[Classical Liberal]

(Original post by Oswy)
But, again, that's not really an argument against him, it's just name-calling from someone who is very obviously hostile to left-leaning economic arguments generally.

He is in favour of some kind of vaguely defined collective ownership model. And I am totally against that as not only will it be phenomenally inefficient because of the problem of decentralised knowledge but more importantly I am convinced it would lead to dictatorship because the system would be so inefficient (I am convinced starvation would be a serious problem) then a 'strong' man would be elected to command all the resources. And of course that strong man would turn into a tyrannical leader. Which is not what Chomsky would want but it is what I think his ideas would ultimately end up with.

[Oswy]

(Original post by Classical Liberal)
He is in favour of some kind of vaguely defined collective ownership model. And I am totally against that as not only will it be phenomenally inefficient because of the problem of decentralised knowledge but more importantly I am convinced it would lead to dictatorship because the system would be so inefficient (I am convinced starvation would be a serious problem) then a 'strong' man would be elected to command all the resources. And of course that strong man would turn into a tyrannical leader. Which is not what Chomsky would want but it is what I think his ideas would ultimately end up with.

That's better in that at least you're offering up his position - as you see it - and giving an explanation of why you reject it.

[HistoryRepeating]

The OP is a Socialist who simply redefines "Libertarian" to mean nothing.

Libertarian means opposed to governmental or quasi-governmental control on the acts of individuals.

Collective ownership of capital is the ultimate antithesis of this.

[Classical Liberal]

(Original post by Oswy)
That's better in that at least you're offering up his position - as you see it - and giving an explanation of why you reject it.

Thanks teacher. Could I have an A please?

[Oswy]

(Original post by HistoryRepeating)
The OP is a Socialist who simply redefines "Libertarian" to mean nothing.

Libertarian means opposed to governmental or quasi-governmental control on the acts of individuals.

Collective ownership of capital is the ultimate antithesis of this.

Except the term 'libertarian' has had shifting meaning, historically speaking, with its original usage, AFAIK, mostly being associated with the left.

[HistoryRepeating]

(Original post by Oswy)
Except the term 'libertarian' has had shifting meaning, historically speaking, with its original usage, AFAIK, mostly being associated with the left.

The mistake you are making is thinking that the "left" in the original meaning (anti-monarchist) has anything in common with the modern left.

Modern libertarians would have formed part of the original left camp.

The left-wing right-wing dichotomy has always been a bit of a nonsense

[prog2djent]

The original libertarians were anarhists and socialists (who were also anarchists) before Marx came along.

And the libertarians that sit on the left were't sat there under the right-left paradigm we understand today (in its most basic form) as individualism vs collectivism. Those that sat on the left during the french revolutionary period were those that simply opposed the monarch and the King ala feudalism. So capitalists were also sat on the left with the anarchists and socialists, Bastiat, Proudhon and bonepart.

Even so, Libertarianism is rooted in left wing economics. They stole the term liberal from the free marketeers or 'classical liberals' in the early 20th century so they stole libertarianism (particularly in America) from them.

All views from left and right libertarians are exactly the same except for private property, which is the root of a few other branches which differ.

[Randell Turbruss]

(Original post by Classical Liberal)
Absolutely none of that has anything to do with democracy. What does voting on stuff have to do with that. I think what you might prefer is a constitutional republic.

People usually conjure up arguments in rebuttals, especially when their claims are contrary to conventional wisdom. Discussion doesn’t really progress with the absence of argumentation.

To make this easy, I'll elaborate on my claims one-by-one – though I think the task of showing my statements have ‘anything to do with democracy’ is tremendously weak.

a) Autonomy; defined uncontroversially as freedom from coercion and self-determination, that is, the ability to substantively direct oneself – say, minimally held in the ability to form, revise and pursue a conception of the good. The exertion of this so defined autonomy hardly finds reality (at present) in the principle site of human experience in life – the workplace, where strict lines of hierarchy exist which funnel down dictates, and workers have little control over the subject and environment of the labour. There is little room for the effective exercise of self in any meaningful way. The extension of democracy to the economic sphere thus presents itself; granting control over ones immediate environment and precluding the depressive, alienating conditions aforementioned.

