Re: Are we ready for Libertarian Socialism? Part 1

[Chamelionroses]

Lets go back to the days where civilization began. The founders of a creating pyramids and having the plans and know how and the future builders that were trained in doing the same things; the workers no matter if slave or not building the pyramids; and the pharaoh who just sits around gaining wealth from the community with out putting any work in. The wealth is gained from production and growth of food at most.

The same old ideas put into the future of how wealth is created.

[ssmusic214]

Libertarian Socialism is Oxymoron! Contradiction of terms!

[GeoliphicMedia]

society never springs forth in a vacuum. you stand on the shoulders of greatness and depend on others for just about everything. what do you own that hasn't been given to you? everything you ever 'earn' is a gift

[xmattycorex]

anarchism and libertarian socialism has been put to practiced very beautifully in the spanish revolution of 1936. Not to mention it was working amazingly during the russian revolution of 1918 until Lenin and the majority party saw the threat and decided to seize all power creating the all powerful state socialism we know of today. both revolutions unfortunately were cheated out by, but nonetheless we can learn to be more organized for another revolution which is inevitable.

[TheReasonParty]

You've got the two libertarians mixed up. Libertarian in the "Socialist Libertarian" sense isn't the American libertarian that doesn't like the government. At least thats what I've heard from Chomsky and others.

[silverbackman]

If they work as hard and earn their trust in the organization then why shouldn't they be payed as much?

[Fireinthedawn]

So in a libertarian socialsit soceiy what it really means is that the means of production is COMPLETELY subjected to a direct democracy. WHY would the people with ANY common sense vote for equality of outcome?

[Fireinthedawn]

when exactly did the individual in question argue for equality of outcome as much as YANKING the current power system from the elite to have an equal playing field finally so that things couild actually be based on marit as opposed to what they're on? to the best of my knowledge marx made clear it would take YEARS of production before you could get to a position of equality of outcome.

He absolutely insisted that early on they WOULD NOT have equality of outcome.

[TasinAkiwo]

I tried listening to this entire thing but it became difficult after a while because you went off of a false premise, that is, that in a libertarian society the driving force behind the economy is the market. It isn't, therefore treating an anarchist workplace like a capitalist enterprise obviously wouldn't work.

I also find it ironic that you don't think libertarian socialism can work, but your name is part of a quote from a libertarian socialist insurgent.

[dieonyourfeetDEC16]

When I say libertarian I am referring to the meaning it has in the US. Meaning very small government, government not intervening economy, freemarkets, lassaize faire, very broadly speaking (I am not even sure if such a small government is possible to have and sustain, so I am bordering between a US style libertarian, market anarchist, I am not set in one belief). That being said, in a libertarian society, in the sense I mean it, if markets aren't the force driving the economy then what is?

[TasinAkiwo]

In a libertarian society, the needs and desires of the commune, expressed through assemblies from the local to the federal level, are the driving force behind the economy. That is, if a particular community decides that they need to undertake a particular project they will go about arranging the acquisition of those resources without a need for exchange or profit.

In "the sense you mean it" doesn't really matter, since its not a libertarian society, just a fundamentalist capitalist one.

[dieonyourfeetDEC16]

@TasinAkiwo - can you see how such a society is antitethical to individual freedom.

[TasinAkiwo]

@dieonyourfeetDEC16

No. You have access to resources as an individual, since the commons belong to everybody. But projects that involve several people are going to be decided by those people together.

I do see how a market society is antithetical to individual freedom though, since most of one's time is surrendered to the will of another in order to participate in resource acquisition. Free access to all the products of society allows for more freedom, you would agree?

[silverbackman]

Markets are fine, but exploiting others isn't. What is wrong with not allowing some bastard from overcharging a starving orphan for food to eat? In purely capitalist countries this is allowed, even by some so called market anarchists. I don't see what gives the right to one person claiming vast lands. It seems selfish and monarchical. If anarcho-capitalism/market anarchism doesn't prevent warlords, who are essentially rich people with all the economic power today, freedom will be lost.

[bobshenix]

@dieonyourfeetDEC16

True socialism has little wealth creation because worker incentive will always be lower than in free market capitalism. Socialism is the philosophy of human ENVY.

