The Student Room Group

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Socialism vs Libertarianism The great debate.

Scroll to see replies

Original post by chrisawhitmore
Well in both cases, the state controlled the means of production on behalf of the people and aimed to promote socioeconomic equality. Which is socialism. Direct control of the means of production without a government body would be communism.

Also, achieving social and economic equality is no more a prerequisite of a socialist society that achieving universal prosperity is a prerequisite of a capitalist one. They are the aims of those societies.


Anyone who knows more than just the common doctrines about the Soviet Union can see it wasn't even vaguely Socialist. The Bolshevik Coup destroyed pretty much any institute in Russia that could be seen as socialist - the factory councils, the legislative assemblies etc - and converted the workforce in to a labour army. The situation in China was quite similar too - a small group with a massive amount of power over the people. China and the USSR were not Socialist and they definitely didn't try to promote equality - the leaders made themselves very rich and left the people in poverty.
Original post by zippity.doodah
I *did* answer that, but let me restate it alternatively:
freedom (literal/negative liberty) doesn't coerce others or violate their consent or choice in how they live their lives independently from others or the use of force, whereas socialism (not anarcho-collectivism, anarcho-communism, "libertarian" socialism, etc) is a society that depends on everybody being on the same opinion in terms of the sharing of property and wealth, and therefore, you need coercion to achieve that goal whereas with liberty there is no goal other than non-aggression (but remember, I'm not referring to anarchism/anarcho-capitalism, I'm referring to libertarianism); if there were rich people in society (in the example of an anarcho-collectivist society) and everybody except them wanted the collectivisation of property and wealth (and let's say "property" refers to the means of production before you think of picking that one to pieces...), then aggression would probably be the only thing that would cause them to think that giving away their wealth is a good idea/in their own best interests


And if I want collectivisation in your libertarian society and I see private property as oppressive and tyrannical? What if I think private ownership of land and resources is illegitimate and aggressive in itself? You're only seeing things from one point of view.
Original post by Captain Haddock
And if I want collectivisation in your libertarian society and I see private property as oppressive and tyrannical? What if I think private ownership of land and resources is illegitimate and aggressive in itself? You're only seeing things from one point of view.


to acquire property in a libertarian society wouldn't depend on aggression, it would only require it for self defence. in a socialist one, with public ownership, it would *depend* on violence towards individuals via taxation. if you think that other people owning things is an application of force, you'll have to explain this to me further because I honestly can't see the sense in that kind of viewpoint.
Original post by chrisawhitmore
Well, I'd argue that saying that socialism didn't fail, central planning did is rather like saying that the car didn't fail, the engine did.


Which would be absolutely fine and correct. What you're doing is rather like scrapping the whole car instead of fixing the engine.

The failure of the central plans was largely due to the inherent unworkability of socialism (and the fact that a socialist economy is uniquely vulnerable to flawed central plans, as it enforces total reliance on the government. This is also the reason for the tendency towards authoritarianism. If the state feels it has the right to control all commerce, it is a small step to begin controlling the rest of people's lives, and an easy one given the level of control it already has)

You basically just said 'central planning failed because socialism is inherently unworkable because central planning fails'.
Original post by zippity.doodah
to acquire property in a libertarian society wouldn't depend on aggression, it would only require it for self defence. in a socialist one, with public ownership, it would *depend* on violence towards individuals via taxation. if you think that other people owning things is an application of force, you'll have to explain this to me further because I honestly can't see the sense in that kind of viewpoint.


Land is a common good, to 'acquire' it is to deprive the people of their right to it. In other words, property is theft.

"The power of enclosing land and owning property was brought into the creation by your ancestors by the sword; which first did murder their fellow creatures, men, and after plunder or steal away their land, and left this land successively to you, their children. And therefore, though you did not kill or thieve, yet you hold that cursed thing in your hand by the power of the sword; and so you justify the wicked deeds of your fathers, and that sin of your fathers shall be visited upon the head of you and your children to the third and fourth generation, and longer too, till your bloody and thieving power be rooted out of the land."
-Gerrard Winstanley
Has libertarian socialism been mentioned at all?
I hate the fact that you have to be either. I believe that everyone should be accessible to have the basic life qualitys all people have in the western worlds, free education for all (no private schools), free healthcare, basic housing and food and water, all provided by the world bank. Countries exist, as patriotism and smaller management creates happier and better run facilities and services for populations. However, any extra you should have to work for, as this is what drives people to be great, im not going to have a go at someone for buying a Ferrari, or a huge flat with gold sinks, if they have worked for it and earnt it, enjoy it.
I'm a left libertarian/liberal
Original post by chrisawhitmore
Not quite related, but it strikes me as odd to advocate a position where people are competent to run all aspects of their lives except commerce (or vice versa) if you accept that individuals cannot be trusted to run companies sensibly, surely you must accept that they can't be trusted to make decisions in their personal lives?


Socialism is exactly the opposite of what you are saying here. Under socialism the entire workforce would be trusted to run their companies democratically. To turn it around, it strikes me as odd to advocate a position where people are competent to elect their own political representatives to run the country on their behalf but apparently can't be trusted to democratically run a business, for example by electing their managers.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Captain Haddock
Land is a common good, to 'acquire' it is to deprive the people of their right to it. In other words, property is theft.

