Can libertarian socialists and capitalist libertarians function as one party?

[Mathematician]

We're going to have to suspend some modern views if this thread is going to work properly, so before I begin, I'd like to get the definitions out of the way.

Libertarianism was originally coined by the French anarcho-communist Déjacque, but has since, at least in America, come to mean something resembling classical liberalism. The two branches of libertarianism are split between the view on what role money plays: capitalism and socialism.

However, the definition of libertarian via dictionary.com is nuetral to both.

One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.

What the two movements do share is a common belief that a bigger government is not the answer, the mantra "get out of my life" and "stop militarism."

My question is this: do you believe libertarian socialists and libertarian capitalists could function as a single political party, or is the disagreement over economy too big of an elephant?

 

[Yerda]

No libertarian socialist I know would even consider it. Infact, they would argue that capitalism is a more pressing danger than the state.

 

[NuGnostic]

No libertarian socialist I know would even consider it.

I would and do.

They make better allies than many of the people we ally with like Leninists and liberals. And in reality there schemes, while often inadvertantly, are likely to bring us closer to our goal as capitalism relies on the state and weakening the state weakens capitalism.

 

[NuGnostic]

My question is this: do you believe libertarian socialists and libertarian capitalists could function as a single political party, or is the disagreement over economy too big of an elephant?

This disagreements over the baiscs aren't too important. The main differences are in property rights, just suggest that we let the local community and common law take care of that within a self-ownership framework and then allow all non-invasive behaviour(ie a free market.) on top of that.

 

[Wandered Off]

The two branches of libertarianism are split between the view on what role money plays: capitalism and socialism.

Yes, the difference is over which system restricts individual liberty more. Most US-style libertarians view socialism as itself a restriction of economic liberty. This is the gap to be crossed, IMO.

If you can effectively convince people that socialism is not more restrictive of economic liberty than capitalism, then the two may be able to unite. (side note: I'd enjoy seeing your case for this either as a topic or a PM, if you don't mind)

If this could be accomplished, the Libertarians might become more than perpetual also-rans, because people are more fed up with the 'big two' than ever before

 

[Mathematician]

It would require from both left-libertarians and right-libertarians a lot of leniency, to the point where they agree to compromise with each on certain issues if ever elected.

I don't know if you can convince all capitalist libertarians that socialism is not restrictive because 1.) the word carries a Marxist/Leninist connotation and 2.) to capitalists there is the idea that any intervention in business is bad, whereas libertarian socialists believe that if the people are directly getting involved at the lowest level possible it's the best solution.

I'm sure they could reach some economic agreements. Both think corporate welfare and hand-outs are bad. Both are opposed to giving money to people who don't work [though the socialists would argue everyone has a right to a job].

 

[eudaimonia]

My question is this: do you believe libertarian socialists and libertarian capitalists could function as a single political party, or is the disagreement over economy too big of an elephant?

No, the party would splinter. I know that I personally would have a very difficult time of it.

People need to be able to work with each other, and the differences in worldview and values would be so great that this would be impossible.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[lombas]

I think that both can agree on "economic anarchy". The problem is definitions, and we should never let our thoughts be solely guided by the definition we subscribe to.

 

[NuGnostic]

We can certainly have a left-libertarian allieance. A combination of libertarian socialists and those left-leaning groups among American libertarianism such as Agorist, left-Rothbardians, Geolibertarians and anyone who is broadly for more indiviudal liberty, less hierarchy and authority, against wage labour and large organisations.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Gene,

My question is this: do you believe libertarian socialists and libertarian capitalists could function as a single political party, or is the disagreement over economy too big of an elephant?

I don't think libertarian socialists and libertarian capitalists could function as single party. Unless I am misunderstanding the meaning of socialism.

 

[NuGnostic]

Hi Gene,



I don't think libertarian socialists and libertarian capitalists could function as single party. Unless I am misunderstanding the meaning of socialism.

You do. Socialism means an end to economic exploitation ie workers get the full value of their wages.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi NuGnostic,

You do. Socialism means an end to economic exploitation ie workers get the full value of their wages.

Really, I think the definition for socialism is:

1.a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. 2.procedure or practice in accordance with this theory. 3.(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Or:

1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

Or:

1. a political theory advocating state ownership of industry 2. an economic system based on state ownership of capital

Or:

the belief or theory that a country's wealth (its land, mines, industries, railways etc) should belong to the people as a whole, not to private owners

-----------------------------------------------

Now, where it doesn't state state ownership of the means of production it talks about collectivism. However, I don't believe collectivism could be achieved on a large scale without the force of the state.

