Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Libertarian Socialism?

Answered (Not Verified) This post has 0 verified answers | 177 Replies | 12 Followers

Top 50 Contributor
1,711 Posts
Points 29,285
SkepticalMetal posted on Sun, Oct 7 2012 7:09 PM

Lately I have been curious to know about libertarian socialism. The two terms seem to contradict each other, as I have absolutely no clue how a socialist society could exist without government coercion. The same goes for libertarian communism.

Could someone give me a simple breakdown of how this could possibly work?

  • | Post Points: 95

All Replies

Top 50 Contributor
1,711 Posts
Points 29,285
Suggested by Willy Truth

Just took a look at LeftRev to see if I could find out any more about Libertarian Socialism.

Never. Again.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
2,493 Posts
Points 39,355
This is where its at, man. The very best libertarian socialists come to us and get schooled. So its no use going elsewhere, all youll find are people competing to see who can write the worst gibberish. Although the gals over at the ms. Magazine forums were pretty putting together wall text that resembled actual arguments. This was before tl;dr was invented, you understand. We had to parse and fisk the entire thing, or at least the relevant parts.
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
192 Posts
Points 4,965
stsoc replied on Wed, Oct 17 2012 3:30 AM

I have never seen anarchism defined as against all forms of organisational hierarchy.

Only by all anarchist ever until the propertarian hijacking of the term in the sixties. Being exposed only to propaganda of the position one allready accepts is not a thing to be proud of, and neither is accepting mass media redefinitions of terms. Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Berkman and many other anarchists defined anarchism before Rothbard was even born.

http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionA1

http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQAppendix11#app6

But can you accept that what we have today is not necessarily free market capitalism?

I don't claim otherwise.

Well you certainly implied that employment was slavery

I explicitly said that it is similar, not same. Slavery, feudalism and capitalism are all hierarchical economic systems where the toilers are denied full product of their labor, so that makes that similar, and makes them all illegitimate.

You also lack humility to concede any points.

I haven't been disproved, so there's nothing to concede, humility is irrelevant to that.

By "reformed" you mean convinced/manipulate via the means of propaganda and coercion?

Yes, of cource I mean, I said that clearly. [/irony] How bout convince by sound arguments via dialectics and means of education (like Modern schools).

Mutalism from what I can see is indistinguishable from marxism, they are just the same as your libertarian socialism and anarcho communism, just marxism rebranded. Unless you can show me otherwise ?

Nowhere near truth. This FAQ has pretty much everything covered: http://www.infoshop.org/AnAnarchistFAQ

Just took a look at LeftRev to see if I could find out any more about Libertarian Socialism.

That's an almost exclusively state capitalist site, and they tolerate people who call themselves "libertarian socialists" but that also support state capitalism. I, as a communist, was banned there for my support of mutualism (which is in fact a basic form of socialism).

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
247 Posts
Points 4,055
excel replied on Wed, Oct 17 2012 6:31 AM

the toilers are denied full product of their labor

How are modern workers denied the full product of their labor?

 

 

 

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 500 Contributor
192 Posts
Points 4,965
stsoc replied on Wed, Oct 17 2012 8:17 AM

By the existence of the capitalist owners. E.g. workers in a factory make products, and when the products are sold, they don't get all the earning, but a part goes to an owner who doesn't labor to make the products. Labor is central to creation of legitimate property, and the full product of one's labor is a right.

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 50 Contributor
Male
2,493 Posts
Points 39,355
How did the factory come to be there? Magic?
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
192 Posts
Points 4,965
stsoc replied on Wed, Oct 17 2012 8:59 AM

The capitalist built it? Oh, wait.

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 50 Contributor
2,258 Posts
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Wed, Oct 17 2012 10:49 AM

stsoc:

The capitalist built it? Oh, wait.

Lol, are you even being serious now?

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
205 Posts
Points 2,945

excel:
stsoc:
the toilers are denied full product of their labor
How are modern workers denied the full product of their labor?
The owners of capital are favoured by the LLC, lower taxation, cheap credit, inflation etc

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
2,258 Posts
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Wed, Oct 17 2012 12:52 PM

It's basically a denial of the idea that a distributor brings any value to a product, or that an investor / capitalist brings any value to production.

It's a very simplistic and naive view of the mechanics of business, based on a faulty construction of the labor theory of value.

There is no such thing as a set value. Values are relative.

"A dollar of profit is an unpaid wage." That's Marx's conception, and it's ridiculous. Marx focused purely on labor to the exclusion of all other ways value can be added to a product.

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
205 Posts
Points 2,945

stsoc:
By the existence of the capitalist owners. E.g. workers in a factory make products, and when the products are sold, they don't get all the earning, but a part goes to an owner who doesn't labor to make the products. Labor is central to creation of legitimate property, and the full product of one's labor is a right.
But the owner has provided the means of production, i.e. the building, the computers, the machines, the vehicles etc, so shouldn`t the owner get something in return for letting the workers make use of his means of production?

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
205 Posts
Points 2,945

stsoc:
The capitalist built it? Oh, wait.
So capitalists don`t produce anything/provide anything?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
630 Posts
Points 9,425

The history of anarchism seems riddled with same type of suppression of thought that we see today in modern academia. It is no surprise that marxism which is still taught in today's state schools, was so prominent in history and capitalist based anarchism which was ignored and suppressed still enjoys the same treatment. Even individualist anarchism in russia was rephrased to be a kin to the modern day stereotype of anarchism. While the other types of collectivist anarchism which in some ways was not far off from marxism did not receive the same sort of treatment.

Basically what I am saying is that marxism and the state have written real anarchism out of the history books per se and replaced it with what is realy communism or marxist tainted version of a stateless society. Obviously because that is much more favourable to a state than individualist based anarchism. As we have seen in the past marxist based anarchism actually was a catalyst for what you call state-capitalism.

To say that those marxist influenced authors were the creators of the concept of a society without a state is very unrealistic in my opinion.

But I am not an historian and I would imagine many people would scoff at what I have said.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
247 Posts
Points 4,055
excel replied on Thu, Oct 18 2012 1:00 AM

E.g. workers in a factory make products, and when the products are sold, they don't get all the earning, but a part goes to an owner who doesn't labor to make the products.

What worker makes the entire product? Which single laborer is involved in every step of the manufacture and sale of the product? (Ie, production and acquiring of raw materials, tools, machinery; the maintenance of these items; assembly of every single part into a finished product, the transport of the product to the place of sale, the sale of the product, the marketing of the product etc)

 

The product of a laborer's labor is not the finished product as sold, it is merely the energy and work that goes into the laborer's specific task in regards to the manufacture of the product or service sold.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
247 Posts
Points 4,055
excel replied on Thu, Oct 18 2012 1:05 AM

The owners of capital are favoured by the LLC, lower taxation, cheap credit, inflation etc

How are they taxes lower? Do income taxes apply differently to someone who owns a tractor and someone who is hired to drive a tractor? What is cheap credit? How does inflation favor the owner of a tractor? 

Btw, do you mean 'the LLC' as some organization, or are you referring to limited liability companies?

  • | Post Points: 35
Page 5 of 12 (178 items) « First ... < Previous 3 4 5 6 7 Next > ... Last » | RSS