Libertarian Socialism: Does It Make Sense and How Does It Work?

[WisconsinLiberty]

I like owning things and having private land.

I oppose socialism and communism.

 

[ClaytonB]

Are you sure about that?

Yes.

Personal pet peeve of mine is when people try to argue against something by defining it away.

I have the very same pet peeve. On this very topic, to boot.

You can have socialism without state control just like you can have capitalism without state control.

Only by playing word games. From Wiki: "Socialism is a political philosophy and economic system based on the collective ownership and control of the means of production; as well as the political and economic theories, ideologies and movements that aim to establish a socialist system." The key problem is in "collective ownership and control". Suppose the subway mugger informs me that he and I collectively own my wallet. OK, fine, so be it, but who decides how my wallet will get used? That's always the question that the mythical "non-state" socialists can never answer. The mugger has an answer: he's got a gun to me and so I'll kindly hand over the wallet if I value my life. The "non-state" socialists either have no answer (they just never thought about it, or assume it "will all just work out") or they have a hidden agenda (hidden gun). Either way, they're no better than the openly statist socialists. Both are equally dangerous and both are paths to tyranny.

As for capitalism and the State, they are mutually exclusive by definition. If I am the crowned king (the State), and I start dictating winners and losers in the market (subsidies, lobbying, sanctions, tariffs, and other more direct controls), my actions are ipso facto anti-capitalist, that is, anti-freedom and anti-private-property.

All of this confusion can be avoided by starting with clear thinking about the material basis for social order. In order to act in the world, you must have a body. Not only must you have a body, you must own that body (have the legal right to move around, speak, and so on). So, self-ownership is the first principle of social order. Next, in respect to unused resources, we must have some rule to decide who owns which of them. And the answer is obvious, it is the kindergarten rule: whoever first starts using a resource, owns it. Finally, we need some way to exchange resources with one another in trade. And the simple test is whether the exchange is voluntary -- if both parties to an exchange (of whatever sort) voluntarily agree to it, it is a lawful exchange and all other exchanges are unlawful. 1. Self-ownership, 2. Original appropriation (homesteading) and 3. Free (as in free-speech) exchange.

Anyone on this forum that hasn't been exposed to Hans Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics needs to hear it. This is the granite foundation of private property and free exchange, which are the basic elements of a free market and explain why socialism, as any kind of "global order", is completely busted and unworkable. It's the best way you can invest an hour of your time, guaranteed.

 

[Invisible Man]

Here are a couple of helpful paragraphs from the wikipedia article on libertarianism. As I understand it, this is a pretty accurate summary of the history of the use of the word "libertarian."

Libertarianism originated as a form of left-wing politics such as anti-authoritarian and anti-statesocialists like anarchists,[SUP][6][/SUP] especially social anarchists,[SUP][7][/SUP] but more generally libertarian communists/Marxists and libertarian socialists.[SUP][8][/SUP][SUP][9][/SUP] These libertarians seek to abolish capitalism and private ownership of the means of production, or else to restrict their purview or effects to usufruct property norms, in favor of common or cooperative ownership and management, viewing private property as a barrier to freedom and liberty.[SUP][14][/SUP]Left-libertarian[SUP][20][/SUP] ideologies include anarchist schools of thought, alongside many other anti-paternalist and New Leftschools of thought centered around economic egalitarianism as well as geolibertarianism, green politics, market-oriented left-libertarianism and the Steiner–Vallentyne school.[SUP][24]

[/SUP]In the mid-20th century, right-libertarian[SUP][27][/SUP] proponents of anarcho-capitalism and minarchism co-opted[SUP][8][/SUP][SUP][28][/SUP] the term libertarian to advocate laissez-fairecapitalism and strong private property rights such as in land, infrastructure and natural resources.[SUP][29][/SUP] The latter is the dominant form of libertarianism in the United States,[SUP][26][/SUP] where it advocates civil liberties,[SUP][30][/SUP]natural law,[SUP][31][/SUP]free-market capitalism[SUP][32][/SUP][SUP][33][/SUP] and a major reversal of the modern welfare state.[SUP][34][/SUP]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

The historic meaning of "libertarian socialism" is not what the OP describes. And I think that still today most self-described "libertarian socialists," particularly in other countries besides the US, still hold to what is basically just an extreme form of communism that is not grounded in voluntary participation. When they use the word "libertarian" they don't mean what we mean by it.