So, I am failling to see this 'state-less' socialism.

 

[NuGnostic]

Nope. To actual socialists socialism means wanting the workers to control the full value of their labour ie for there to be no economic exploitation.

Use your definition if you wish, but remember this is not the one used by socialists, and never has been, and you are wasting your time and talking past people because you are talking about different things.

The word socialist first was just used to mean theories about future society as opposed to sociology which meant theories about current society, this is why it has social in it not due to anything about collective or social ownership. And many socialists, particularly in the 19th century didn't believe in social ownership, particularly of everything. Look up Proudhon or Benjamin Tucker.

Then the meaning shifted to the actual one still used by socialists that I gave you. And finally there has been the anti-socialist move to just conflate socialism and state ownership and this is the definition you gave in a modified form.

Now I know that political words change their meanings depending on who uses them and I don't care, I just think it is necessary you realise what people are actually talking about instead of forcing your ideas of what they believe onto them. This is pointless, you are just talking past them.

 

[NuGnostic]

Now, where it doesn't state state ownership of the means of production it talks about collectivism. However, I don't believe collectivism could be achieved on a large scale without the force of the state.

So, I am failling to see this 'state-less' socialism.

Firstly not all socialists believe in collective ownership as I said, I don't, although I accept libertarian versions of collective ownership embarked on by the local community/common law. Look up Mutualists, the early Ricardian socialists or American Individualist anarchists.

Although I accept most decentralism and libertarianism, I consider myself a socialist and believe in private property and completely free markets. In fact the only taxes I accept is Henry George's land value tax.

Secondly your idea there about the need of the state for collectivisation is just an assertion. I happen to think "royalist" lockean property rights as well as wage labour and large organisations all rely on the state.

And lastly most anarchists and libertarian socialists want decentralised communities anyway, they don't want large scale anything.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi NuGnostic,

Nope. To actual socialists socialism means wanting the workers to control the full value of their labour ie for there to be no economic exploitation.

I fear this is turning into a situation I have seen before (A "real Christian" is X, "Actual Christians" believe Y).

But let's turn to your comment above. Workers should get the full value of their labor. As a conservative Republican (with libertarian beliefs) I believe that. I believe people should keep the money they earn.

Does this make me a socialist or am I missing something?

 

[Quiddity]

Before I contribute, I'd like to know what they don't have in common. You gave an example of they do share, can give some of what they don't?

I'm guessing social libertarians lean more to the left and aren't as supportive of big business? They tend to favor the worker above the company.

Capitalists libertarians are the opposite of that.

Do I have that right?

 

[lombas]

Benjamin Tucker

Tucker was not a full proponent for the abolishment of property, I think

 

[NuGnostic]

Hi NuGnostic,



I fear this is turning into a situation I have seen before (A "real Christian" is X, "Actual Christians" believe Y).

Not really, because this is non-socialists trying to tell socialists what they believe. Not an interal dispute among socialists.

It would be like me(as a pagan.) saying christians all believe in sacrificing infidels, not a protestant saying catholics are not christian.

But let's turn to your comment above. Workers should get the full value of their labor. As a conservative Republican (with libertarian beliefs) I believe that. I believe people should keep the money they earn.

Does this make me a socialist or am I missing something?

If you follow that through you are a socialist.

I believe in private property(proviso lockeanism.) and completely free markets but I'm still a socialist.

Of course socialists believe that rent, interest and profit are unearned and have different schemes of getting rid of them. I happen to think a free market with georgist/proviso lockean rights would remove this. Which is almost what most libertarian "capitalists" believe in, although most drop the proviso lockeanism for "royalist" lockeanism.

 

[NuGnostic]

Tucker was not a full proponent for the abolishment of property, I think

He was for mutualist property rights, which is to say for direct occupany and use property rights. You can own property as long as you reside or work in it yourself, I'd imagine the local community/common law would sort out the details.

He was still a socialist, just like Proudhon and many socialists believe in a measure of private property.

 

[Yerda]

I would and do.

You're in a party combining the ideals of libertarian left and right?

What's it like?

They make better allies than many of the people we ally with like Leninists and liberals.

From the rhetoric of people like the Socialist Worker Party (in the UK - I'm not sure where you are) you'd think the arch enemies of libertarianism would be the Marxist-Leninist, overthrow-the-goverment-and-we'll-take-charge-for-you types. In reality however, these are the people we find on the streets campaigning for basic socialist reforms, like decent wages and working conditions. You find liberals and Leninists helping out at the picket lines, I don't tend to encounter many right-wing free marketeers except perhaps at the other side of the line.