b) The exertion and development of self and faculties; this analysis flows directly from the last point – for the exercise of effective autonomy is an obvious precondition for the development of capacities. When autonomy is absent, say in capitalist relations of production – then the intellect, creativity and meaningful self of workers is not called upon or recognised, if anything the contrary occurs, and they are depressed. This is not a novel concept, and finds articulation from Aristotle to Mill. Charles Taylor’s conception of Atomism is interesting here, who argues (I think strongly) that ‘rights’ derive their substance from a respect for capacities, and that the accordance of rights without correlative development of capacities renders those rights hollow –e.g. the value of the right to freedom of choice diminishes drastically when peoples capacity for choice is not cultivated – that is, that it realises itself and brakes free from states of false-consciousness, ignorance, superstition etc.

c) Cultivation of an active character; that is, the deliberative/engaged character necessary for a flourishing public sphere and effective and energised democracy – classical democratic theory forwards this as one the central functions of democratic/workplace participation, and as a necessary precondition for a stable and substantive national democracy. I'll quote Mill because I have it at hand; “a democratic constitution, not supported by democratic institutions in detail, but confined to the central government, not only is not political freedom, but often creates a spirit precisely the reverse, carrying down to the lowest grade in society the desire and ambition of political domination”. Carole Pateman's 'Participation and Democratic Theory' is pretty good in framing this argument, and undoing Schumpeterian revisionism regarding participation and democratic theory. Joshua Cohen's argument from Psychological Support essential articulates much the same.

d) Self-esteem; that contemporary workplace conditions depress the self should be evident enough from a/b/c – social (psychological) research / industrial relations papers are near ubiquitous in their finding that workplace empowerment / self-management are critical preconditions for self respect. See this meta-analysis.

A substantive sphere of autonomy beyond that guaranteed by a basic set of liberties is required for the obtainment of these ends – facilitated through systems of self-management. That is, not a constitutional republic.

The statements still stand;

1) In what manner can economic democracy be said to necessarily lead to 'dictatorial control'?
2) Negatively speaking, if persons don't exercise equal control of themselves, then who does, and where does such a person derive that right from?

(Original post by Classical Liberal)
Again that has nothing to do with democracy. The highlighted part is again covered by a republic not a democracy. Voting on stuff does not secure the individual rights of men, it is a direct threat to them..

I don’t think treating persons as free and equal, as ends and not means and with dignity and respect permits a system whereby arbitrarily circumstanced persons are denied effective autonomy, and in many cases become virtual appendages of machines, committed to mechanistic, tedious labour – in fact its transparent that such a social system unsatisfactorily treats those people as means to the end of capital (something which interestingly undermines capitalism as embodying a substantive conception of self-ownership on a Nozickean account). I did not mention rights, but I maintain a basic set of inviolable liberties as fundamental to any social union (nor did I specify any voting procedure, I hardly see how consensus based voting could plausibly abrogate participants rights) – and democracy is simply the maximally just medium under which self-management can proceed, the fair terms for guiding cooperation. Who else has right to dictate to others?

(Original post by Classical Liberal)
Suppose everybody was to vote on industry. That would mean you might get some kind of vote on the business I am involved with. Obviously you would make terrible votes because you do not have a clue, unless you work in particle sizing, what is a good idea.

This is the problem of atomised specialised knowledge and all notions against capitalism. We can know what is a good idea in our immediate environment, that is why giving workers in many cases more autonomy in their own area is a good idea, but when you give power to essentially ignorant people then do not suprised if they make bad votes…

Hopefully you can recognise this problem. The solution that would likely be proposed is that a strong smart 'informed' man be given the final say so that things can get done..

That’s a strawman, I said nothing of the form democratic structures that I advocate. No one maintains that everybody should vote on industry, but rather advocate systems of self-management internal to industries. A common misperception of economic democracy is that voting would extend to subjects that its participants are not sufficiently informed in to legitimately shape. However few (if any) forward this idea - a common guiding principle to libertarian socialism, for example, is that people should only participate in forms of self-management regarding subjects in as far as they concern them. Similarly, the delegation of responsibility is seen as a perfectly legitimate form of organisation, in which systems of bottom-up responsibility grant room for those with technical knowledge and expertise to operate.
These structures are not theorised to bind every action to every person, it’s far more nuanced and elaborate, there’s endless literature on the subject.