 

[ClaytonB]

I like owning things and having private land.

I oppose socialism and communism.

While your feelings are valid, this is also the single weakest argument against socialism and communism, because the socialists/communists just wave it away as special pleading. Of course the king likes being king... he's king! Of course the "white privileged" love their white privilege... they're privileged!

The two most powerful arguments against socialism/communism are based on (a) logic and (b) historical evidence.

Logically, socialism is inherently contradictory and fraught with impossible constraints. It "works" as long as you don't think about it too carefully. In a worker-owned fast-food joint, who cleans the toilets? Somebody has to do it. And it's equal pay for all. "Easy, just rotate it." OK, but who decides that? In other words, any proposed solution to deciding who cleans the toilet just creates a new problem of who has the job (rank, privilege) of making that decision, and then we have a new problem of the same form, just bigger. And so on up the chain of socialist decision-making. In the limit, the problem is that the individual in a socialist society technically has no will -- you do not own your own will, it belongs to "society". But who is this "society" and how does it ever reach decisions when all of its constituents have no will of their own?? This is only the first of many devastating logical problems with socialism.

And the historical evidence perfectly bears out the logical predictions. The fact is that, in socialist societies, nobody ever cleans the bathrooms. If you've ever lived in a dormitory (not prison, not military), you will know that one of the biggest difficulties is deciding who will clean the bathroom and kitchen, sweep the halls, and other matters like that. Even when the landlord or some other authority figure hands down a fixed order of assigned duties, you find that some members are supremely skilled at skipping out of them. And so the privileged elite in a socialist society are precisely these people -- those who are supremely skilled at skipping out on duties. Ultimately, that's what the Party is.

A few years ago, I worked in a church facility crew for a few months. As a rule, we didn't have this problem. The cleaning assignments were always done to excellence regardless of who they were assigned to, or on what shifts. What is the secret ingredient in church work that is missing from godless socialism? Oh yes, faith in God. In other words, the belief and practice of a "God-seen life" leads to a social order where duties can be assigned without respect to payment for time, and people will do them because they understand and believe that what they are doing is done in the sight of God. I don't think they are motivated by guilt and fear, either, they are motivated primarily by devotion. And the real insult of most socialist discussion is that we are "supposed to" talk about socialist society in these terms, while ignoring the reality that people, apart from God, will only do whatever is the bare minimum to skirt by and maintain their own personal life and interests.

 

[WisconsinLiberty]

the socialists/communists just wave it away as special pleading. Of course the king likes being king

I expect nothing less.

Socialists/communists care little about reason, logic, and common sense unless it can be exploited to advance their Utopian goals. If 100 million people have to be murdered to accomplish their Utopian goals, so be it. "You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs."


We Must Never Forget the 100 Million Victims of Communism
https://www.heritage.org/progressiv...ever-forget-the-100-million-victims-communism

 

[Invisible Man]

You could also label a family a monarchy or a totalitarian dictatorship. It is not accurate, and not a justification for some political system.



Because it’s not really accurate, and it's an example of redefining and twisting words to stealthily push a political agenda. The Marxists use this technique constantly. If you accept this, then they take you to the next step.



Just because a group of people have a potluck and share food does not justify or make for a political system. It is a temporary agreement. It’s a contract.

Plenty of communes have been attempted in the past. They never work, because socialism is not a workable philosophy. Renaming common human interactions and arrangements such as families, churches, communities and charities as “socialism” is not accurate, and is a ploy.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Brian4Liberty again."

 

[Invisible Man]

Because....that's what it actually is. Why does the accurate label bother you?

I'm with Brian on this.

The meanings of words are determined by how those words are intended in their usage.

The word "socialism" has an established meaning that isn't the way you're using it. That being the case, labeling what took place in Acts 2 as "socialism" isn't an "accurate label."

