[AnarchistNutter]

(Original post by mevidek)
Well we can still work with it to create a socialist society...

Sure you are not a democratic socialist (e.g. George Orwell) rather, since liberals do not seek to create socialism (again collective ownership), rather unions, welfare, regulations, public spending, etc.?

[pk550]

Everything Noam Chomsky says just makes perfect sense, I wish I was more of a proactive dissident.

[Struggle]

The idea of creating a specifically 'Libertarian Socialist' society is counter-productive and adds to more division where the opposite needs to occur.

All genuine Socialists advocate the same thing – the means of production being put into the hands of the vast majority of people; the working class. There is no need for creating sub-societies for specific tendencies.

I would argue the Socialist Society which exists, is overwhelmingly built up of social-democrats – who are Capitalists.

According to the Oxford Dictionary Definition, Socialism is;

‘a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.’

I hope that shuts up those who were about to come in and start claiming they are Socialists, or that the Soviet Union was Communist.

[mevidek]

(Original post by AnarchistNutter)
Sure you are not a democratic socialist (e.g. George Orwell) rather, since liberals do not seek to create socialism (again collective ownership), rather unions, welfare, regulations, public spending, etc.?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_...United_Kingdom

I agree that the personal freedoms of individuals are needed to be preserved and expressed, and the economy needs to be regulated, although I also agree with Socialism. I may be a democratic socialist as I am both a Socialist and believe that democracy is the best form of government. However I would still personally classify myself as a Liberal Socialist.

[Struggle]

(Original post by mevidek)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_...United_Kingdom

I agree that the personal freedoms of individuals are needed to be preserved and expressed, and the economy needs to be regulated, although I also agree with Socialism. I may be a democratic socialist as I am both a Socialist and believe that democracy is the best form of government. However I would still personally classify myself as a Liberal Socialist.

There is no such thing as a 'Liberal Socialist'. At least, it has not been recognized by academia or any government as far as I am aware. If it has, please link me to the source.

Socialism by definition has always been fundamentally about the means of production being controlled by the people as a whole.

[mevidek]

(Original post by Struggle)
There is no such thing as a 'Liberal Socialist'. At least, it has not been recognized by academia or any government as far as I am aware. If it has, please link me to the source.

Socialism by definition has always been fundamentally about the means of production being controlled by the people as a whole.

Yes, and I don't see why even if the means of production are controlled by a whole, personal freedoms are important and a regulated economy is needed... Socialism and Liberalism go hand in hand, or at least don't reject each other.

[Struggle]

(Original post by mevidek)
Yes, and I don't see why even if the means of production are controlled by a whole, personal freedoms are important and a regulated economy is needed... Socialism and Liberalism go hand in hand, or at least don't reject each other.

I also want to state that democracy, by definition, is 'a rule of the people'. In other words, all Marxists reject the notion that Capitalism can be ‘a rule of the people’ due to the fundamental Marxist belief that in Capitalist society, capital always influences politics, and therefore, cannot be 'a rule of the people' but instead a society that favours certain economic classes.

[mevidek]

(Original post by Struggle)
I also want to state that democracy, by definition, is 'a rule of the people'. In other words, all Marxists reject the notion that Capitalism can be ‘a rule of the people’ due to the fundamental Marxist belief that in Capitalist society, capital always influences politics, and therefore, cannot be 'a rule of the people' but instead a society that favours certain economic classes.

yes... I agree...

[Millz]

libertarian socialism, is that not basically Blairism ??

[Millz]

(Original post by Struggle)
There is no such thing as a 'Liberal Socialist'. At least, it has not been recognized by academia or any government as far as I am aware. If it has, please link me to the source.

Socialism by definition has always been fundamentally about the means of production being controlled by the people as a whole.

I think they mean social democracy, namely, Blairism. I think that they are Blairites.

THE THIRD WAY ??

[Struggle]

(Original post by mevidek)
yes... I agree...

According to the Oxford Dictionary definition, Liberalism [in a political context] must favour

'individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform'

Free trade is incompatible with Marxism. Furthermore, a revolution will not be achieved unless the individual liberty of the ruling class is breached. In other words, you cannot be a 'Liberal Marxist'.

A Marxist favours the emancipation of the working class - Liberalism favours a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

(Original post by Millz)
I think they mean social democracy, namely, Blairism. I think that they are Blairites.

THE THIRD WAY ??

A Third-Way is not Socialism, nor is it recognized as such by intelligent folk. Socialism has a specific definition; that of the means of production being democratically controlled by the people as a whole.

[mevidek]

(Original post by Struggle)
According to the Oxford Dictionary definition, Liberalism [in a political context] must favour

'individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform'

Free trade is incompatible with Marxism. Furthermore, a revolution will not be achieved unless the individual liberty of the ruling class is breached. In other words, you cannot be a 'Liberal Marxist'.

A Marxist favours the emancipation of the working class - Liberalism favours a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

I thought liberalism was a regulated and controlled economy while still supporting personal freedoms...

[Struggle]

(Original post by mevidek)
I thought liberalism was a regulated and controlled economy while still supporting personal freedoms...

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/liberal

[mevidek]

(Original post by Struggle)
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/liberal

Ok, so the definition may vary. But if you look at the other things such as "favourable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms" and "willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas" then I'd be classified as a Liberal Socialist.

[Millz]

(Original post by Struggle)
According to the Oxford Dictionary definition, Liberalism [in a political context] must favour

'individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform'

Free trade is incompatible with Marxism. Furthermore, a revolution will not be achieved unless the individual liberty of the ruling class is breached. In other words, you cannot be a 'Liberal Marxist'.

A Marxist favours the emancipation of the working class - Liberalism favours a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.


A Third-Way is not Socialism, nor is it recognized as such by intelligent folk. Socialism has a specific definition; that of the means of production being democratically controlled by the people as a whole.

The third way is, arguably, social democracy. The old model of social democracy adopted Keynesianism into its political economy, whereas the third way adopts supply side policy. I do agree with you that it is not socialism, but Blair is one of my political idols. I would call him a pragmatic socialist, I suppose.

[Bagration]

Capitalism by the nature of its structure needs people at the top (the ruling class) and people at the bottom (the working class.) There is nothing libertarian about the principle of men being born with a higher station than others. There is no freedom intrinsic to it. Human society does not need a man at the top and a man at the bottom to function.

It's silly to use words like liberal and democracy and so on and so forth. All political power is material. It is held in material hands and directed to material ends. Private ownership of the means of production concentrates political power in the hands of the elite whether or not you want to plaster it with terms like "liberal" and "democratic." the only distinction is libertarian (anarchist) and authoritarian socialism (etatiste), the latter of which has effects worse than the system of private ownership.

[IFondledAGibbon]

Nice to see this thread has kicked off a little, even if most of it is focused on semantics. I'd also be interested in finding out why AnarchistNutter is an 'ex socialist'.

(Original post by JakePearson)
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.

I didn't neg you. I generally only neg people who post hateful or aggressively illogical stuff.

In regards to your question, you're going to have to explain in a little more detail what you mean by 'scarcity, the subjective value of utility and uncertainty'. I don't want to start rambling on about the wrong thing.

[Bourgeois]

(Original post by Millz)
The third way is, arguably, social democracy. The old model of social democracy adopted Keynesianism into its political economy, whereas the third way adopts supply side policy. I do agree with you that it is not socialism, but Blair is one of my political idols. I would call him a pragmatic socialist, I suppose.

Troll?

[Bagration]

The scarcity argument is a straw man argument, by and large.

[Millz]

(Original post by Bourgeois)
Troll?

Lol, no.