The New Socialist

Member Demanded Area - Society For The Prevention Of Stupidity In The U.S. Political System

Moderators: Loki, exposno1, Parrot, Quasigriz, NickDupree, nmoore63, robroydude, Spinny Spamkiller

Socialism bad or good

Good
8
26%
Bad
5
16%
The Worst
3
10%
The Way to Go
3
10%
Not The Way to Go
12
39%
 
Total votes : 31

Re: The New Socialist

Postby StCapps » Tue Oct 25, 2011 8:11 am

Inquizitr wrote:Socialism, meaning the forced redistribution of the means of production by government, either by democratic or dictatorial means, is anti-libertarian. The VOLUNTARY distribution of means is Libertarian. It is disingenuous to confuse the 2.
Wikipedia wrote:Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are commonly owned and controlled cooperatively; or a political philosophy advocating such a system
Actually socialism is just where the means of production are commonly owned. Forceful redistribution can be used to achieve socialism but so can voluntary redistribution. Libertarian socialism is not an oxymoron unless you don't know the definition of socialism.
*yip*
User avatar
StCapps
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 7329
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 11:46 am
Location: Hamilton, Ontario

Re: The New Socialist

Postby Inquizitr » Tue Oct 25, 2011 5:34 pm

This really is tiresome. Socialism, as anything other than a government system, is irrelevant. Of course Libertarianism supports voluntary associations. But these rhetorical machinations are attempts to co-opt the good things about libertarianism, personal freedom, and incorporate the bad things about government forced socialism. You are trying to say socialism can be voluntary, and that may be so, but the socialism that really effects people, against their will, is socialism by government.
The same thing happened to the term, "liberalism". Classic Liberalism stressed the importance of private property. But now the term liberal means the right to redistribute property as the government sees fit through entitlement programs. Now the left wants to co-opt the word libertarian, so you hear this crap about libertarianism being socialist, when nothing could be further from the truth. Libertarianism is anti-socialist. You could even say it is anti-social. It promotes the idea that a person has an inalienable right to their person and their property and the government's only job is to protect persons and property from force and fraud. Socialist, not these United Way, Credt Union "socialist", but real socialist, who want to nationalize corporations and enlarge entitlements, should puke at the idea of being lumped in with these laissez-faire capitalist libertarian scum who just want to watch the poor starve from the windows of their mansions and luxury cars. This is one reason why Libertarianism is such a dismal failure. The poor weed suckers can never get along with the rich economic libertarians, and soon find themselves gravitating toward the socialist left, in spite of the fact that the left has never truly supported an end to the drug war.
I really don't get you Doc, one month you condemn libertarianism, the next month you deny entitlement programs are socialist, then the next you say libertarianism supports socialism. I don't know what books you are reading, but you should stop shopping in the "Books For Two Legged Lambs" section of the book store.
To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. ~ Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
User avatar
Inquizitr
Senior Member
 
Posts: 972
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 4:46 pm

Re: The New Socialist

Postby Dr. Strangelove » Tue Oct 25, 2011 5:42 pm

Well, by you same dumb ass logic, what most Americans endure now is "socialism" by corporation. You just made socialism into a euphemism for force. Is your brain really that twisted up inside, or do you just do this for fun on the internet?
“If the human race is to survive, then for all but a very brief period of its history, the word ship will mean space ship.” –Arthur C. Clarke
User avatar
Dr. Strangelove
Archon
 
Posts: 36716
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 10:21 pm

Re: The New Socialist

Postby Inquizitr » Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:01 pm

Dr. Strangelove wrote:Well, by you same dumb ass logic, what most Americans endure now is "socialism" by corporation. You just made socialism into a euphemism for force. Is your brain really that twisted up inside, or do you just do this for fun on the internet?