There may be some rare cases where people use the word "socialism" in an idiosyncratic way to apply to something like that. But that's not the meaning of the word that is established through its historic and typical usage. I think that application of the word is a muddying of the waters, rather than an accurate label.

 

[jmdrake]

I'm with Brian on this.

You're allowed to be wrong.

The meanings of words are determined by how those words are intended in their usage.

Right. And there's more than one usage for the word "socialism" just like there's more than one usage for the word "capitalism." By the way, the game you and B4L are playing is the same game I see socialists play with the world "capitalism." I define capitalism as anything other than the current crony corporate capitalism and they are quick to say "But that's not capitalism." Ummm.....yes it is. And what the early church did in Acts 2 was a form of socialism whether you are willing to admit it or not.

The word "socialism" has an established meaning that isn't the way you're using it. That being the case, labeling what took place in Acts 2 as "socialism" isn't an "accurate label."

It also has an established meaning that is EXACTLY the way I'm using it.

From Meriam Webster online.

Definition of socialism
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
​

There may be some rare cases where people use the word "socialism" in an idiosyncratic way to apply to something like that. But that's not the meaning of the word that is established through its historic and typical usage. I think that application of the word is a muddying of the waters, rather than an accurate label.

I gave a historic example that supports my position. I gave a dictionary definition that supports it as well. You are free to be wrong. But you're still wrong.

 

[jmdrake]

Yes.



I have the very same pet peeve. On this very topic, to boot.



Only by playing word games. From Wiki: "Socialism is a political philosophy and economic system based on the collective ownership and control of the means of production; as well as the political and economic theories, ideologies and movements that aim to establish a socialist system."

Wiki? Really? From the freaking dictionary.

Definition of socialism
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
​

A "society or group" can be "living in which there is no private property" without being statist.

 

[ClaytonB]

Wiki? Really? From the freaking dictionary.

The article is serviceable for this discussion. Either works for me.

A "society or group" can be "living in which there is no private property" without being statist.

Once again, only by playing word-games. Is my body my property or not? If it is my property, then we are not socialist. If it is not my property, then neither are my vocal cords or the fingers I am typing this with. So you have abject tyranny, in principle, whether or not the social order actually works out all the ramifications of that.

Property is not merely stuff and things. Property is the exclusive right-of-use. This is easily seen in timeshares, for example. The time-shared beach-house does not completely belong to any one holder of a timeshare, it belongs to all of them, together. But the property right of each individual shareholder consists in their right-of-use of the premises for the allotted time. There are countless such examples and, in fact, these kinds of intangible properties are far more numerous than actual physical properties.

In the end, every resource must have a single owner within its extents because, otherwise, you are trying to jam two families into a time-share at the same time, which defeats the whole point of even having a time-share. This is as true in Marxist communism as it was in free wheeling 19th-century American capitalism. It's not about "social norms", it's about causal structures. It's simply impossible to have two independent decision-makers simultaneously controlling the same resource. There is only one steering-wheel in a car for a reason... steering and control of a vehicle is not a "sum-of-effort" activity, it is a sole-decision-making activity. This is the logical structure of all property and all decision-making, regardless of the political rhetoric it is wrapped in. The Marxist commissar is the de facto owner of the resources for which he is the final decision-maker, just as much as JP Morgan was the owner of the gold in his vaults. We can play word-games and pretend there is some distinction between these, but there is none, it is the very same thing wrapped in different flags and national anthems.

For this reason, it is impossible to have socialism beyond the scale of, say, a small tribe, without an omnipotent State. That is because socialism is not really about sharing anything, it's about removing the decision-making power of individuals and placing it in the hands of a plutocracy -- the Party officials. In a socialist/communist State, you do not own a timeshare because you can only be told what time-share you have been assigned to, and for how long. And so on. The socialism is not in the sharing of the resource (which happens in the free market anyway), rather, it is in the removal of the power to make your own decisions and the placement of that power in the hands of others. In the movie The Lives of Others -- set in communist East Germany -- it is depicted that even the furniture had a serial number on it showing that it is the property of the communist State. But why? What's the point of this? Did the communist German state actually care about furniture? Or did it care about controlling the decisions of the people under its control?