Libertarian socialism is a convenient but unrealistic "idea" for people who want it all; personal liberty and small government AS WELL AS total equality. This utopia can never exist since socialism NEEDS a strong central government to be able to steal wealth from citizens for - in theory - equal redistribution.

[dieonyourfeetDEC16]

Regarding my quote. I am originally from Mexico and I don't agree with many of the socialist ideologies that were brought by revolutioinaries. But I do respect a persons determination to fight for what they believe and have the courage to stand up to tyranny in whatever they see is the best way. The quote is a statement of dignity, courage, integrity which even though disagreeing with the specifics I definately agree with the spirit of the statement.

[silverbackman]

Communist revolutions worldwide who claimed to represent socialism did not follow the original principles correctly at all. They tried to use government tyranny to create a free and equal society which was impossible, because centralized government is nothing but unfree and unequal.

Google "Anarchist Spain" for a better example of how a true libertarian socialist nation can start out, they would still exist today if it wasn't for the fascists/nazis.

[dieonyourfeetDEC16]

Generally speaking I think it's easy to see that we all want the same thing. Freedom, prosperity, peace. The fundamental difference is that it seems like a lot of socialists see Business as the root of all evil(or so it seems). While Libertarians in the US see the root of all evil as big government, or any government at all. When I say evil I mean, evil that could be constrained or minimized with a different system. Do we need to restrain and control business people or government power?

[TasinAkiwo]

They function the same way, as elements of hierarchy. Neither one can be abolished without the other one being abolished as well. If one were to keep capitalism but try to minimize the state, one would just get a police state, because capitalists would use the state for nothing more than to protect their property. If one were to remove capitalism but keep the state, one would still get capitalism, that is, a few people controlling where social wealth goes.

[silverbackman]

Both. See that's the problem in the US, many American libertarians assume that big business is equal to good and government is equal to evil, when in fact both are equally evil. Libertarian socialism sees nothing wrong with business....as long as the business is done in an egalitarian non-exploitative way. Libertarian socialism is for the free market, but against the exploitative market. Big business is the main minion of governments, always remember that.

[kendrickdk]

There is no such thing as libertarian socialism... lol, they don't go together. Retard girl.

[JungleSheep0831]

Umm.... actually it does. I don't know whether or not it is practiced today, but the ideology is definitely held by a few brilliant thinkers such as Noam Chomsky. I myself adhere to the political system as well =).

[Bob1agis]

Thanks for your useless opinion.

[omfg4000]

But most importantly :) There are already extremely successfull co-ops in the world.

For example swedens largest food store chain is owned by the workers. Obviously it works. :) And indeed the boss gets a huge sallary, but compared to the capitalist that gets 100 times MORE than the boss despite doing NO work, that's fine.

[omfg4000]

You must distinguish from income equality and sallaries.

The workers of the factory decide their sallaries. If someone works their ass off and is truly contributing more then it's in the interest of the workers to keep this worker within thier company. Thus they may decide to increase his orher wager, otherwise this worker may leave and find an other job. What you can't have is income inequality from simply owning things.

If you work more and have many good ideas you WILL get more payed.

[omfg4000]

Concerning worker control; There is no ownership. You don't invest in the general sense of the word. The community decides the need for new production through worker councils.

Then when workers belive that their workingplace should expand they ask for an expansion and if the community has a need of the expansion they accept itt.

Even without this all the material is commonly owned. So they have nothing to sacrifise. Factories are CONTROLLED by workers, not owned.

[omfg4000]

Well this is why Marx first wanted the dictatorship of the proletariat. The problem with that is the same problem as you see in America today. The founding fathers just like Marx didn't want to see the bullshit that' became America or the Soviet Union in the modern day.

But if the people don't protect their government and their liberties vigorously each gov will fail.

[dieonyourfeetDEC16]

Capital in a freemarket, if is not acquired by credit, can simply be acquiring products that will be used for production through personal savings acquired through my own hard work. Meaning I save then I buy products, equipment and such, that will be used in the production of some other good, why would this be invalid or wrong? why does everyone have to own products I acquired through my savings? woudln't it be theft?

