oneself in life. This can be done for example with providing free and good quality education. Maybe even provide Courses for adults who want to learn new sets of skills (due to structural unemployment) in order to be competitive in the job market. (Perhaps this could be paid for once the individual gets a job in that field)

Basically always provide the individual with the opportunity to better themselves in order to achieve a better job and a better life.

If (after being given these opportunities) they are still poor to me that's their own fault. Yes people are influenced by their surroundings and we should do our best to promote individual learning in those poorer areas.

As to the class argument. **** classes! Someone from a poor background who works and earns his/her way into a better life is moving from one class to the other. All we need to do is ensure social mobility is possible and have a true meritocracy then the rest comes down to individual effort, and those who don't put in, shouldn't get out.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 72

SocialistIC

8

Well I see myself as a Libertarian Socialist so I'm on both sides of this one. To quote Bakunin "liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice... socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." I believe that both individuality and communality are important aspects of the human condition and "the system" should encourage both rather than one over the other.

Reply 73

ottom

8

Dare I note that the pre-Kinnock Labour Party had the word "liberty" in its logo?

Reply 74

mansergh19

Others have pointed this out already, but I think it's worth reiterating: one can easily be both a socialist and a libertarian. The key premise of libertarian thought is the non-aggression principle ("NAP"), the idea that the initiation of force is always wrong. Once people accept the NAP, they are free to live any kind of life they please so long as they don't use violence outside of self-defense. Hence one can be a "socialistic" (left-leaning) libertarian just as validly as one can be a "capitalistic" (right-leaning) libertarian, or any mixture of the two. I am an example of such a blend: I firmly believe in both the NAP and voluntary socialism (charity, mutual aid, community support) with no consistency lost. The crucial point is not the economic system itself, but the consent of everyone involved.

Reply 75

Martyn*

13

Original post by Ocassus

No, I guarantee you. As defined by the father of socialism; Karl Marx, the common ownership of the tools of production is the primary facet of socialism. Everything else is window dressing.

You are spreading misinformation. Marx was not a Socialist, nor as he anywhere near "the father of Socialism", the father of Socialism in the modern world may have been Robert Owen. Marx was a perversion of some sort of misinterpreted socialism.

Why people cannot get it into their thick skulls that Socialism is the anti-thesis of Communism and all those other perverted ideologies...

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 76

Martyn*

13

Original post by chrisawhitmore

Well, I would, but they get a bit touchy, largely because when they tried for full socialism about 50 million people got killed.

Socialism has never killed anyone. EVER.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 77

chrisawhitmore

14

Original post by Martyn*

Socialism has never killed anyone. EVER.

Ah right. I guess China and Russia were just having a giant party for the last century then. (This is where you fire up the 'no true scotsman' fallacy)

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 78

Martyn*

13

Original post by chrisawhitmore

Ah right. I guess China and Russia were just having a giant party for the last century then. (This is where you fire up the 'no true scotsman' fallacy)

China and Russia have never been Socialist countries. Try reading a book.

Reply 79

Captain Haddock

18

Original post by chrisawhitmore

Ah right. I guess China and Russia were just having a giant party for the last century then. (This is where you fire up the 'no true scotsman' fallacy)

Did socialism cause those deaths or was it authoritarianism and the failures of central planning?

Socialism vs Libertarianism The great debate.

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you