 

[Invisible Man]

2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property​

​

I think it would be stretching what Acts 2 says beyond the common sense meaning of the language to say that there was literally no private property. Note that Ananaias and Saphira weren't condemned for keeping some property to themselves, but only for lying about it. Peter even told Ananaias that while his land remained unsold, it remained his own.

 

[ClaytonB]

Living up to one's potential causes income "inequality".

There are other causes. A robber baron society is characterized by wealth-inequality. In fact, we see exactly this kind of wealth-inequality everywhere in the world except in those times and places where the principles of private property and freedom have held up -- Christian countries, to put it bluntly.

If I am not becoming wealthy through crime, my wealth does not harm you no matter how large it is. "Yeah, but you should share." Maybe I should, but you're still not being harmed, so there really isn't a legal argument here, just an ethical one (potentially). But socialism is never content to remain an ethical debate, it's always a legal/political agenda, camouflaged as a "discussion" about "how to improve society" by "helping the poor" with "the wealth of the greedy rich."

The anti-freedom NPCs have to conflate wealth created through illegal activity (most political wealth), and wealth built through honest trade. Of course, the system of crony capitalism so muddies the waters that it is virtually impossible to tell them apart. The big name billionaires of our day are all indirect beneficiaries of political corruption, one way or another. I think it was Thomas Sowell who pointed out that even the funding and building of roads by the State is an implicit subsidy of all car-owners because they benefit disproportionately from such spending, vis-a-vis the truly poor who cannot even afford to own a car. This is why we cannot allow the socialists to control the discussion, because they want to draw the boundaries of the discussion just so that we don't have to talk about the hidden logical contradictions in socialism/communism. In this way, they are able to pass off their nonsense gibberish as sounding plausible or even inevitable.

The concentration of enormous wealth in the hands of a tiny elite is a symptom that something is wrong in your society. But attacking the inequality itself is like trying to cure skin cancer with skin salve. You're evading the root cause altogether and just trying to treat symptoms. And in the course of doing that, you only play into the hands of whatever is actually causing the problem by failing to address it. First, you must diagnose the disease. Then, it is possible to choose an effective treatment and be healed. But the socialists want us all to run around like chickens with our heads cut off screaming slogan-counter-slogans at each other. Divide-and-rule.

 

[jmdrake]

I like owning things and having private land.

I oppose socialism and communism.

Good for you! You never would have joined the fellowship of early Christian believers in Jerusalem. And guess what? That would have been okay! Seriously, it would have. Believers outside of Jerusalem still largely kept whatever wealth they had. In fact, that's how they were able to participate in the "great donation" when Paul collected alms for the church in Jerusalem. Now someone might say "Those lazy Jerusalem Christians! Living off the Christians in Asia Minor!" But there was a very good reason not to be wed to land in Jerusalem. Some forty years after the ascension of Christ, Jerusalem was destroyed! The same Bible that extolled the virtues of each man having "according to his need" (main maxim of socialism) also said the Lord gave to His servants "each according to his ability" (the maxim of free market capitalism).

Anyway, the question isn't "Do you want to give up everything you own" but rather "Would you like to participate in something that is collectively owned as opposed to privately owned?" Like....say...cryptocurrency. If you put your money in a traditional "bank" you're putting your trust in something owned by BankOfAmerica or Citibank or Goldman Sachs etc. Who owns the various blockchains? Nobody? Everybody? Oh, but many you're luddite like [MENTION=3169]Anti Federalist[/MENTION]. Okay. He's long complained about the ability of "big tech" to censor the private property they own. Like me, he misses the days of USENET. Guess what? USENET was collectively owned. Yeah, the servers were privately owned and each server could control who could log into it and what news groups to participate in, but other than that it was a free for all. (It still kind of sort of exists).

