Libertarian Socialism?

[Fife]

Kidding aside, the words do have meaning, historically.

Here's a little piece from a Rothbardian/Misesian POV, which jumps my motor of course. https://beinglibertarian.com/3-reasons- ... -argument/

Socialism doesn’t mean “the government does it”; that’s statism. All socialism entails is that the means of production is, in some sense, in the hands of the masses. Capitalism means that those means of production are in private hands. A socialist could be a libertarian, provided that they live in a commune, or agree to sell their labor and productions to a labor council.

As long as it is done voluntarily, who cares?

Some might object regarding those who would then decide to engage in a capitalistic exchange. However, if one agrees to abide by the rules of a contact not to, then that socialist community’s contract would be violated.

[Speaker to Animals]

Kidding aside, the words do have meaning, historically.

Here's a little piece from a Rothbardian/Misesian POV, which jumps my motor of course. https://beinglibertarian.com/3-reasons- ... -argument/

Socialism doesn’t mean “the government does it”; that’s statism. All socialism entails is that the means of production is, in some sense, in the hands of the masses. Capitalism means that those means of production are in private hands. A socialist could be a libertarian, provided that they live in a commune, or agree to sell their labor and productions to a labor council.

As long as it is done voluntarily, who cares?

Some might object regarding those who would then decide to engage in a capitalistic exchange. However, if one agrees to abide by the rules of a contact not to, then that socialist community’s contract would be violated.

That's the kind of talk that brings out the insults, apparently.

[Martin Hash]

Nobody knows what "Statism" is? That's also why I don't use the word "Collectivism" even though it's a great word. Language is the weapon of The Left: use it or lose it.

p.s. MY POLITICAL NARRATIVE, the way I USE THE LANGUAGE, is in easy-to-digest, triggering phrases & sentences. Naom's linguistic maneuvering may kick your ass but I'm going after the guy. You can participate in the assault or pick at it.

[Martin Hash]

Hash Dictionary
Socialism: The needs of the group come before the wants of the individual.

If "socialism" is NOT the word for the above statement, what is? If there is NO WORD then people naturally assume that "the needs of the group DO come before the wants of the individual." Liberty loses.

p.s. Linguistics is mightily important to the agenda of liberty. Get onboard you lubbers.

[Speaker to Animals]

It's really not. Statism fits that definition more than socialism, though the vast majority of socialists are also statists. Collectivism is the more general concept, though people could freely enter into a collectivist contract, without coercion.


Socrates accepting his death penalty because the state demanded it, and he viewed the individual as subordinate to the state, was an example of this.

Hell, Sparta was the ancient progenitor of all these western collectivist models.

[Martin Hash]

OMG, dude, it's like talking to the wall.

[Fife]

Actually, he's on point here. Groupism is Statism. Socialism isn't necessary antithetical to Individualism. The definitional antithesis to Individualism (Volunteerism) is Groupism (Statism).

The sine qua non of Individualism is Property. The Kryptonite of Groupism is Property.

[Martin Hash]

Actually, he's on point here. Groupism is Statism. Socialism isn't necessary antithetical to Individualism. The definitional antithesis to Individualism (Volunteerism) is Groupism (Statism).

The sine qua non of Individualism is Property. The Kryptonite of Groupism is Property.

All of the professors are out of school for The 4th.

[Speaker to Animals]

Maybe put this way:

Collectivism is the broadest category. Statism, which is what Martin was talking about, is generally a sub-category of collectivism. Libertarian socialism is a collectivist brand, but it's not statist, and does not coerce people into participation in a collective.

Libertarian socialists and right libertarians could theoretically coexist in the same society just fine. They have completely different perspectives on ownership of the means of production, but they don't seek to take those means from one another. A commune would have their means, and a capitalist would have his means.

I seriously doubt that libertarian socialism would work on any large scale, but that's neither here nor there.

[Martin Hash]

No wonder Noam's got us by the balls.