Corporations and government are one as a result of the regulatory/bribery state under which we live. Corporations benefit from the entitlement programs as much as individuals, if not more. The health care industry lives and breathes off of medicare. Industries that cater to the elderly profit greatly from the disposable income made possible by the Social Security system. The MIC is a socialist program for industrialist and their research scientists ( I guess that would be you). And politicians benefit from these social programs by bribing the electorate to keep themselves in power.
When you lament the corporations, realize the programs you support feed these corporations, which feed back into the corruption in government. You are feeding the monster, not starving it, with your support of social(ist) programs. Big picture, see the big picture, not just your little check they send you as a bribe to lap up their vomit.
To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. ~ Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
User avatar
Inquizitr
Senior Member
 
Posts: 972
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 4:46 pm

Re: The New Socialist

Postby StCapps » Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:38 pm

Inquizitr wrote:This really is tiresome. Socialism, as anything other than a government system, is irrelevant. Of course Libertarianism supports voluntary associations. But these rhetorical machinations are attempts to co-opt the good things about libertarianism, personal freedom, and incorporate the bad things about government forced socialism. You are trying to say socialism can be voluntary, and that may be so, but the socialism that really effects people, against their will, is socialism by government.
The same thing happened to the term, "liberalism". Classic Liberalism stressed the importance of private property. But now the term liberal means the right to redistribute property as the government sees fit through entitlement programs. Now the left wants to co-opt the word libertarian, so you hear this crap about libertarianism being socialist, when nothing could be further from the truth.
Socialism can be many different kinds of economic systems were property is collectively owned not just the economic systems you want to refer to as socialist. Seems to me like you are co-opting the term socialism and turning it into whatever you want it to mean, just like you whine about the term "liberal" being co-opted by big government socialists.

Libertarian Socialism is the original form of libertarian thought (look it up if you don't believe me or Strangelove), regardless of the fact that you want co-opt the term socialism and use it to refer only to the use of government force. You don't get to change the meaning of words in an to attempt to help win an argument. That just doesn't fly around here.
*yip*
User avatar
StCapps
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 7329
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 11:46 am
Location: Hamilton, Ontario

Re: The New Socialist

Postby Apxeogyg » Wed Oct 26, 2011 7:20 am

StCapps is right. Libertarian Socialism predates American Libertarianism by a considerable amount. If anything, the appropriation is by the American version, not the other way round. Although I do doubt American Libertarianism owes the original version much of an intellectual debt, since it is not an ideology defined by much in the way of intellectual content :mrgreen: .

Inquizitr, with all due respect, your ideas about socialism are basically culturally-programmed reactions. You are working from what you have been told about socialism from childhood, rather than what you have found out through your own work. This has the result that your argument consists largely of ignoring what people are telling you so you can redefine socialism as something you feel equipped to argue with. It's not a fruitful line of argument--it reduces debate to the mindless repetition of ideological koans. As far as definitions and concepts go, if you are not going to read about the topic ( and you don't need to--I, for example, have no interest in reading any more Ayn Rand), you minimally need to respect what you are being told about it by people who have read up on it. But, on the other hand, consequences and history are up for grabs.
Who built Thebes of the seven gates?
In the books you will find the name of kings.
Did the kings haul up the lumps of rock?
(Bertolt Brecht)
User avatar
Apxeogyg
Senior Member
 
Posts: 556
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 9:37 am
Location: Some cheap motel somewhere

Re: The New Socialist

Postby Inquizitr » Wed Oct 26, 2011 5:11 pm

Thanks Apxeogyg. After reading this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism I understand what this libertarian socialism is. It is a form of syndicalist anarchism. It is very far fetched and I can understand why American Libertarianism played down the origins of the word libertarian. And I understand why I got the anarchist label slung at me so often. What I don't understand is why any rational person would support this type of economic system, even in theory.
I must say I disagree this kind of anarchistic socialism is a tenable form of government, as the direction of the means of production would be so inefficient to be useless to economic growth, or even sustainability.
There was a time when the proposed limited government libertarianism political system seemed appealing to me. But now I see it is idealistic to hope the citizens of the US could accept government limited by anything. What they want is not a stateless libertarian free association type of system, or even a government with strict control. They want a government that will run to their rescue in times of need. Libertarian socialism will never happen. People want government control and government assistance.
I apologize for being so pig headed. I should have searched this term and not dismissed it outright. The idea that the words libertarianism, anarchy and socialism had similiar origins was very hard to accept. So now I am glad I rejected libertarianism, and have accepted state socialism, even though I see the serious flaws. But there really is no choice. We have become an entitlement state, spiralling into unredeemable debt. With more and more people without anything to do but agitate for more entitlement, we are on the road to a Communist revolution.
To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. ~ Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
User avatar
Inquizitr
Senior Member
 
