Can libertarian socialists and capitalist libertarians function as one party?

[NuGnostic]

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

What's it like?

I accept both these types. I doubt whether a party of libertarian leftist could exist on its own anyway without even getting the right involved.

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.

Wages and working conditions are particularly my concern, I'm not for reformism. I'd rather see an end to wage labour, perhaps if they were looking to take over the workplaces I'd join them. What do you think would happen if the Leninist were in charge and this happened? Kronstadt II I bet.

And I'm a "free marketeer".

 

[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?

Or not...lol

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi NuGnostic,

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.

Actually yes because according to your definition I am a socialist. I guess I get hung up on statist socialists because when I think of socialists I think of European socialists and they don't simply want people to keep the money they earn, they want the state to redistribute resources to people they believe deserve it.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Victor,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Victor
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?

Or not...lol

That is what I thought, but NuGnostic assures me that 'real' socialists just want people to keep the money they earn which makes a lot of people socialists (and excludes a number of actual socialists).

I think the chasm between the socialist and the capitalist is too big notwithstanding NuGnostic's unique definition.

 

[Quiddity]

Hi Victor,

That is what I thought, but NuGnostic assures me that 'real' socialists just want people to keep the money they earn which makes a lot of people socialists (and excludes a number of actual socialists).

I think the chasm between the socialist and the capitalist is too big notwithstanding NuGnostic's unique definition.

Hmm...that actually sounds about right. The difference may be that social libertarians place the welfare of the people first, if they feel it's gone to far in the companies interest to "earn" more money. Capitalists libertarians would say that companies have every right to be greedy. Even at the expense of the common folk to "earn" a decent wage.

Maybe my assessment is flawed, but that's how I understood it.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Victor,

Hmm...that actually sounds about right. The difference may be that social libertarians place the welfare of the people first, if they feel it's gone to far in the companies interest to "earn" more money. Capitalists libertarians would say that companies have every right to be greedy. Even at the expense of the common folk to "earn" a decent wage.

I think you have just shown how libertarian socialists (LS) and libertarian capitalists (LC) could not function as one party.

The LC would advocate freedom for people and businesses to pursue profit as much as they liked. The LS would attempt to put a stop to that via the legislation that you talked about (which makes you wonder where the libertarian part comes in).

 

[Quiddity]

Hi Victor,



I think you have just shown how libertarian socialists (LS) and libertarian capitalists (LC) could not function as one party.

The LC would advocate freedom for people and businesses to pursue profit as much as they liked. The LS would attempt to put a stop to that via the legislation that you talked about (which makes you wonder where the libertarian part comes in).

My opinion is that LC's are actually following the Libertarian philosophy to the teeth. Where as LS will not if faced with an ethical dilema.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Victor,

My opinion is that LC's are actually following the Libertarian philosophy to the teeth. Where as LS will not if faced with an ethical dilema.

I agree with that analysis.

 

[Mathematician]

Libertarianism was originally an anarcho-communist philosophy. It stands to be debated whether capitalism or socialism is more natural. The hunter-gatherer societies were socialist. Only when the State was introduced did capitalism/mercantilism/feudalism develop.

 

[Quiddity]

Libertarianism was originally an anarcho-communist philosophy. It stands to be debated whether capitalism or socialism is more natural. The hunter-gatherer societies were socialist. Only when the State was introduced did capitalism/mercantilism/feudalism develop.

Natural? I'm just talking about that if you stick the definition provided by NuGnostic:
"just want people to keep the money they earn"
Socialism cannot truly follow that to it's fullest extension. Why? Because as I told Joe Stocks:
My opinion is that LC's are actually following the Libertarian philosophy to the teeth. Where as LS will not if faced with an ethical dilema.

 

[Mathematician]

Natural? I'm just talking about that if you stick the definition provided by NuGnostic:
"just want people to keep the money they earn"
Socialism cannot truly follow that to it's fullest extension. Why? Because as I told Joe Stocks:
My opinion is that LC's are actually following the Libertarian philosophy to the teeth. Where as LS will not if faced with an ethical dilema.