(Original post by Classical Liberal)
I do not expect to see Physicists ramble on about economics and politics and then cited as a robust source. Chomsky I have no doubt is very smart and knows a lot about Linguistics but when it comes to political economy he is clueless.

This is simply a sophomoric ad hominem attack – if you want to levy a criticism of someone focus it on the substance!

[Classical Liberal]

(Original post by Randell Turbruss)
x

Just a simple question.

Who do the workers work for?

[Randell Turbruss]

(Original post by Classical Liberal)
Just a simple question.

Who do the workers work for?

I've simply been stating the desirability of some form of self-management, I've said nothing of the extent or form of that self-management beyond its fundaments. I'm not sure what your asking me, economic democracy exists as a continuum, one can incorporate it into an economy in greatly varying degrees. From introducing basic elements of democratic procedure into the contemporary workforce, to an advocation of a property owning democracy, to market socialism, to common ownership of the means of production. If your asking me in the context of fully fledged economic democracy, then - seemingly intuitively, the question is almost non-sensical, they do not work for anyway, but rather within a form of social cooperation structured on fair terms for all. If you're trying to funnel me into explicitly commiting myself to collectivism and thus lay grounds for attacking me from individualism - i think if one extracts the foundations from formal rights and much rightist/libertarian arguments, then it follows that genuine and substantive protection of the individual requires forms of self-management. If you have a problem with that, then attack the substance of my previous comment. In fact, it would be great if you could take argument with my previous comment - do you deny the value of autonomy and/or its realisation in forms of self-management? etc. It's a little tiring to write an extensive reply to a rebuttal without substance only for that very reply to be ignored.

[Classical Liberal]

(Original post by Randell Turbruss)
x

Okay you have gone completely off track, perhaps I did not word my question well.

In a capitalist economy who do the workers actually work for?

[Classical Liberal]

(Original post by Randell Turbruss)
a) Autonomy; defined uncontroversially as freedom from coercion and self-determination, that is, the ability to substantively direct oneself – say, minimally held in the ability to form, revise and pursue a conception of the good. The exertion of this so defined autonomy hardly finds reality (at present) in the principle site of human experience in life – the workplace, where strict lines of hierarchy exist which funnel down dictates, and workers have little control over the subject and environment of the labour. There is little room for the effective exercise of self in any meaningful way. The extension of democracy to the economic sphere thus presents itself; granting control over ones immediate environment and precluding the depressive, alienating conditions aforementioned.

You are free to leave your job. If you do not like what you have to do for the wage you are paid then you are free to leave. In this country you can even get some benefits and what not. I would argue that people have a good deal of automony in our advanced capitalist economy.

b) The exertion and development of self and faculties; this analysis flows directly from the last point – for the exercise of effective autonomy is an obvious precondition for the development of capacities. When autonomy is absent, say in capitalist relations of production – then the intellect, creativity and meaningful self of workers is not called upon or recognised, if anything the contrary occurs, and they are depressed. This is not a novel concept, and finds articulation from Aristotle to Mill. Charles Taylor’s conception of Atomism is interesting here, who argues (I think strongly) that ‘rights’ derive their substance from a respect for capacities, and that the accordance of rights without correlative development of capacities renders those rights hollow –e.g. the value of the right to freedom of choice diminishes drastically when peoples capacity for choice is not cultivated – that is, that it realises itself and brakes free from states of false-consciousness, ignorance, superstition etc.

This is all very well and good. I think you are arguing that giving the workers more autonomony, which in practice they do have, will improve their happiness. The problem with this argument is that there is nothing stopping firms operating in this way. However this type of operation 'might' be inefficient in some cases. And thus if workers want more autonomy then they will have to accept lower wages.