[dieonyourfeetDEC16]

So if I produce more and do not consume everything I produce, meaning I save, and then I buy production equipment and buy all the things I need to produce with my saved consumption, can I then own my factory? Or what kind of things can I not exchange my savings for? what kind of products?

[dieonyourfeetDEC16]

So do you agree that there will be economic inequality? people that produce more will have more consumer goods than people that produce less.

[etzel33]

I agree with you. Liberty is the right to personal property for the reasons you explained. Now, the right to natural resources and land is another issue. But to let people live in peace is to let them keep their stuff seems to be a fairly libertarian principle.

[hinschouse]

Humans are herd animal and by it self create the structure of hierarchy. True liberty doesn't exist, maybe i want to pollute the air, maybe you want fresh air, it's an conflict in AL matters especially in the bigger society's. It will always be classes and struggles and some will have more materialistic resources than others.

[dieonyourfeetDEC16]

I understand the credit problem with the current system,and yes they are trying to postpone the inevitable collapse of the system.But my point is that the system of credit is NOT capitalism.CENTRAL BANK controls credit and such a bank is one of the planks of the COMMUNIST MANIFESTO.the point is that for capitalism we don't need a central bank who is really to blame for the credit problems we're seeing if you look at the root causes.please checkout my other video in response.

[AwakenedByTyranny]

Brilliant young lady!

[dieonyourfeetDEC16]

the reason having a central bank is against lassaize faire capitalism is because it gives monopoly control over money supply to a group of individuals.Having control of how much money gets printed is one of the highest degrees of power.You control credit, interest rates, who to give money to. Imagine if YOU had monopoly power over counterfeiting dollars. You could print enough money to buy anything and I am sure you would get a lot of new friends trying to get a piece of the action.

[dieonyourfeetDEC16]

To find the root cause of the problem you have to understand that in the US we have NOT had lassaize faire capitalism,so how can we blame it for the problems.We have a mixed economy with tinges of communism,socialism & fascism.When you are able to see that,then you can look at the situation critically and identify the causes of the financial and inequality problems we are seeing.Having a CENTRAL BANK is 1 of the planks of the COMMUNIST MANIFESTO and against lassaize faire capitalist principles.

[dieonyourfeetDEC16]

the 700 billion are to "save the banks" that made bad decisions and investments, NOT capitalism.the proposed 250 billion are proposed to save inefficient car companies NOT capitalism. Do you see how saving failing companies is totally against FREEMARKET principles? it is the GOVERNMENT doing that NOT the freemarket.

[dieonyourfeetDEC16]

what do you mean by democratically planned?

[dieonyourfeetDEC16]

how do you see new businesses and factories come into existence. How would that work in practice?

[dieonyourfeetDEC16]

We decide to embrace liberty and personal responsability and give up on having a father figure who is going to take care of us, risking abuse of power and the majority using that power to undermine individual liberty, and instead individually take care of ourselves and each other without resorting to violence and the use of force on our fellow human beings.

[dieonyourfeetDEC16]

i don't think that Democracy is an economic system.There are democracies with different types of economic systems.But as far as a way of deciding who is going to rule a country, I have to agree that it is an improvement from tribalism, aristocracy, totalitarianism etc.But very far from perfect.And I believe that just as we've evolved to a democracy we need to continue and go the next step.Maybe in the future instead of trying to figure out methods of chosing who is going to rule us.

[dieonyourfeetDEC16]

and the terrible dislocations we are having now are not because of the freemarket, they are more about government intervention in the economy, this whole crisis has everything to do with the CENTRAL BANK created by the government and all the easy credit that was put into the system, creating all these malinvestments in the housing market, and US's 20 year spending spree.

[dieonyourfeetDEC16]

are you saying that libertarian socialist economy guarantees full employment, that is quite a claim let me say,specially if it guarantees employment at a good wage.the job losses are not because of capitalism itself, they are because we don't live in a utopian world, we live in a changing world. Production is not fixed, demand is not fixed, peoples wants are not fixed, resources are not fixed, governments are not stagnant they sure like getting involved in the economy.