Capitalists would argue they're owed the price of their labor determined by their employer.
Socialists would argue they're owed the price of their labor determined by the collective opinion of the workers.

I just see a difference in opinion.

 

[Quiddity]

Capitalists would argue they're owed the price of their labor determined by their employer.
Socialists would argue they're owed the price of their labor determined by the collective opinion of the workers.

I just see a difference in opinion.

You're basically saying the same thing I am. But I would re-word to read:

Capitalists would argue they're owed the price of their labor determined by their employer, whether it's ethical or not.

Socialists would argue they're owed the price of their labor determined by what ethical or philosophical system they subscribe to.

I think a socialist will ignore the collective opinion if he so thinks it’s immoral.

 

[Mathematician]

How would a socialist ignore the workers' collective decision anymore than a capitalist would ignore his employer's decision? I'm not following you.

 

[Quiddity]

How would a socialist ignore the workers' collective decision anymore than a capitalist would ignore his employer's decision? I'm not following you.

How many socialist do you know that actually go talk to the workers? Most of the time it's indirect information handed down to them (say the New York Times..) and then they make an ethical decision based on that. The collective simply confers what they already hold to. In practice, I'm sure that is what they intend to do, but socialists moral inclinations supercede that of the collective. In otherwords, Mexican farm workers can be completely happy but the socialist will still push for better pay.

 

[Mathematician]

Mexican farm workers can be completely happy but the socialist will still push for better pay.

Those not employed by the company will have a much harder time changing the pay than the workers. If businesses are democratized, I doubt Mexican farmers will keep their pay [average 6-8 per hour for farm hands]. I'm happy with my pay, but if the opportunity came for me to vote a $2 raise for all cashiers, you bet I'd vote "yes."

How are you today, by the way?

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Gene,

Libertarianism was originally an anarcho-communist philosophy. It stands to be debated whether capitalism or socialism is more natural. The hunter-gatherer societies were socialist. Only when the State was introduced did capitalism/mercantilism/feudalism develop.

So libertarian socialism is a completely antiquated notion, no?

 

[NuGnostic]

Hi Victor,



That is what I thought, but NuGnostic assures me that 'real' socialists just want people to keep the money they earn which makes a lot of people socialists (and excludes a number of actual socialists).

I think the chasm between the socialist and the capitalist is too big notwithstanding NuGnostic's unique definition.

It is not a unique definition even if it is not stated in this way. The normal way of stating it is that the workers should own the means of production, but this means nothing on its own and is only a means to bring about the situation where the workers get the full fruits of their labour.

Of course most socialists believe in a version of the labour theory of value and you are not a socialist because I'm sure you support measures that would not grant the workers the full fruits of thier labour. The main problem is how you work out exactly what these fruits are.

And which socialists does this rule out? Social democrats and Sweden etc don't count as socialists btw.

 

[NuGnostic]

Actually yes because according to your definition I am a socialist. I guess I get hung up on statist socialists because when I think of socialists I think of European socialists and they don't simply want people to keep the money they earn, they want the state to redistribute resources to people they believe deserve it.

Yes by socialists I mean real socialists like Leninists and Anarcho-communists and Guild socialists.

I don't mean liberals and social democrats, these people are not socialists, they are considered almost as bad as rightwingers by most socialists.(I consider many far worse than American style libertarians and paleoconservatives and similar!)

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi NuGnostic,

And which socialists does this rule out? Social democrats and Sweden etc don't count as socialists btw.

Yes, these people who probably identify themselves as socialists. They really aren't socialists?

 

[NuGnostic]

Socialism cannot truly follow that to it's fullest extension. Why? Because as I told Joe Stocks:
My opinion is that LC's are actually following the Libertarian philosophy to the teeth. Where as LS will not if faced with an ethical dilema.

Huh? I'm extremely well versed in all kinds of decentralism and libertarianism, left and right and I don't see this at all.

What is it exactly that you are refering too?