The Student Room Group

Libertarian Socialist Society Thread!

Scroll to see replies

Original post by IFondledAGibbon
There's a socialist and an anarchist society with their own threads, so I thought I'd make one for specifically for the libertarian socialists!

Before anyone says anything, this is not an oxymoron. Socialism is the common ownership of the means of production. A libertarian is a person who advocates liberty. Libertarian socialism should be differentiated from right libertarianism with it's emphasis on capitalism, as opposed to libertarian socialism's anti-capitalism and anti-statism ideals.

Branches of Libertarian Socialism include Anarcho-Communism, Left Marxism, Collectivist anarchism, Anarcho-Syndicalism etc.

So ask, discuss, debate or whatever.

Libertarian Socialist Society


Instead of negging me, perhaps you can enlighten me as to how you're going to abolish scarcity, the subjective value of utility and uncertainty? Then we can all progress to the Great Utopian Society that is libertarian socialism, I'm sure.
What i often notice as an argument to justify capitalism and i think i seen it mentioned somewhere on the first page, is that people's standard of living now, compared to lets say the early 20th century, has improved.

By this logic then, if a people's standard of living improves, it is a justification for the system. Slave communities in America experienced improvements in their standard of living. Is this in itself a justification for slavery?
Which dumbass negged that?
Original post by zedbrar
What i often notice as an argument to justify capitalism and i think i seen it mentioned somewhere on the first page, is that people's standard of living now, compared to lets say the early 20th century, has improved.

By this logic then, if a people's standard of living improves, it is a justification for the system. Slave communities in America experienced improvements in their standard of living. Is this in itself a justification for slavery?


nope - because once they were free their standards of living rose even faster. You have to make comparisons relative instead of absolute. Otherwise you can start justifying utter nonsense.

Freedom and capitalism deeply interlinked ideas. Infact I really interpret capitalism as being the result of freedom. I am not intent on saying capitalism is great. I am intent on saying freedom is great and thus as capitalism is great as a consequence.

Anyway capitalism really holds the moral authority over all the other economic systems. All the others are ultimately dependent on the use of force. Capitalism is the system of voluntary consent. As I pointed out I am not a utilitarian (unlike fondledagibbon). I do not think humans are instruments for some greater good. An individual human is all the matters.

However I am convinced that the approach of individualism will lead to the collective interest.

'We will benefit our fellow man most if we are guided by the striving for gain'

There is no trade off in my eyes between individual interest and collective interest. The 'public interest' simply does not exist as a meaningful concept and it is just an instrument of corrupt politicians. (which is a jolly nice thing)
Original post by turn and fall
Anyway capitalism really holds the moral authority over all the other economic systems. All the others are ultimately dependent on the use of force. Capitalism is the system of voluntary consent. As I pointed out I am not a utilitarian (unlike fondledagibbon). I do not think humans are instruments for some greater good. An individual human is all the matters.


Capitalism is in not exactly voluntary. I shop at Tesco, but it is not a voluntary action but merely my only viable option. Capitalism itself depends upon force to keep it stable. Without government regulations and other forces, there are no restricting factors to stop firms decending into oligopolies and monopolies. Consumers need to be able to exert force to not be exploited by companies charging very high prices and cutting costs through lowering quality. I don't think anybody voluntarily chooses to be over-charged.

Original post by turn and fall
However I am convinced that the approach of individualism will lead to the collective interest.

'We will benefit our fellow man most if we are guided by the striving for gain'

There is no trade off in my eyes between individual interest and collective interest. The 'public interest' simply does not exist as a meaningful concept and it is just an instrument of corrupt politicians. (which is a jolly nice thing)


I disagree again with this here. One individuals interest might not be in the collectivists interest. One individual interests have externalities which are they often do not take account for. An example would be again Tesco. In Bristol, Tesco attempted to set up a store which was opposed by the community. The public interest was to not have a Tesco store on their high street. In your eyes, Tesco were acting in their 'individual interest' and the 'public interest' simply doesn't exist.
One question, what the **** is a libertarian socialist.