[dieonyourfeetDEC16]

I absolutely agree that socialism is more about equality then wealth. Being an individual that is more concerned about eradicating poverty than eradicating inequality, I think LASSAISEZ FAIRE capitalism is the best ecomic system for a society.

[dieonyourfeetDEC16]

and I don't see how is it that capitalism does not work for human needs. That is at the basis of its succes at creating prosperity, that it takes peoples needs into account.If I am a business that does not take human needs(customer needs)then I probably won't be around for long.

[dieonyourfeetDEC16]

And even in a mixed economy such as the US, getting a loan does not guarantee a succesful business. As a matter of fact you could end up losing a lot if it doesn't work, it's risky.However I do agree that there is an exploitation by certain businesses, that is why I call the US kind of Fascist, some big businesses do use governments via the federal reserve to get funding and loans, which is not only unnecessary for a freemarket economy but against lassaize faire capitalism. principles.

[dieonyourfeetDEC16]

What determines the full value of their labor??? you think that the workers labor has all the value in a product, but you don't see the value of savings, innovation, creativity, managing, planning, vision that goes into it. Is like you think companies sring up magically and become profitable magically. Without the idea and without the capital, which in a sound economy comes from savings(sacrificed present consumption)then there is no goose that lays golden eggs. we need more gooses.

[dieonyourfeetDEC16]

The problem here is probably that I wouldn't trust them to take care of my investment eventhough they benefit from it, if they go bankrupt from bad decisions, they'll just walk away and not lose anything, on the other hand i'll lose my investment, my savings, my past work, or be accountable for any credit taken in the businesses name.

[dieonyourfeetDEC16]

So if my employees are willing to pay me their wages, which on average are 18,000 a year and I don't have to work or worry about solving problems and making decisions and they will take care of the business that would be great.

[dieonyourfeetDEC16]

I think you're understimating the percentage of revenue that gets paid in wages and the expenses involved in running a succesful business. I don't know if you're familiar with Return on Investment, but basically most businesses make 20% to 30% annual return, some even less, so if a invest $100,000 I'll get 20k to 30k a year net income that is after all sorts of expenses. This means my revenue is about $100,000 a year subtract wages and operational expenses and I net $30,000.

[MarxBakuninMe]

You say that workers' ownership is not simple, OK . . . then you use the example of 10 people starting, eh, urm, business? It's libertarian socialism not libertarian capitalism. You are straw manning.

[dieonyourfeetDEC16]

Well, why don't you explain how a libertarian socialist economy would work.

[dieonyourfeetDEC16]

well iam not very familiar with how libertarian socialism would work in the real world. So Iam giving an example to illustrate how I see it unfolding. If I got it totally wrong and the system you are talking about doesn't work this way, then I would be more than happy if you explain how the fundamentals would work in practice.

[mr1001nights]

Allocation&production is decided by the community& workers councils affected. Otherwise the workplace is a dictatorship. Remuneration due to effort&sacrifice falls within L-Socialist objectives, that's why it's opposed to capitalism ie nonlabor remuneration by exploiting wage slaves. The notion we need a motivation of "work for a boss or starve" to produce is based on ideological notions of human nature Read the Anarchist FAQ at infoshopdotorg to realize the propaganda in ur economics courses

[Paddy234]

DISTRIBUTISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[DEVRIMCI2007]

Both communism and some kinds of socialism have also upheld the notion that private property is inherently illegitimate. This argument is centered mainly on the idea that the creation of private property will always benefit one class over another, giving way to domination through the use of this private property. Communists are naturally not opposed to personal property which is "Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned",by members of the proletariat.

[Ifthatisevenim4odd]

I think Libertarian Socialism would be a great system if you were a collective.

I feel your points are invalid in regards to just and unjust. It is obvious that the creators of the society would have to sacrifice to implement the system and no monetary reward could be given for their effort. As you have shown people see themselves as individuals and henry getting a bigger piece of pie seem unjust to bob because bob doesn't benefit from henry's happiness. So bob just became a monkey wrench.

[Ifthatisevenim4odd]

However your trying to describe Libertarian Socialism with a capitalistic view.