If McDonalds, for example, was run by the actual workers it would be very inefficient and thus the workers would get a lower wage as the company would sell less burgers.

d) Self-esteem; that contemporary workplace conditions depress the self should be evident enough from a/b/c – social (psychological) research / industrial relations papers are near ubiquitous in their finding that workplace empowerment / self-management are critical preconditions for self respect. See this meta-analysis.

Again, workers in a free market are able to set up their own business or work for somebody else who meets their 'psychological' needs.

A substantive sphere of autonomy beyond that guaranteed by a basic set of liberties is required for the obtainment of these ends – facilitated through systems of self-management. That is, not a constitutional republic.

It is not a democracy.

Constitutional republics just lay out what the government may not do to the individual. That is, it protects the freedom of the individual from a coercive institution.

1) In what manner can economic democracy be said to necessarily lead to 'dictatorial control'?

I have dealt with that earlier in the thread. It is essentially a slippery slope argument.

Who else has right to dictate to others?

What the bloody hell are you going on about. Do you live in the UK in the 21t century?

A common misperception of economic democracy is that voting would extend to subjects that its participants are not sufficiently informed in to legitimately shape. However few (if any) forward this idea - a common guiding principle to libertarian socialism, for example, is that people should only participate in forms of self-management regarding subjects in as far as they concern them. Similarly, the delegation of responsibility is seen as a perfectly legitimate form of organisation, in which systems of bottom-up responsibility grant room for those with technical

And what defines 'concerns' them. The computer the microsoft creates concerns me, should I get to vote on what they make (hint : in a capitalist economy that is effectively the case).

[Randell Turbruss]

(Original post by Classical Liberal)
You are free to leave your job. If you do not like what you have to do for the wage you are paid then you are free to leave. In this country you can even get some benefits and what not. I would argue that people have a good deal of automony in our advanced capitalist economy.

This evades direct engagement with the concept if autonomy, it does not speak at all to self-direction - your premise is tremendously weak for your final sweeping remark.

Saying the depressive conditions internal to capitalist relations of production are acceptable (presumably normatively dominant on your account?) because workers contract themselves in, and are free to leave – reminds me heavily of Hume's famous critique of social contract theory, that is; can we really say someone born into indigence with an average skill-set and no grasp of foreign language, and living from day to day on the small wages they acquire, has the meaningful choice to abstain from that system? Similarly, can we really say someone born into indigence with an average skill-set, and living from day to day on the small wages they acquire, the only asset they have their labour-power, has the meaningful choice to abstain from work? The reality is that the majority of people have to work under such conditions in order to live, something born by arbitrary circumstance (people don't choose which class or talent-bracket they are born into) and the structure under which they find themselves. And that's a structural distribution of productive assets without tenable recourse to justice, one which finds its holdings – upon inspection, if one looks at where property was transferred from, and where that was transferred from, and so on and so forth – in an uncontroversially unjust initial appropriation, by and large a reflection of power and brute force.

(Original post by Classical Liberal)
This is all very well and good. I think you are arguing that giving the workers more autonomony, which in practice they do have, will improve their happiness.

No, I am not, please leave the articulation of my claims to me.

(Original post by Classical Liberal)
The problem with this argument is that there is nothing stopping firms operating in this way. However this type of operation 'might' be inefficient in some cases. And thus if workers want more autonomy then they will have to accept lower wages.


If McDonalds, for example, was run by the actual workers it would be very inefficient and thus the workers would get a lower wage as the company would sell less burgers.

This seems quite a superficial inspection, there most certainly are things stopping firms operating in that way – there are many not inconsiderable obstacles inhibiting the ability of workers to make inroads into private ownership of the means of production at present day – namely the swathes of power conferred by capital that private owners use to diminish the possibility of such. Pre-existing firms operating in modes of internal structure denying self-management obviously have a significant vested interest in preserving substantial control – those at the top of hierarchy want to maintain vastly unequal wage differentials. The claims that workers themselves could amass capital sufficient to create their own firms is often finds strong resistance in sources of private ownership – where these sorts of small firms have arisen harassment has often taken place, and bottlenecks for raw materials, underselling by price fixing and a chronic lack of capital have been the response. Though besides these reflections, there do exist self-managing firms across the world – and the end to which advocates of economic democracy strive is not the creation of new firms, but the reclaiming of pre-existing firms.