If you believe in socialism in any way and call yourself a libertarian, you are a disgrace to libertarianism, period.
'libertarian socialist' = communist.'

:facepalm2:
Reply 47
Original post by gtmanning123
One question, what the **** is a libertarian socialist.

If you believe in socialism in any way and call yourself a libertarian, you are a disgrace to libertarianism, period.


Well, this is a very good question. One which needs to be addressed with regards to the history of the world 'libertarianism'. Libertarianism is actually not a political philosophy, rather a sort of metaphysical one. It came out of the debate between the metaphysical determinists and the lot who believed in 'free will', that is, libertarians.

Modern day 'Libertarians' call themselves such, in order to distinguish themselves from the type of Liberalism that exists today in the US and UK (Lib Dems), which has more or less abandoned most of the original ideas of 'Classical Liberalism' that were espoused by the likes of Adam Smith, John-Stuart Mill, William Gladstone and such. On top of that, I feel, they wanted to provide a very stark contrast with Socialism, which really placed no virtue on any notion of free will, or freedom of the individual.

So, a person can technically be a Libertarian and be Socialist, but there is no way for a person to be a true Liberal and be a Socialist.
Original post by gtmanning123
If you believe in socialism in any way and call yourself a libertarian, you are a disgrace to libertarianism, period.


To add to the above libertarian socialists do subsribe to certain tenants that are believed in by those libertarians on the right of the spectrum; individual responsibility and liberty within the collective.

An important tenant to individual responsibility is that one is not 'constantly suckling of the teat of a nanny state', so to speak, but working to earn one's wealth and capital. For this reason, those 'libertarian socialists' do not seek to simply hand feed outs on a whim but seek to distribute capital in a manner in which everyone in a population is engaged in business affairs, with a firm stake in the economy.

Imagine a free market of capitalist firms competing to provide the best services for the consumer - then imagine a market of worker syndicates competing to provide the best services for the consumer.

Also, technically speaking, the term Libertarian was first applied to the economy by anarcho-communists in the 1800s to describe an economy that did not suppress individual autonomy, liberty and responsibility (though even earlier than that, it was used in the Enlightenment to describe a believer in 'free will' as D.R.E identifies), as opposed to the relatively recent use of the term in the last part of the 20th Century (1970, I believe) by the American Libertarian parties.

But all Libertarian Socialists are necessarily 'revolutionaries' - otherwise they would just be glorified (modern/social) liberals. You may be interested in some of Sorel's works during the early 20th Century, in which Sorel observes the Spainish labour movement and identifies violence as a prime feature of all organic life and pessimistic attitudes to human nature by socialists and syndicalists alike whilst simultaneously glorifying productivity in a society (though I must add that those on the left are sometimes guilty of only seeing the 'hard work' of physical labour, alienating productivity from the voluntary relationship between customer and producer).

Original post by D.R.E
UK (Lib Dems), which has more or less abandoned most of the original ideas of 'Classical Liberalism'


Not completely - there exists an 'orange book liberal' ovement in the UK lib dems with some free market undertones that seek to 'orange over' the Lib Dem party (and with the evident disapproval of some on the left at the Lib Dems they may well be successful with time to come - if Lib Dems aren't to scathed at the next election, that is) and even the Social Democrats in the party have always been 'to the right' of Labour.

There is still hope for Liberalism in Britain!
(edited 12 years ago)
Reply 49
I support a collectivist economic system, based on the democratisation of the means of production, and for this to be backed up by a system of federalised 'councils' or 'assemblies'. Marxist-Leninists would probably call my support for federalism a petty-bourgeois notion but... meh.
Original post by Geraldine
I support a collectivist economic system, based on the democratisation of the means of production, and for this to be backed up by a system of federalised 'councils' or 'assemblies'. Marxist-Leninists would probably call my support for federalism a petty-bourgeois notion but... meh.


When Marxists sometimes describe the notion of Libertarian Socialism 'petty bourgeois' it is not a derogatory term (except, maybe when used by amateurs) but a scientific term in analysis of the relationship between producers and the means of production under syndicalist arrangements of the economy; they become petty bourgeois because they become self-employed capital owners, if you like, a step that is 'inbetween' the proletariat who sells his labour to capital and the bourgeois who owns capital and buys labour as a commodity. A feature of the Marxian arrangement of the economy would be the concept of the national dividend in all private property. Marxists would argue that any Libertarian Socialist arrangements would inevitably revert back to capitalism for a variety of complex reasons, including the fact that the freedom of labour is stunted and the subsequent unstability of the economy for example.
(edited 12 years ago)
Reply 51
Original post by AnarchistNutter
When Marxists sometimes describe the notion of Libertarian Socialism 'petty bourgeois' it is not a derogatory term (except, maybe when used by amateurs) but a scientific term in analysis of the relationship between producers and the means of production under syndicalist arrangements of the economy; they become petty bourgeois because they become self-employed capital owners, if you like, a step that is 'inbetween' the proletariat who sells his labour to capital and the bourgeois who owns capital and buys labour as a commodity. A feature of the Marxian arrangement of the economy would be the concept of the national dividend in all private property. Marxists would argue that any Libertarian Socialist arrangements would inevitably revert back to capitalism for a variety of complex reasons, including the fact that the freedom of labour is stunted and the subsequent unstability of the economy for example.


This is why I refered to Marxist-Leninists - it was a pointer to the groups (self-labelled M-Ls) that use that sort of terminology in a derogatory way. Petty bourgeois was I think initially directed towards the sort of French-style artisanal approach (i.e., the self-employed that you speak of), but there is a tendency I find among many Marxists to expand that concept...
Original post by Geraldine
This is why I refered to Marxist-Leninists - it was a pointer to the groups (self-labelled M-Ls) that use that sort of terminology in a derogatory way. Petty bourgeois was I think initially directed towards the sort of French-style artisanal approach (i.e., the self-employed that you speak of), but there is a tendency I find among many Marxists to expand that concept...


I was refering to both Marxists and Leninists but Marxist-Leninist was too long too continuously type. Some of Marx's own works were more 'Libertarian', some more on the 'Authoritarian' side of socialism.
Reply 53
I'm a Liberal Socialist rather than a Libertarian Socialist :erm:
Original post by mevidek
I'm a Liberal Socialist rather than a Libertarian Socialist :erm:


One cannot truly be a liberal and a socialist for modern liberals (not classical liberals), whilst seeking wealth redistribution (welfare/social security), seek to 'work around' the capitalist mode of production; socialists seek to abolish the capitalist mode of production.
Reply 55
Original post by AnarchistNutter
One cannot truly be a liberal and a socialist for modern liberals (not classical liberals), whilst seeking wealth redistribution (welfare/social security), seek to 'work around' the capitalist mode of production; socialists seek to abolish the capitalist mode of production.


Liberalism - believing in personal freedoms and a regulated economy
Libertarianism - believing in personal freedoms and an unregulated economy
Original post by mevidek
Liberalism - believing in personal freedoms and a regulated economy

But a regulated economy does not equate to collectivised means of production (socialism). This is my point.
Reply 57
AnarchistNutter is correct. It is impossible to be both a liberal and a socialist, they are two totally different conceptions of how society should be and is (in terms of the historical perspective).
Reply 58
Original post by AnarchistNutter
But a regulated economy does not equate to collectivised means of production (socialism). This is my point.


Well we can still work with it to create a socialist society...
I'm off to bed now, so I'm not going to bother saying anything constructive other than that I'm in. :biggrin:

Quick Reply

Latest