Which brings us to Web 3.0, which is shaping up to be a compilation of crypto and USENET. Steemit (I think I learned about this from [MENTION=19002]dann[/MENTION]o), is (was?) a blogging platform on a blockchain. It actually suffered a 51% attack (I think). So the faithful "steemit injuns" moved on to greener pastures and created https://hive.io. It's more resilient to a 51% attack, boosts two different video sharing platforms, several different blogging platforms, some games, decentralized finance etc. All without a central authority or "owner."

 

[jmdrake]

[/INDENT]


I think it would be stretching what Acts 2 says beyond the common sense meaning of the language to say that there was literally no private property. Note that Ananaias and Saphira weren't condemned for keeping some property to themselves, but only for lying about it. Peter even told Ananaias that while his land remained unsold, it remained his own.

Do you consider China socialist? They have billionaires. But you're missing the point of the Ananias and Saphira story. The people around them were VOLUNTARILY giving up private property! That's the point that you refuse to even acknowledge with your circular reasoning. In your mind, as long as someone can have private property, everybody by definition must have private property. That's simply not the case. People can be voluntarily socialist. They can even allow people in their company who aren't voluntarily socialist. Ananaias and Saphira experienced the social pressure to conform to those around them who were selling everything and holding all things in common, by pretending to sell everything and hold all things in common. If things were the way you're trying to pretend they were, there would have been no reason for A & S to pretend.

 

[TheTexan]

Why would one even attempt to label a family or a temporary voluntary agreement of a small group as “socialism”?

Because it's evidence that socialism can work. I would even posit that socialism could work on larger scales - if it was paired with a compatible culture.

Either way, that's missing the point.

Whether or not socialism can work, or is doomed to fail, it is not up to us to decide. We can make our case, tell them it is a bad idea, but if people want to try socialism without coercion, who are we to stop them?

 

[jmdrake]

The article is serviceable for this discussion. Either works for me.

Once again, only by playing word-games. Is my body my property or not? If it is my property, then we are not socialist. If it is not my property, then neither are my vocal cords or the fingers I am typing this with. So you have abject tyranny, in principle, whether or not the social order actually works out all the ramifications of that.

Good question. Here's the Biblical answer:

1 Corinthians 6:19 Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?

Is that tyranny? Well....it depends. Do you think God is a tyrant? I don't. But some people do. Now, I don't think the state should be willy nilly enforcing what I believe God says is appropriate or not appropriate to do with one's body on everyone. That means I have to support people's right to make a choice about the body that they do NOT own because they neither created it nor redeemed it! Abortion is a special case because there is another created body inside the body that people think they own. But all the radical feminists shouting at the homes of the SCOTUS "My body my choice" would agree with you. So would the "libsoftiktock", those fun loving purple haired teachers that want to teach your children that they can "choose" whether or not they want to be a boy or a girl. I guess it's only a matter of time before it's acceptable for someone to teach children with body integrity dysphoria that they can "choose" to cut an arm or a leg off to fit with the mental ideal they have of themselves. Mmmmm.....okay.

For this reason, it is impossible to have socialism beyond the scale of, say, a small tribe, without an omnipotent State.

Only if you totally misunderstand the Bible and the nature of God. I get it. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned. If you realize that God really owns everything and you're just a steward, and yes that includes your own body, then it's possible for you to live with a group of like minded believers who live for God and not for themselves. But as the Police would sing "We are spirits...in a material world." Or Madonna "We are living in a material world and I am a material girl."

 

[jmdrake]

There are other causes. A robber baron society is characterized by wealth-inequality. In fact, we see exactly this kind of wealth-inequality everywhere in the world except in those times and places where the principles of private property and freedom have held up -- Christian countries, to put it bluntly.

If I am not becoming wealthy through crime, my wealth does not harm you no matter how large it is. "Yeah, but you should share." Maybe I should, but you're still not being harmed, so there really isn't a legal argument here, just an ethical one (potentially). But socialism is never content to remain an ethical debate, it's always a legal/political agenda, camouflaged as a "discussion" about "how to improve society" by "helping the poor" with "the wealth of the greedy rich."