(Original post by Classical Liberal)
It is not a democracy.

Constitutional republics just lay out what the government may not do to the individual. That is, it protects the freedom of the individual from a coercive institution.

Did I say it was a democracy? I don't see how your response correlates to my statement – though as far as i'm aware a constitutional republic is a (representative) democracy – a republic with a constitution...

(Original post by Classical Liberal)
I have dealt with that earlier in the thread. It is essentially a slippery slope argument.

Do you care to repeat it, or at least copy & paste it, I do not particularly want to trawl through this thread to find it.

(Original post by Classical Liberal)
What the bloody hell are you going on about. Do you live in the UK in the 21t century?

I'm struggling to find the relevance/meaning of your response. What's the problem you have with this statement? Who has the right to exert authority over another?

(Original post by Classical Liberal)
And what defines 'concerns' them. The computer the microsoft creates concerns me, should I get to vote on what they make (hint : in a capitalist economy that is effectively the case).

I can hardly reference an incredibly myriad theoretical literature - to give you one response though, if your referencing the subject of which labour serves to create - then, on, say, a pareconist line, it is principally determined by consumer councils which articulate demand. But the focus of a firm and the manner in which it undertakes production is undertaken by is primary determined by its workforce - and the subject of a particular part of the labour-process is determined by those immediately involved etc.

[Classical Liberal]

(Original post by Randell Turbruss)
This evades direct engagement with the concept if autonomy, it does not speak at all to self-direction - your premise is tremendously weak for your final sweeping remark.

Do you know who the people who have absolute autonomy? Tramps.

The fact of the matter is that if you want to be able to feed yourself and keep yourself warm (these are all resources that other people produce) then you have to do something useful for somebody else. This notion that workers should and can have autonomy is nonsense. I am pretty convinced people who push ideas like yours have probably never had a proper job.

For example. I work in software development in an engineering firm. Our engineers would often come up to us and ask for some functionality that they wanted for their own intellectual interest. We would often put the functionality they were asking for in. This meant we had to spend time and forgo other functionaility to give the other workers wanted. This sounds a lot to me, like your notions of worker autonomy. We were not being told by management what to do and we were deriving authority to do things from ourselves and our co workers. Sounds great.

The problem was when the product got to the consumer, the person who was actually paying for it, they had lots of useless functionality (because the engineers wanted it) and because we had devoted time to that we had not put stuff in the software which the customer actually wanted. This meant we made less profit. And thus we got less money.

Now we have weekly meetings where ideas are thrown out. However there is a manager who ultimately decides what we put in the software (now we have lost some of out autonomy). He is in direct communication with our customers. This means that we put functionality in the software that the customer actually wants rather than the workers. And thus we make more money.

The notion that firms should be run by workers from the bottom up could happen but those firms would probably not serve the customer very well thus they would be outcompeted.

This seems quite a superficial inspection, there most certainly are things stopping firms operating in that way – there are many not inconsiderable obstacles inhibiting the ability of workers to make inroads into private ownership of the means of production at present day – namely the swathes of power conferred by capital that private owners use to diminish the possibility of such.

How do they do that? Is it some kind of conspiracy from the share holders of FTSE250 companies or something?

Pre-existing firms operating in modes of internal structure denying self-management obviously have a significant vested interest in preserving substantial control – those at the top of hierarchy want to maintain vastly unequal wage differentials.

Most big firms have large amount of self management. It is quite simply impossible to control all the workers. It is fair more efficient in many cases to give people some goals and then let them get on with it.

The claims that workers themselves could amass capital sufficient to create their own firms is often finds strong resistance in sources of private ownership – where these sorts of small firms have arisen harassment has often taken place, and bottlenecks for raw materials, underselling by price fixing and a chronic lack of capital have been the response.

Sorry. Those are statements but they are statements that are not true. Most firms actually small ones. And the big ones are often controlled by the public as shate holders.

Though besides these reflections, there do exist self-managing firms across the world – and the end to which advocates of economic democracy strive is not the creation of new firms, but the reclaiming of pre-existing firms.

Most firms are small.

