8 thoughts on “The myth of “Libertarian Socialism””

  1. Posted 06/03/2020 at 21:53 | Permalink

    No, the term “Libertarian Socialism” can be understood in somewhat different ways (see the term on Wikipedia), but even that ignores a better definition. The term can, and should, mean a system that uses, and accepts capitalism, but regulates it for avoidance of fraud, fairness, etc., while providing MORE individual freedom and less taxation for individuals, and MORE regulation and taxation, BUT SCALED for size, wealth and influence, for ORGANIZATIONS (both for profit, and so-called “non profit”).
    [email protected]

  2. Posted 27/06/2020 at 05:05 | Permalink

    There are two types self-described “libertarian socialists”. First want achieve socialism and prefers libertarian methods (Lenin), second want achieve liberty of workers and prefer socialist methods (anarchists). This is significant difference. Socialism is impossible to estabilish by revolution, this is the sad true, so leninism leads to authoritarian state socialism. But anarchists only use sabotage to make workers free to control facilities democratically by themselves and they oppose statism as much as corporatism. Anarchists support free market rather than centralism and there is no such economical thing by which socialism only as “workers collectively own their local private workplaces in free market system” (which is in contrast with communist “whole society collectively own all workplaces” and capitalistic “I own your workplace and exploit you”) cannot be estabilished. There are only human preferences which oppose this social liberalism, but values are evolving to make it possible.

  3. Posted 08/07/2020 at 21:38 | Permalink

    “Socialism is always ‘libertarian’ in its aspirations. And it is always authoritarian in its actual practice. ”

    This sentence ignores Revolutionary Catalonia and the Korean People’s Association in Manchuria. While these societies did have problems, they did not descend into authoritarianism.

  4. Posted 14/08/2020 at 01:36 | Permalink

    Aren’t you ignoring the fact that Marx believed that a society wasn’t prepared for socialism until it was in late-stage capitalism? This is why Lenin was hoping the revolution would take place in Germany and not Russia. Once he realized that wasn’t going to happen, he settled for Russia and had to draw up new plans for how he was going to make it work with a largely uneducated and unskilled proletariat.

  5. Posted 17/08/2020 at 14:37 | Permalink

    You are taking a whole ideology and evaulating in only one expirement that happened in a community that change had done rapid and a society that in struggle of new abolished slave system. Russian atmosphere in those era’s are desperate, conflicted, uneducated and been divided to many groups. Educated groups where sent through to Siberian region and expirementing the people of the unknown state and the first socialist ideals grew up on Siberian region. While burguoise and aristocrats having a great life the Moscowian proletariat is turning in to little burgoise (like in mutualism) with considering this events. Lenin’s ideals that are more based on a proletarian semi-state (as you say but its a vanguard system that again you didnt consider) that will lead into a revoulution for all community is impossible and seeing a corrupt device ans changing into a device for your own only increase the corruption as we can see in Stalin’s era. Lenin has a vanguard party system that so many individuals reject it as you are saying “all socialism intentions is libertarin” Lenin system lead to a complex hierachial while other such as Bordiga is considering more a communal way with a electoralist party(Left communism) For the end Emma Goldman was a anarhist and its whole differemt topicnto consider while.again you can see in Octover revoulution there were anarchist communes that destroyed by “Bolsheviks”.

  6. Posted 15/09/2020 at 07:07 | Permalink

    If lighter forms of socialism don’t exist or work, then explain why Norway, Finland, England, Australia, Sweden, Canada, and Germany are some of the best run countries on earth?

    this article is nonsense.
    The only reason why socialism hasn’t worked, is because there is always a greedy oligarchy of dirtbags who will destroy them. The more successful socialism becomes, the worse it is for narcissistic libertarians who like hierarchies because they were born at the top of them.

  7. Posted 15/09/2020 at 11:06 | Permalink

    “This sentence ignores Revolutionary Catalonia and the Korean People’s Association in Manchuria. While these societies did have problems, they did not descend into authoritarianism.”

    I cannot speak about Korea but I know a little about Spain. Your statement is untrue – of both the Communist/Socialist parties and the Anarchists (albeit less so). The Communist and Socialist parties saw the Anarchists as a major threat and actively worked against them in an authoritarian manner. They restricted their access to arms to fight Castro and actively worked against them in any way they could – even though supposedly, the Communists’ aim was to lead to a stateless society eventually. If you read some anarchist accounts they blame their failure as much on the socialists as the fascists.

    The anarchists were better, letting people who wanted to remain outside the communes continue to live. However it was in reality a Hobson’s choice, because they dominated in the areas in which they operated: taking over not only production but the dispersion of goods/markets etc. Anyone who disobeyed was ejected from the commune into this purgatory where living was hard. Their rules were enforced rigidly… in some areas they even policed people saving money or coupons. And let’s not forget that they took property and land without compensation to the rightful owners in order to start up in the first place – hardly a libertarian approach.

    And all this in just a few years. I predict it would have become just as repressive as every other socialist experiment over time.

  8. Posted 16/09/2020 at 07:50 | Permalink

    The central idea of the article is mischevious in its intentions but not completely without merit .It is worthwhile to try and examine why socialism has tended to gravitate towards authoritarianism a lot of times. But as we see in most of the developed world it is largely socialist measures which contribute to the index of “quality of life” for its citizens. Even in the developing world the best ways to bring the backward sections of the society in the mainstream seem to be socialist measures,atleast the fastest and more humane way anyway. The much vaunted “free market” society dont exist anywhere. They are the actual myth.So if socialist ideas do so much good,what happens when we try to dismantle the state? is it always necessary for it to be by force?and how much of the state should remain,if at all? Those are things to investigate and try and answer. Not this mindless rant against socialism.

Leave a Reply

Your e-mail address will not be published.