Quantcast
Libertarian Socialism is an Oxymoron?

Forums - Politics Discussion - Libertarian Socialism is an Oxymoron?

As Nemo said, there really isn't a ton of difference between a left-wing libertarian socialist, and a right-wing libertarian besides the fact that right-wing libertarians are against major hierarchical systems in government, and libertarian socialists are against hierarchical systems in both government and in the economy.

So no, not an oxymoron.



Bet with Adamblaziken:

I bet that on launch the Nintendo Switch will have no built in in-game voice chat. He bets that it will. The winner gets six months of avatar control over the other user.

Around the Network
KrspaceT said:
Regardless of what Libertarian originally meant, nowadays Libertarian Socialism is a massive political oxymoron, even compared to other ones I can imagine.

"Your a Gay Conservative married to a man? How does that work?"

"I'm a Financial Conservative and vote for moderates socially."

"....You haven't voted in a few years, haven't you."

Are these supposed to be political oxymorons?

The 2nd is probably the most common position for people under 40 in the US.



Normchacho said:
libertarian socialists are against hierarchical systems in... the economy.

So no, not an oxymoron.

Centralising the means of production under the state seems to increase hierarchy - instead of having many businesses in many private hands you'll get larger state owned monopolies.

 

Is there a real life example of libertarian-socialism in action?



I woudn't say that that young people are Libertarian, quite the opposite they fail to see the downsides of government.



That's because many people incorrectly identify libertarianism as being synonymous with neo-liberal/laissez-faire economics, but it isn't. It is doctrine which advocates policies which enhance freedoms for the most people in a given society. That is why many libertarians advocate social aspects within economies, rather than laissez-faire economics, which ultimately lead to corporate ownership, advantages over small scale operations, and advantages toward  inheriting parties leading to an economically oppressed working class.

Historically, Libertarianism began as a socialist platform to combat unfairness among the Noble class.

William Godwin, one of the fathers of libertarianism, was also one of history's strongest advocates for the estate tax. The purpose of the estate tax was to hamstring the economic advantage of the Noble upper class by taxing their estate when they transfered wealth to heirs - usually by death inheretence. The money would be transfered to the state in order to strengthen the infrastructure for the lower classes. He argued that this would create a happier and more productive society, as those who had the aptitude to rise would rise, and those who didn't would still have an easier time on their end. Meanwhile, the incompetent heirs of wealthy families would have far less of an opportunity to be a cancer on society.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Around the Network
numberwang said:
Normchacho said:
libertarian socialists are against hierarchical systems in... the economy.

So no, not an oxymoron.

Centralising the means of production under the state seems to increase hierarchy - instead of having many businesses in many private hands you'll get larger state owned monopolies.

 

Is there a real life example of libertarian-socialism in action?

Libertarian socialists don't believe the state should control means of production, they believe that workers should. That's literally what makes it libertarian socialism. There are different degrees of libertarian socialism of course, as their is with any political ideology, but the core tennants are proletariat ownership of the means of production and little government control.



Bet with Adamblaziken:

I bet that on launch the Nintendo Switch will have no built in in-game voice chat. He bets that it will. The winner gets six months of avatar control over the other user.

LadyJasmine said:

Worker control of production would only happen through government efforts though in todays society which is not libtertarian lol

Co-ops are "private socialism" and operate on the free market. Your local energy or grocery co-ops, credit unions, as well as notable large-scale retailer co-ops like Ace Hardware, True Value, and NAPA are all examples. The government didn't found them, nor did it establish them by forcibly converting a privately-owned business into a publicly-owned enterprise. A co-op can be founded like any other business, just with the power structure having democratic features and the workers (and often also customers) collectively owning the enterprise.

Incidentally, private corporations are themselves legal entities, and wouldn't exist without the government. They are effectively government constructs, though they are private sector entities and thus the government does not own or manage them (barring the occasional—and always partial and temporary—bailouts of failing companies, which are essentially a limited form of nationalization).

Edit: And libertarian socialism is not an oxymoron. Socialism, defined as public ownership of the means of production, can and does exist in free, democratic nations independent of the government, as the aforementioned example of cooperatives shows, and those espousing such forms of socialism can and often are opposed to "big government" and authoritarianism.



Jumpin said:

That's because many people incorrectly identify libertarianism as being synonymous with neo-liberal/laissez-faire economics, but it isn't. It is doctrine which advocates policies which enhance freedoms for the most people in a given society. That is why many libertarians advocate social aspects within economies, rather than laissez-faire economics, which ultimately lead to corporate ownership, advantages over small scale operations, and advantages toward  inheriting parties leading to an economically oppressed working class.

Historically, Libertarianism began as a socialist platform to combat unfairness among the Noble class.

William Godwin, one of the fathers of libertarianism, was also one of history's strongest advocates for the estate tax. The purpose of the estate tax was to hamstring the economic advantage of the Noble upper class by taxing their estate when they transfered wealth to heirs - usually by death inheretence. The money would be transfered to the state in order to strengthen the infrastructure for the lower classes. He argued that this would create a happier and more productive society, as those who had the aptitude to rise would rise, and those who didn't would still have an easier time on their end. Meanwhile, the incompetent heirs of wealthy families would have far less of an opportunity to be a cancer on society.

However that is not libertarian though thats socialist?

 

Pretty much in the end supposed socialst libertarianism requires a strong powerful government. 

 

Pretty much I see a lot of theory and no real world applications

 

Firstly to invoke socialist libertarianism would require a strong powerful government to break the current status quo. 



The idea is to make every company a cooperative



In everything I read about it, the writer tries to explain why it's not an oxymoron like a cat trying to catch their own tail. Yes. it very much is an oxymoron. Libertarianism and socialism at their cores are like water and oil. "Libertarian socialism" is just an attempt to co-opt both libertarianism and socialism.