Posts: 972
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 4:46 pm

Re: The New Socialist

Postby Inquizitr » Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:04 pm

http://www.inclusivedemocracy.org/fotopoulos/english/brbooks/brtid/brtid.htm
The collapse of "actually existing socialism", which confirmed the failure of the socialist movement to achieve a synthesis of the demands for autonomy and equality, the parallel degradation of socialdemocracy into an integral part of the neoliberal consensus, and the consequent universalisation of the market economy, have intensified the crisis which began about two centuries ago, when the system of the market economy and representative democracy were established. Thie establishment of the market economy in particular was instrumental in creating the present huge concentration of power, currently accelerated by globalisation. But, it is the concentration of power which is the fundamental cause of the present multi-dimensional crisis: political, economic, social and ecological.

On the threshold of a new millennium, the need to formulate a new liberatory project is imperative. Such a project should aim at the negation of concentration of power, and at the same time would be the synthesis, but also the transcendence, of the two great historical traditions, the socialist and the democratic ones, as well as of the radical trends within the green, feminist and autonomist movements. Today, this project can have no other content than that of an inclusive democracy and its explicit aim should be the equal distribution of power among citizens: at the political level, through direct democracy, at the economic level through economic democracy, i.e. a new form of economic organisation beyond the failed systems of the market economy and central planning, as well at the broader social level. Inclusive Democracy therefore is not a utopia but, in effect, perhaps the only realistic way out of the chronic and today generalised crisis in an effort to integrate society with polity, the economy and Nature.

This might be something I could get behind.
To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. ~ Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
User avatar
Inquizitr
Senior Member
 
Posts: 972
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 4:46 pm

Re: The New Socialist

Postby Dr. Strangelove » Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:10 pm

I think you keep missing the distinction between state socialism and libertarian socialism. A libertarian socialist is averse to the concentration of power, period, whether corporate or government in nature.

That is why I keep pointing out how the reality is that corporations, through their crony governments, crush naturally occurring socialist constructs. They have even tried to literally seize the product of such efforts.

Though, like you, I don't see how some means of production can possibly be freed up while still being used in any meaningful way. Who organizes them? Who maintains them?

For many things, socialism works out very well. For some things, though, capitalism is a better choice, with private ownership of the means. It just depends upon the situation. I prefer to stick with what works best rather than sticking to some ideology.
“If the human race is to survive, then for all but a very brief period of its history, the word ship will mean space ship.” –Arthur C. Clarke
User avatar
Dr. Strangelove
Archon
 
Posts: 36716
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 10:21 pm

Re: The New Socialist

Postby Apxeogyg » Wed Oct 26, 2011 8:32 pm

Inquizitr wrote:Thanks Apxeogyg. After reading this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism I understand what this libertarian socialism is. It is a form of syndicalist anarchism. It is very far fetched and I can understand why American Libertarianism played down the origins of the word libertarian. And I understand why I got the anarchist label slung at me so often. What I don't understand is why any rational person would support this type of economic system, even in theory.
I must say I disagree this kind of anarchistic socialism is a tenable form of government, as the direction of the means of production would be so inefficient to be useless to economic growth, or even sustainability.



I just heard this today on "Best of the Left" (yes yes yes I know :roll: ). It is a clip from NPR's Planet Money. They are interviewing ...wait for it...a Libertarian Socialist economist, who has planned out a Libertarian Socialist Economy :mrgreen: . Get ready for some meetings.

What the Occupy Wall St movement wants Part 2 - Planet Money
Who built Thebes of the seven gates?
In the books you will find the name of kings.
Did the kings haul up the lumps of rock?
(Bertolt Brecht)
User avatar
Apxeogyg
Senior Member
 
Posts: 556
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 9:37 am
Location: Some cheap motel somewhere

Previous

Return to Discussion Area for People Who Think They Want A New Party

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest