Exactly. There's a big difference between 'Socialism', 'socialism', and 'libertarian socialism.' He's a libertarian socialist. Marx advocated Socialism.
Let's not forget "democratic socialism", which actually works fine as a modern, free society in about a dozen countries which are still very much anti-communist.
And of course there's "glenn beck" socialism, which is mostly an ad hom accusation.
Glenn Beck is an entertainer, and should not be confused in any way with someone with knowledge of social and economic systems. If you take his commentary seriously, you're almost certain to be barking up the wrong tree.
All you say is true, but at least 1/4 of the country does take everything he says extremely seriously. If you want a citation, check the numbers on people who think Obama's a muslim or not a US citizen. I think we can all agree that the guy's a clown but he's definitely influential and relevant.
I don't really see any substantive distinction between this concept of "libertarian socialism" and ordinary libertarianism.
If people are free to pursue their economic goals by voluntary cooperation, it presumes a recognition of underlying property rights. In the absence of external control, many would exercise their rights by monetizing their participation in the economy in order to earn a profit. Many others would adopt a broad "open source" ethos. Most would probably engage in a mix of both, in varying circumstances, and at all levels of formalization.
Freedom and openness lead to healthy variation. It's the philosophies that pursue the universal adoption of a single doctrine that are unnatural and destructive, no matter whether they go by the name of "socialism", "capitalism", or otherwise.
The term "libertarian socialism" is being used here to describe the opinions of the article's author, which focus on an economy rooted in voluntary participation and cooperation.
But how can you have an economy based on voluntary cooperation without the understanding that the voluntary aspect depends on the disposition of property at the discretion of its owners?
If some external authority can overrule you as to how your computer or your farm equipment or your land is used, your choice is between complying with their demands or surrendering your means to participate in the economy altogether; in this scenario, voluntarism is undermined.
Without a concept of private property, a voluntary economy cannot exist.
I'm talking about the actual term, not raganwald's views (and incidentally, my own).
In a Libertarian Socialist society, there would be no external authority. The state doesn't exist. You couldn't own land, but your computer and your farm equipment are possessions, which they make distinct from 'private property.'
If there is no private property, then you don't own your body, as to own your body would mean you owned some private property. If you don't own your body then you are a slave and there is no practical difference between that philosophy and any tyrannical system of government.
It varies by what particular kind of anarchist you're talking about, but the kind of property that's most consistently objected to is a government-enforced notion of "possessions on paper", with a lot more acceptance of things that look more like personal possessions. Say, the difference between living in a house, and owning 10,000 acres of development land in suburban San Diego. The first seems vaguely like a natural sense of possession, in that you live in a place, and you don't want people intruding into your bedroom and such. But owning huge tracts of land as an absentee landlord is more of a purely government-guaranteed notion of property, pretty disconnected from any natural sense of personal possession.
Put differently, property as a way of formalizing personal possession relationships is less objectionable to most anarchists (though many are skeptical of actually formalizing it) than property as a way of creating new kinds of ownership. You can see ownership of your house as just a formal ratification of "I live in this house", but ownership of 10,000 acres of land you've never visited is a pure creation of property-deed databases, and is hard to imagine existing without them.
(Whether that's good or bad, or what to do about it, is another story. I consider myself sympathetic to anarchist critiques and ideals, but putting forth workable concrete proposals is hard.)
Sorry, I forgot to add the caveat: private property means something different in the anarchist context. They make a distinction between 'private property' and 'possession,' your body would be a possession.
All physical property is the same, you exchange labor for it.
This distinction, and the claim that government is hat creates the property seems to come from not thinking e notion of personal property thru.
Basically, at some point, you're advocating taking property away from people ewho have up earned it by creating it or by trading their labor for it.
You need a gang, a mafia, or a government to do that, especially when it's 10,0000 acres somewhere that a collective, or corporation, has put together.
The only difference between a collective owning property and a corporation is that a corporation is allowed to make agreements amongst the members for how the corporation is run.
The existence of a government is not necessary for the existence of corporations.
These are not made up properties created by government, but collections of property made up of possibly thousands of individual explicit agreements between people.
To end that have to stick your nose in as third party and break those agreements that people voluntarily entered into before came around.
Obviously, we're not going to come to any sort of agreement here. And we never were. The point is, your worldview is not the only one. That doesn't make mine any better or worse. Just different.
Thank you for the discussion. I'm not going to respond to you any more.
> Exactly. There's a big difference between 'Socialism', 'socialism', and 'libertarian socialism.' He's a libertarian socialist. Marx advocated Socialism.
Most people - like 90% of people - don't know the difference. Reginald wrote, "I don't like the idea of anyone forcing me to accept socialism" - that's good and healthy. Socialism, unfortunately, now has strong connotations of control involved. If he's for people being able to choose their own life and destiny, I think he'd be best off picking a word or phrase that says that. "Free action" is the closest I know.
Why lock 90%+ of people out of the discussion because they don't know the terminology?
Most people - like 90% of people - don't know the difference.
Upmodded. Wouldn't it be nice if a by-product of our discussion was for one or more people to say to themselves, "Hey, Socialism isn't a single monolithic thing, there are shades of grey involved. The next time someone says that re-organizing health care is Socialist, I will ask them what kind of socialism is involved?"
So any kind of social behaviour is labeled socialism, whether it is a health care plan (how could universal health care ever be construed as a bad thing?) or pensions are leftwing and socialist, therefore bad.
You are asking people to pause and think, good luck with that, even here on HN where the level is way above the rest of the net as soon as politics are mentioned the various polarizing arguments get polished up and recycled as though they were somehow new.
I think it is as much a remnant of the cold war as it is a lack of information and education.
I beg to differ. I'm not going to make claims of a vast media conspiracy, but it is most certainly not the case that the media casts socialism as bad and capitalism as good.
For example, I submit that one of the most hackneyed themes of movies is the greedy capitalist exploiting others or preventing needed initiatives.
As far as I can see, the media consistently mis-frames the economic issues such that today's corporatism (corporate welfare, rent seeking, regulatory capture, etc.) are cast as problems of capitalism, when in fact they are antithetical to that system.
And on the other hand, major facets of our society (e.g., public education, labor unions) that clearly are socialist, are never referenced as such.
In short, I think that the media is just messed up, and anybody on either side of the philosophical divide that accepts media input unfiltered, is going to be horribly confused.
EDIT: I reversed the sense of good/bad in 1st paragraph. It doesn't really matter, since my thesis is that they're completely confused.
And on the other hand, major facets of our society (e.g., public education, labor unions) that clearly are socialist, are never referenced as such.
Don't forget the military. Universal health care, pensions, subsidized housing, job security, etc are all socialist; except somehow when applied to the military.
"You are asking people to pause and think, good luck with that, even here on HN where the level is way above the rest of the net as soon as politics are mentioned the various polarizing arguments get polished up and recycled as though they were somehow new."
Not to mention what happens when someone says "Python is better than Ruby" or vice versa... :)
how could universal health care ever be construed as a bad thing?
Universal healthcare construes long waits and inadequate care to me. The universal health care slogan should be: "The efficiency of the DMV, the compassion of the IRS".
The current state of health care in the US is definitely sub-optimal, but it is better than one run by the government.
"Universal healthcare" != "government-run healthcare". Under the US plan for universal healthcare, the government does not take over the healthcare providers. Rather, it is more tightly regulating insurance companies and businesses to increase the number of citizens with health insurance; and it is increasing the size of its own insurance plans to fill the gap for those who are still uninsured.
The healthcare continues to be provided by current providers.
That's a good point. I think in part that is because of the strength and amount of lobbying going on in the US and the many cross ties between business and government.
I'm not aware of any other country where lobbyists have that much influence.
Shocking, really the amount of money that goes in to that:
Unfortunately, the people who are saying things like "re-organizing health care is Socialist" are also the type of people would wouldn't care that there is a distinction that might be relevant. They have conflated socialism and communism, and there can be no reasonable types of communism.
Most people - like 90% of people - don't know the difference.
But when someone tries to articulate it, you first (incorrectly) attribute the idea to Karl Marx, and then try to dissuade him from even using the word. 'Free action' is a useless term in this context, because it captures nothing of the cooperative or mutual elements that Raganwald is discussing.
Exactly. There's a big difference between 'Socialism', 'socialism', and 'libertarian socialism.' He's a libertarian socialist. Marx advocated Socialism.