[dieonyourfeetDEC16]

It would be said more appropriately that we ARE individuals,is not that I SEE myself as an individual,I AM an individual.We derive our rights as individuals not as groups.I wouldn't call it a capitalistic view but a view based on the reality of our condition as human beings.There is no such thing as THE COLLECTIVE in reality,there is you and me and hiM..Sacrificing yourself for the IDEA of the collective is just sacrifacing yourself for whatever individuals happen to benefit from your work.

[sparkster223]

You view yourself as an individual so you are an individual.(I agree with that) However, some people only see themselves as a member to a group. They don't view themselves as an individual. Every action they perform is for the group(selfless). A simple example of this would be a mother who's only concerns are for that of the family. Every thought and action she preforms is for her family. She sacrifices her life for their benefit. She derives her image from that of the group as a whole.

[dieonyourfeetDEC16]

so in this picture we have a mother(individual person) sacrificing herself for her son(individual), daughter(individual), her husband(individual)etc. what I mean is that the "FAMILY" or the "COLLECTIVE" or the "STATE", "COUNTRY" etc. don't exist in reality, they are concepts in our minds. Offcourse someone can chose to sacrifice themselves for concepts but we need to understand that in REALITY they don't exist.

[Vincent171090]

Establishing a shoe factory would in a libertarian socialist world (Not saying country, boarders in a traditional understanding will be erased, after all, that's the idea of the International) would be a community decision. At least if you look at the spanish revolution in 1936-1939 (Which is about one of the best examples of lib-socio society in work). If the community (general assembly of all citizens) sees it as a good idea to produce shoes, everyone will work together, and everyone will own.

[wasuretta]

Thanks for proving my point. With evil people, it will never work, and oh we are such wonderfully evil creatures.

"This is Plato's man!"

Diogenes of Sinope

[RomanPhilosopher]

wait wait wait. In a Libertarian Socialist state, there is no money. Thats your first problem. Likewise where there are needs people will help out. Everyone can't just sit on their asses all day doing nothing. They grow bored and nothing would get done. We'd be compelled to do work. Someone would make machines, out of the joy of making machines. Others would make shoes, so people would havc warm feet. People would roll cigarettes so people can smoke. Not for profit, out of simple necessity.

[dieonyourfeetDEC16]

so a libertarian socialist state would use barter as a means of exchange?

[RomanPhilosopher]

no, would us need. Not exchange. Its like the government on Star Trek. People on starships aren't paid, they volunteer, and do the jobs needed not out of personal gain, but out of wanting the experience and the job needs to be done. You'd make engines out of the love of mechanics, not the love of being paid or compensated. And when you need oranges, someone will have a stand and giving away oranges. Or there will be free orchards someone takes care of out of love and need, not money.

[para15000]

your arguments could also make a good defense for slavery, for militarism for every other system of exploitation.

You could say hey since the Romans were better at making than the Dacians for example(because they easily conquered their land) wouldn't it be just that they enslave the dacians? They need to be rewarded for their military skill just like the founders of your theoretical company need to be rewarded for their hard work founding the company? It doesn't work that way... no offence

[dieonyourfeetDEC16]

In no moment in my comment do I support slavery, militarism or anything that requires the use of force,the interactions in my example are those of a FREE SOCIETY,all voluntary.The point of my video was to get a socialist to explain how such a system works in practice without violating individual freedom and creates weatlh.Please Explain.There are moral and practical reasons of why I support FREEMARKETS,the principle of freedom and personal responsability and promotes wealth creation.

[Sith223]

Ron Paul is so far away from a socialist.

[RP4409]

Socialism is usery. Usery is a sin

[frnnk]

What is sin?Sin is anathema of progress. progress is key to understanding man. man seeks to move forward positively into the future to the point where there is no more fear of loss or lack. socialism gives away what you create. that is not progress,that is theft. trade creates civilization creates capitalism, creates high technology creates the ideal freedom man seeks to attain in the singularity: which is where the robot takes the burden of man forever and ever. doesnt look like that'll happen

[wasuretta]

Socialism is usery. Usery is a sin.