"The power of enclosing land and owning property was brought into the creation by your ancestors by the sword; which first did murder their fellow creatures, men, and after plunder or steal away their land, and left this land successively to you, their children. And therefore, though you did not kill or thieve, yet you hold that cursed thing in your hand by the power of the sword; and so you justify the wicked deeds of your fathers, and that sin of your fathers shall be visited upon the head of you and your children to the third and fourth generation, and longer too, till your bloody and thieving power be rooted out of the land."
-Gerrard Winstanley


something being practically advantageous if everybody had a right to it doesn't actually give anybody a right to it - we could say that about anything. and just because property in the hands of one is worse off practically than in the hands of many, that doesn't make it theft, because there is no "natural ownership" of property being public. everything cannot automatically be assumed to be publicly owned for that reason just because everybody wants it; to acquire something, you need to show that it is yours and you have a legitimate claim to its ownership, e.g. to trade, or to create, or to acquire in a peaceful and non-aggressive way which has no overlap with theft
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by zippity.doodah
something being practically advantageous if everybody had a right to it doesn't actually give anybody a right to it - we could say that about anything. and just because property in the hands of one is worse off practically than in the hands of many, that doesn't make it theft, because there is no "natural ownership" of property being public. everything cannot automatically be assumed to be publicly owned for that reason just because everybody wants it; to acquire something, you need to show that it is yours and you have a legitimate claim to its ownership, e.g. to trade, or to create, or to acquire in a peaceful and non-aggressive way which has no overlap with theft


I didn't say anything about practical advantages though, did I? And neither did the quote I posted. I don't know where you're getting that idea from. To me the idea that an individual can lay claim to a naturally occurring resource is just preposterous. The quote explains this pretty well. A lot of libertarians actually agree with this, which is why many of them support a land value tax.
Original post by Captain Haddock
I didn't say anything about practical advantages though, did I? And neither did the quote I posted. I don't know where you're getting that idea from. To me the idea that an individual can lay claim to a naturally occurring resource is just preposterous. The quote explains this pretty well. A lot of libertarians actually agree with this, which is why many of them support a land value tax.


then why do you even support common ownership as opposed to individual ownership? are you really saying that it is nothing to do with socialism and its utilitarian principles? and in terms of literal land, e.g. countries, then sure, but land e.g. private land which has always belonged to a family for probably justifiable reasons not based on theft? no; if you were to go down that route then everything would probably boil down to "nature", e.g. atoms. and next time, if you're going to use a quotation, make sure it's not too long - I can't be bothered to read big ones and I'm sure neither can you if I were to lay one of that size down
Original post by zippity.doodah
then why do you even support common ownership as opposed to individual ownership? are you really saying that it is nothing to do with socialism and its utilitarian principles? and in terms of literal land, e.g. countries, then sure, but land e.g. private land which has always belonged to a family for probably justifiable reasons not based on theft? no; if you were to go down that route then everything would probably boil down to "nature", e.g. atoms. and next time, if you're going to use a quotation, make sure it's not too long - I can't be bothered to read big ones and I'm sure neither can you if I were to lay one of that size down


For ****'s sakes man it's a 4 line quote, are you serious? Read it.

Land as a common asset is not a uniquely socialist idea. It's advocated on your end of the spectrum as well.

"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."
-Thomas Paine

When a piece of land is privately owned the owner is essentially depriving the people of access to that land and its value. Therefore the use of that land, or rather the right to exclude people from it, should be 'rented' through a land value tax.
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
Has libertarian socialism been mentioned at all?


I've mentioned it and so has Captain Haddock but it's been largely ignored by all the morons on this site that don't know what Socialism is.
Original post by SocialistIC
I've mentioned it and so has Captain Haddock but it's been largely ignored by all the morons on this site that don't know what Socialism is.


Keep up the good work.
This is silly, debate policy, ideology is redundant and dangerous.
Original post by the beta male
This is silly, debate policy, ideology is redundant and dangerous.


A meaningless suggestion. How are you going to debate policy if you don't have an opinion on what must be done? the normative set of ideas that people have, if made coherent and systematic, will form their ideology.
Original post by Cornelius
A meaningless suggestion. How are you going to debate policy if you don't have an opinion on what must be done? the normative set of ideas that people have, if made coherent and systematic, will form their ideology.

You don't need an idealogy like that being debated here, you can have a general philosophy, but its better to be fluid and pragmatic, not dogmatic. Think of all the worst atrocities ever committed, all have been driven by deeply idealogical regimes.
Original post by Captain Haddock
Socialism is exactly the opposite of what you are saying here. Under socialism the entire workforce would be trusted to run their companies democratically. To turn it around, it strikes me as odd to advocate a position where people are competent to elect their own political representatives to run the country on their behalf but apparently can't be trusted to democratically run a business, for example by electing their managers.

Well, Libertarianism doesn't prevent co-operatives like that at all. They're an option under libertarianism, and if it turns out to be a better way to run a business, then they'll become the norm as they out-compete the businesses owned by shareholders.
Original post by the beta male
You don't need an idealogy like that being debated here, you can have a general philosophy, but its better to be fluid and pragmatic, not dogmatic. Think of all the worst atrocities ever committed, all have been driven by deeply idealogical regimes.


First, I am quite dogmatic about murder and rape. They are wrong and I don't think anyone can change my mind on it. Are you going to indict me for being dogmatic on this?

There are many issues on which it is right to be dogmatic and if you're not then there's something wrong with you.

Second, ideology is simply a systematic presentation of a person's convictions and goals. The goals and the vision of the good society must be there but the means of attaining it may vary and that's what it means to be pragmatic. You have to have goals first though and that is simply what ideology is about.

And your last charge carries no water with me for no politician ever has been non-ideological. You can't do policy without ideology. It's like telling me "you don't need language to do policy - think of all the worst atrocities ever committed all have been driven by regimes using language!"
(edited 9 years ago)

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you