New here, how do you guys feel about libertarian socialism?

[Jinx_Dragon]

You're talking about the 'Chomsky communism,' though yes I know they have a far earlier root then that, and not the modern day applications of these terms. Fair enough but sadly history has proven that it is not a viable option thanks, simply, to human nature.

This fails, sadly, on two points:
How can one ensure equal access to the wealth of a nation without an organisation holding the right, by force if needed, to take from the few and give to the many? This authoritarian body is a sad requirement during the 'transition' state, for without a organised force wielding structure then those currently with the power will always have the strength to fight back against the disorganised bodies trying to take said power.

Once an organisation is in place what prevents it from using the force it now possesses to decide the 'many' should be just itself? Once people within this organisation have tasted the power they now wield they shall never choose to give it up for the greater good. It is a sad fact of human nature that we strive to gain dominance over each other. If a good chunk of humans didn't have this desire then we wouldn't even be having this discussion, we would be living said lifestyles.

I consider this lust for power to be the essence of corruption itself. It is something I personally despise. All the great ideas in the world have been befouled by it's touch, dooming us to never get past the 'transition' stage as those with the power will always find a way to control us.

Trust me, I feel for your idea cause it is a society I would happily live, work and fight for myself. It might just show how cynical I have become that I don't believe it will ever be possible without some massive technological advancement that makes wealth obsolete... replication technology for example. Sadly we are far away from that development and likely will never make it.

Cause those with the wealth won't let us just take it away from them.

 

[dark-amon]

Libertarian socialism just being a nice word for anarchy obviously.

There are usually lots of misconceptions about anarchy so let me clear up what anarchy is. Anarchy is opposition to all forms of hierarchy,Capitalism (no anarcho-capitalism is NOT a form of anarchy), the State, racism, sexism, discrimination upon the basis of sexual preference, etc. Anarchy is opposed to hierarchy because anarchy seeks to maximize liberty, equality, and solidarity (these three all naturally follow each other of course), and hierarchy by nature limits these three.

Property is Theft

I have to dissagre on something here. It may be that we think the same only that we do not read what you have written the same.
Anarchy is a ideology that belives that all power corrupts and thus that there shouldn't be a powerchain.
Anarchy states that there should be no hierarchy and for that there must be no goverment.
So rather than saying that they oppose it, it would be more correct to say that they want to remove hierarchy.

Personally I like the idea as an IDEA. But I do not belive that the liberation from all goverment would work for the better. I'm more of an anarcho-socialist, wanting to remove capitalisms grip on the free world.

 

[Ignignokt]

And how does the anarchist nation deal with the rest of the world's nation-states when they decide they'd like colonies, additional taxes, and natural resources? Would it defend itself with a military that has no hierarchical control?

Yes pretty much.

How effective would an army with no command be? Not very.

 

[sneakypenguin]

As much as I like nil govenernment I would have to say that most modernday libertarians(in the party) have it right. Government limited by a constitution of sorts, a defensive army only, and freedom in the economic system. With laws based on the "my liberty stops when it impedes your liberty" kind of mentality.

 

[Skeleon]

Sorry, no deal. It's a nice concept but it wouldn't work, I believe.
We need a state to regulate some things, that's why I'm all for Social Democracy.
None of the "all-or-nothing"-concepts seem to work in reality (pure Capitalism, Communism, Anarchy,...), we always need a certain mix.

 

[Agema]

And how does the anarchist nation deal with the rest of the world's nation-states when they decide they'd like colonies, additional taxes, and natural resources? Would it defend itself with a military that has no hierarchical control?

Yes pretty much.

How effective would an army with no command be? Not very.

Anarchists believe in organisation, and organisation obviously needs someone to organise it. The key with anarchy is that the organiser has power from a direct public mandate.

Applied to the military, an anarchist army would still have lieutenants, colonels, generals and so on - it makes sense to organise that way. However, anarchist officers would be elected, and could be recalled, by democratic mandate. The army should - in theory - be the equal of a non-hierarchical army, on the grounds that it is in the best interests of all to appoint the best people to be officers, and to arrange a good quality regime for training, etc.

At least twice, Anarchists have formed competent armies. These were in Ukraine during the Russian revolution, and in the Spanish Civil War where anarchists comprised a sizeable proportion of the Republican army. They were ultimately on the losing side both times, but they scored some notable victories, and ultimately were facing opponents who were larger and better equipped, so it would be dubious to claim their armies were particularly incompetent or dysfunctional.