Let me ask you? What was there to stop all those trade unions of the pre Thatcher era coming together and running their own firm. They definitely had enough capital to do something? Or would the prefer to work for others and lobby for higher wages?

Did I say it was a democracy? I don't see how your response correlates to my statement – though as far as i'm aware a constitutional republic is a (representative) democracy – a republic with a constitution...

Democracy is voting. Democracy is not an ideal it is a methodology for organisation.

Do you care to repeat it, or at least copy & paste it, I do not particularly want to trawl through this thread to find it.

He is in favour of some kind of vaguely defined collective ownership model (Chomsky). And I am totally against that as not only will it be phenomenally inefficient because of the problem of decentralised knowledge but more importantly I am convinced it would lead to dictatorship because the system would be so inefficient (I am convinced starvation would be a serious problem) then a 'strong' man would be elected to command all the resources. And of course that strong man would turn into a tyrannical leader. Which is not what Chomsky would want but it is what I think his ideas would ultimately end up with.

I can hardly reference an incredibly myriad theoretical literature - to give you one response though, if your referencing the subject of which labour serves to create - then, on, say, a pareconist line, it is principally determined by consumer councils which articulate demand. But the focus of a firm and the manner in which it undertakes production is undertaken by is primary determined by its workforce - and the subject of a particular part of the labour-process is determined by those immediately involved etc.

So if the consumer council said that what the workers were doing was unacceptable, perhaps the quality of the food produced was not high enough and people were going hungry, the consumer council would be powerless to actually do anything other than politely ask the workers do to a a better job?

Or would the consumer council ultimately be able to able to compell the workers to step into line to serve the consumer?

[When you see it...]

Does anyone here have an opinion on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_communism
I think it would be good for certain industries and sections of the economy (i.e. factories, manufacturing if you get me - would stop profiteering and keep workers motivated) but not so good for other things (can't think of an example now but I had a good idea the other day).
Anyway, more generally, do you think we should have one system that determines how the entire economy is treated (or not treated) or do you think it would be better if you took bits from different systems and applied them to different scenarios as appropriate. It seems silly to try to make a future-proof economic policy as it would inevitably become outdated and if you tried to cling on to it, however useful it was in the past, it just can't work for everything forever.
I don't know much about economics, so I could be talking out my arse, but something tells me I am correct. How can the same approach work for everything all the time? Surely we need to be open minded about these things.
Finally, what are your opinions on entrepreneurs/inventors/etc.
Capitalists would argue that the current system (or even a more laissez-faire version of the current system) is best for delivering innovation because such people are motivated by the promise of wealth if there ideas can make it into the real world. However, I think that the reason why the free market is better for this is not because of the potential money that people like Bill Gates are promised, but because of the freedom that they get to think how they want. In a planned economy, aren't such people told what to invent and stuff like that? This harms innovation.
What if a socialist enterprise was set up that gave its innovators freedom (within reasonable limits) to do what they want and persue ventures that they feel will be good, without having to appease these 'wealth creators' (as they are often called) with money. Give them a standard wage, but more autonomy than unskilled workers. Does anyone see what I'm saying? I identify a lot with socialism, but I have a problem with the idea of a planned economy because it seems like it could slow progress (if that makes sense). Rather than coming up with a system which is a compromise between socialism and capitalism, why can't we come up with ways (not necessarily an entire system for reasons I mentioned before) to combine the best aspects of both, rather than sacrificing some of the equal opportunity (which itself increases the chances of innovation surely? As more people will have been given the education/means to implement their ideas, so more good ideas are implemented) of socialism and some of the intellectual freedom (which is wasted in pure capitalism because of the lack of equal opportunity, which benefits innovation as explained above) of capitalism. If the two things were somehow made to co-exist, surely it would be better than any compromise between the two? I don't think I am being very clear in what I am suggesting (should be revising anyway, so maybe I am distracted), but I hope some people on here can either point me to some theories (or thriving organisations) similar to what I have suggested, give some constructive criticism or some encouragement to explore these ideas further.
BTW one example of where fair wealth distribution and autonomy coexist is in academic scientific research. The scientists work in academia because they are given more autonomy than in industry, despite companies presumanly offering them more money. It is for this reason I think that we don't have to appease the wealth-creators/innovators with money, but instead provide them with freedom to persue whatever projects they want, which I believe will deliver more postive change to the world than pure capitalism, pure socialism or any compromise between the two.
I do however think that a capitalist 'option' should always still exist (similar to how industrial scientific research still happens despite the success of academia). This is because, if people are still wanting to work for a company, then why should we stop them? Compliance with this particular facet of socialism should be 'opt-in' IMO. I guess I just believe in the free market really, just not in capitalism (if that makes any sense to you at all). Also, for some aspects of the economy (can't think of any from the top of my head), surely a capitalist approach would be better? I mean, it has worked well for like 150-200 years, whereas socialist economies seem to not have done, so surely there must be some aspects of it that are good, or at least better than the socialist alternative.
Sorry for the long post (am procrastinating revision atm, so took my time with this). I posted this here because libertarian socialism is the ideology that I agree most with (I kind of refuse to label myself with any one thing though as my opinions are always changing and the day I take my opinions/beliefs for granted is the day my brain dies) so I think I will get the best debate here.
Now just to gain the attention of some people:

(Original post by Classical Liberal)
x

I'm curious as to your take on this.

(Original post by Randell Turbruss)
x

Hello. Never seen you on TSR befor but you've posted here so surely you have an opinion?

(Original post by prog2djent)
x

Yo.

(Original post by HistoryRepeating)
x

(Original post by Oswy)
x

Why are/were people even debating the meaning of the term 'libertarian'? Given that it's pretty obvous what libertarian socialism means, it seems quite pedantic and doesn't really matter. Sorry, I was just replying to the content of your post, which I have now replaced with an x.

(Original post by IFondledAGibbon)
x

Ressurecting your thread (hopefully).

(Original post by Sammydemon)
x

Any opinions?

(Original post by Aj12)
Ok so Socialism common ownership ok. SO would people be free to launch their own enterprises? How can you have a fully free society if people cannot own things?

The content of this post seems relevant to what I've been saying, so maybe you have a perspetive on this?

(Original post by Bourgeois)
x

Yo.

(Original post by Dahut)
May I mention that libertarian socialism doesn't equal anarchism. There are libertarian socialist that include a state, at least for a period, like council communism, autonomism, communalism and participism.

Any opinions on council communism specifically?

[When you see it...]

(Original post by When you see it...)
Does anyone here have an opinion on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_communism
I think it would be good for certain industries and sections of the economy (i.e. factories, manufacturing if you get me - would stop profiteering and keep workers motivated) but not so good for other things (can't think of an example now but I had a good idea the other day).
Anyway, more generally, do you think we should have one system that determines how the entire economy is treated (or not treated) or do you think it would be better if you took bits from different systems and applied them to different scenarios as appropriate. It seems silly to try to make a future-proof economic policy as it would inevitably become outdated and if you tried to cling on to it, however useful it was in the past, it just can't work for everything forever.
I don't know much about economics, so I could be talking out my arse, but something tells me I am correct. How can the same approach work for everything all the time? Surely we need to be open minded about these things.
Finally, what are your opinions on entrepreneurs/inventors/etc.
Capitalists would argue that the current system (or even a more laissez-faire version of the current system) is best for delivering innovation because such people are motivated by the promise of wealth if there ideas can make it into the real world. However, I think that the reason why the free market is better for this is not because of the potential money that people like Bill Gates are promised, but because of the freedom that they get to think how they want. In a planned economy, aren't such people told what to invent and stuff like that? This harms innovation.
What if a socialist enterprise was set up that gave its innovators freedom (within reasonable limits) to do what they want and persue ventures that they feel will be good, without having to appease these 'wealth creators' (as they are often called) with money. Give them a standard wage, but more autonomy than unskilled workers. Does anyone see what I'm saying? I identify a lot with socialism, but I have a problem with the idea of a planned economy because it seems like it could slow progress (if that makes sense). Rather than coming up with a system which is a compromise between socialism and capitalism, why can't we come up with ways (not necessarily an entire system for reasons I mentioned before) to combine the best aspects of both, rather than sacrificing some of the equal opportunity (which itself increases the chances of innovation surely? As more people will have been given the education/means to implement their ideas, so more good ideas are implemented) of socialism and some of the intellectual freedom (which is wasted in pure capitalism because of the lack of equal opportunity, which benefits innovation as explained above) of capitalism. If the two things were somehow made to co-exist, surely it would be better than any compromise between the two? I don't think I am being very clear in what I am suggesting (should be revising anyway, so maybe I am distracted), but I hope some people on here can either point me to some theories (or thriving organisations) similar to what I have suggested, give some constructive criticism or some encouragement to explore these ideas further.