Right. It's not a legal argument. It's a moral argument. And you've just explained voluntary / Christian socialism. You act like you don't understand it, but clearly you do. It's illegal for a 21 year old to sleep with a 16 year old in some states. It's NOT legal in other states. Is in moral? Is it less moral than an 80 year old sleeping with a 18 year old? It's certainly legal for the 80 year old to sleep with the 18 year old. It's now legal for two men or two women to marry in every state in the union. But it's still a criminal offense in most states for one man to marry two women or vice versa even if the marriage is done in a private ceremony with no state involvement. Solomon and David would both have criminal records in modern America. Should a group of people (a church) be able to preach to its members from 1 Corinthians 6:19 and say "You can't be a part of this body of believers if you are out having illicit sex, doing drugs, listening to that bad music?" Should such a group of people (a church) decide not to continue to associate with people who didn't agree with their idea of what God thinks it's okay for Humans to do with His bodies that he lent to said humans for them to complete their spiritual journey own? I can tell you to give to the poor, stop sleeping with male and/or female hookers, don't get your eyelids pierced, and as long as you can tell me to "bugger off" and I can tell you "Well in that case you can't join my group" we still both have freedom.

 

[jmdrake]

Because it's evidence that socialism can work. I would even posit that socialism could work on larger scales - if it was paired with a compatible culture.

Either way, that's missing the point.

Whether or not socialism can work, or is doomed to fail, it is not up to us to decide. We can make our case, tell them it is a bad idea, but if people want to try socialism without coercion, who are we to stop them?

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to TheTexan again.

 

[ClaytonB]

Right. It's not a legal argument.

It's possible to have such a discussion, but 99.999% of the time, when the word "socialism" is used, what is meant is a State-administered socialism. Which is why it's best to choose some other, more descriptive word to avoid confusion.

It's a moral argument. And you've just explained voluntary / Christian socialism.

In the snipped post and in your other posts, you're all over the map. I'll save both of us a lot of time by just noting at the outset that we're not going to see eye-to-eye on this issue.

The Kingdom of God is neither capitalist nor socialist, it is a universal, absolute monarchy and it is administered by a theocratic order. It is present on the earth today, and it has always been (although it was particularly officiated by Jesus when he came to earth). Socialism versus capitalism have nothing more to do with this aspect of theology than the debate over quantum mechanics versus special relativity in the theory of gravity do. The facts of the world are what they are, no matter whether anybody likes it or not. Even God cannot make 2+2 equal something other than 4. The facts about decision-making -- and how those facts are affected by different legal regimes regarding property rights -- are what they are, no matter what anybody thinks about them.

As a monarchy, the Kingdom of God is neither communist nor capitalist, it is the divine-will. What God decrees within his Kingdom is the order within that Kingdom. He makes this crystal clear in the Bible: "Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit." (Matthew 21:43) God retains the absolute, unqualified right to reassign property (including life itself, Deut. 32:39) to anyone he sees fit.

Within that divine order, God delegates the administration of the particular details to the overseers. The overseers are not licensed by God to act on a whim or to steward their charge arbitrarily. They are bound to execute their office with wisdom, and wisdom begins by calling things by their proper names. Socialism, as that word is generally used, is just grift-society-writ-large, systematized and legalized mooching. While resource-sharing may absolutely be part of the wise administration of God's Kingdom, it can never supplant or overturn the facts of scarcity and the economics of decision-making. Some of these are facts about human nature, and some of them are facts about the world-as-such. In The Fatal Conceit, Hayek explained the knowledge aggregating role of market prices. This role is a fact about reality that doesn't care about anyone's beliefs about "the way things oughtta be". In this respect, it is no different than the law of gravity. And this is why we speak of laws of economics, because these are not matters of how to paint the lines on the basketball court, as they are usually discussed, rather, they are brute facts about the world, just like gravity or conservation of mass. You can either cope with those facts (honesty, wisdom), or you can pretend that they can be ignored or even reversed (blindness, folly). I know which of those alternatives God will demand from the overseers (Matt. 25:14-30).

 

[Invisible Man]

Do you consider China socialist?

I think it's debatable whether they are or not.