 

[annoyinglizardvoice]

Freedom and equality are certainly things I value, but I don't think humanity in general will ever be mature and helpful enough to cope with true anarchy.

 

[Ignignokt]

And how does the anarchist nation deal with the rest of the world's nation-states when they decide they'd like colonies, additional taxes, and natural resources? Would it defend itself with a military that has no hierarchical control?

Yes pretty much.

How effective would an army with no command be? Not very.

Anarchists believe in organisation, and organisation obviously needs someone to organise it. The key with anarchy is that the organiser has power from a direct public mandate.

Applied to the military, an anarchist army would still have lieutenants, colonels, generals and so on - it makes sense to organise that way. However, anarchist officers would be elected, and could be recalled, by democratic mandate. The army should - in theory - be the equal of a non-hierarchical army, on the grounds that it is in the best interests of all to appoint the best people to be officers, and to arrange a good quality regime for training, etc.

At least twice, Anarchists have formed competent armies. These were in Ukraine during the Russian revolution, and in the Spanish Civil War where anarchists comprised a sizeable proportion of the Republican army. They were ultimately on the losing side both times, but they scored some notable victories, and ultimately were facing opponents who were larger and better equipped, so it would be dubious to claim their armies were particularly incompetent or dysfunctional.

Are you sure you're not describing representative democracy?

 

[Agema]

Are you sure you're not describing representative democracy?

It's a similar principle.

However, in our current state, a representative has at his disposal state-offered force (e.g. the police force) to defend his power according to the law, which can operate independently of the public. In anarchy, his power is entirely and directly dependent on the agreement of the workers: they can remove or replace him at any point by suitable democratic means.

Or put it another way, he who owns something has the ultimate power. One man who owns and runs a factory can do anything he likes with it: fire people, introduce silly rules, and so on. In anarchist terms, all the workers own the factory. So whilst they may still appoint a manager to run it, that manager's power is entirely dependent on the people he is supervisor to. He does well or gets replaced.

 

[That_Which_Isnt]

Everyone ignores my post that is intended to make this a srsbsns debate ;_;

 

[Akai Shizuku]

Max, what type of political system do you promote?

I don't.
I will admit I have a fondness for some, (I really do like the idea of Anarchy as a theory,) but for the most part, I just don't give a fuck about political systems.

If I'm ever in a position to change the political system, I'd probably go for a dictatorship (under myself,) or an aristocracy, (because fuck the weak and incompetent.)

Gotcha, thanks.

 

[That_Which_Isnt]

( ._.)

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

I know. I am native american. But we had a waaaaay different culture than americans do now. In todays society, it just wouldn't work

That's why todays society should be crushed so everyone can start fresh.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

I don't.
I will admit I have a fondness for some, (I really do like the idea of Anarchy as a theory,) but for the most part, I just don't give a fuck about political systems.

If I'm ever in a position to change the political system, I'd probably go for a dictatorship (under myself,) or an aristocracy, (because fuck the weak and incompetent.)

I think you would find Egoist Anarchism to be right up your alley. : )

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

You're kidding about that anarchy thing right?

Libertarian Socialism is how I'd describe my own personal political philosophy. I'm socially libertarian (marry a pig if you want, as long as you aren't harming another person that's your own damn business) and otherwise a left of center socialist (govt. funded arts, health care etc.).

I don't see how anarchy enters into it...

 

[Nieroshai]

Libertarian socialism just being a nice word for anarchy obviously.

There are usually lots of misconceptions about anarchy so let me clear up what anarchy is. Anarchy is opposition to all forms of hierarchy,Capitalism (no anarcho-capitalism is NOT a form of anarchy), the State, racism, sexism, discrimination upon the basis of sexual preference, etc. Anarchy is opposed to hierarchy because anarchy seeks to maximize liberty, equality, and solidarity (these three all naturally follow each other of course), and hierarchy by nature limits these three.

Property is Theft

Then the guy with the biggest gun turns anarchy into Totalitarianism. Anarchy relies on two beautifully idealistic lies to stand. The first being that getting rid of capitalism gets rid of greed, and the second that everyone will agree to follow the rule that there are no rules while still being a safe moral society. Anarchy is based on trust, and many people cannot be trusted with all the machinations of society. There will always be someone who wants more, and how do you plan on stopping them? How will you stop "racism, sexism, discrimination upon the basis of sexual preference, etc." if there is no one to stop it? And libertarianism is still far from anarchy, as it believes government is still necessary but only for preserving the general peace as well as trade, national security and diplomacy.