BTW one example of where fair wealth distribution and autonomy coexist is in academic scientific research. The scientists work in academia because they are given more autonomy than in industry, despite companies presumanly offering them more money. It is for this reason I think that we don't have to appease the wealth-creators/innovators with money, but instead provide them with freedom to persue whatever projects they want, which I believe will deliver more postive change to the world than pure capitalism, pure socialism or any compromise between the two.
I do however think that a capitalist 'option' should always still exist (similar to how industrial scientific research still happens despite the success of academia). This is because, if people are still wanting to work for a company, then why should we stop them? Compliance with this particular facet of socialism should be 'opt-in' IMO. I guess I just believe in the free market really, just not in capitalism (if that makes any sense to you at all). Also, for some aspects of the economy (can't think of any from the top of my head), surely a capitalist approach would be better? I mean, it has worked well for like 150-200 years, whereas socialist economies seem to not have done, so surely there must be some aspects of it that are good, or at least better than the socialist alternative.
Sorry for the long post (am procrastinating revision atm, so took my time with this). I posted this here because libertarian socialism is the ideology that I agree most with (I kind of refuse to label myself with any one thing though as my opinions are always changing and the day I take my opinions/beliefs for granted is the day my brain dies) so I think I will get the best debate here.
Now just to gain the attention of some people:



I'm curious as to your take on this.



Hello. Never seen you on TSR befor but you've posted here so surely you have an opinion?



Yo.







Why are/were people even debating the meaning of the term 'libertarian'? Given that it's pretty obvous what libertarian socialism means, it seems quite pedantic and doesn't really matter. Sorry, I was just replying to the content of your post, which I have now replaced with an x.



Ressurecting your thread (hopefully).



Any opinions?



The content of this post seems relevant to what I've been saying, so maybe you have a perspetive on this?



Yo.



Any opinions on council communism specifically?

Holy ****, I didn't mean for this post to look so, you know, HUGE.

[Classical Liberal]

(Original post by When you see it...)
Does anyone here have an opinion on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_communism

Yes. It is a terrible idea. I could come up with no end of technical proof but instead I will take any example from my life.

My golf club is a members club. The members decide on what should be done, rather than a owner operating for profit. It is run in a vaguely democratic way, like Council Communism.

Is it a good system? Absolutely not. All the happens is that the people who are influential in the system organise the golf club in their interests and forgo being helpful to new members or casual players. They do not offer multiple membership types for example to make it easier for people to join. They refuse to change their prices, because they always paid it, to get more members in times of low demand.

Compare this to another local golf club that is run as a private business. They are much more accomodating for the golfers and make it much easier to play.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by Classical Liberal)
Yes. It is a terrible idea. I could come up with no end of technical proof but instead I will take any example from my life.
.

I can do one better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia

Workers self management and rural collectivisation are good parts to dig into.

[snozzle]

A libertarian socialist is an oxymoron.

Individualism and collectivism are opposed to each other.

A Socialist advocates economic planning, that is to say he believes peoples economic choices should be constrained and dictated to by the whims of the state. This is in total contradiction to the libertarian who believes in individual choice with a minimun of state regulation.

[snozzle]

(Original post by Classical Liberal)
Democracy is voting. Democracy is not an ideal it is a methodology for organisation.

It's no such thing. Democracy is just a method for either choosing representation/leaders or directly making political decisions.

A state can be involved in organising (economic) life, but it does not have to. It could just provide a regulating function in economic life, and thus serve to allow competitive forces to flourish as best they can