Skilled political debate
Are you a socialist?
Posted by daniel23 • 4/15/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS]
Topics: socialism
And if so, what does it mean to you?
I'm a libertarian socialist myself and socialism to me means a break-down of economic and political monopolies and the right of workers to the full product of their labour and ownership of the means of production.
User Comments
-
No. Why not? Let's see, it's like a list of places where I'd rather not live (former and current socialist countries):
USSR, China, North Korea, Laos, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Uganda, Zanzibar, Burkina Faso, Sri Lanka...
In my view, the only system whereby you can guarantee workers the product of their labour and ownership of the means of production is a laissez-faire capitalist system where trade is voluntary.-
flamingpoodle, your right on the money. I like your site, your style, and your political sense is correct. I will be talking more with you.
-
-
Libertarian socialist?
My head just exploded. -
I think some aspects of socialism work and others do not. I personally feel that by combining some characteristics of moderates, some of fascists, and some of socialists we can produce a political system superior to anything we’ve seen this far.
Socialism benefit’s the government at the expense of the people. It’s efficient, but I don’t see the point. Nobody’s happy, and Humanity isn’t progressed. It sacrifices equality for sameness-and I prefer the former. That’s my opinion, but you’re welcome to disagree.-
[I personally feel that by combining some characteristics of moderates, some of fascists, and some of socialists we can produce a political system superior to anything we’ve seen this far.]
We sort of have such a system currently, with social welfare and labour laws being incorporated in a mixed economy.
My personal beliefs are libertarian. The less the government does regarding individual rights, the better. In a libertarian system, there is nothing that prevents communities from living communally, in a voluntary way. In a socialist system, the government has to force everyone to live communally, and that has never worked in practice. -
My big beef with modern politics is that Libertarians are viewed as "kooks"... All they want to do is set the government back to the way it was 60-150 years ago (depending on the particular issue/person you're talking to).
Things did work back then, and they worked fine. Those who think we'd fall apart under a libertarian government have zero concept of history.
All we as libertarians want is the government the founding fathers actually setup. They were against social programs and restrictions on liberty. We are not so much more advanced as a civilization that we are immune to the folly they saw in these viewpoints. It's arrogance to think we know better. -
-
-
You're only the second Libertarian Socialist person I've ever heard of, though I have been aware of the classification for awhile. I have even called myself one, too. It has nothing to do with Libertarianism as that has come to be understood. It has little to do with Socialism for that matter, either. It is a flavor of Anarchism, I believe.
It really requires a higher consciousness than humanity possesses yet. The whole idea (fact) that humans are continuing to evolve means that none of the forms from the past will do. Libertarian Socialism hasn't been tried yet on a large scale (unless you count some societies that we usually think of as primitive).
Libertarian Socialism requires each individual to be willing to- and capable of- taking full responsibility for his or her actions. It is not "Rights"-based, but rather "Responsibility"-based. A way of figuring out if you are ready for it is to ask yourself one simple question: Is it possible for "My Liberty" to interfere with "Your Liberty?" If you think of Humanity as millions of little individual Liberties walking around... well, forget it. In other words if you answered, "Yes."
The only way it could work is if each of us were as concerned for the welfare of absolutely every one else as much as for ourselves. Some intentional communities are doing this. People who succeed at living with this attitude are venerated as Saints... after they're killed. -
I like social security, the highway system, and the postal service, so that makes me a socialist.
Anyone who is not a socialist must be vehemently opposed to the U.S. military, the most socialist branch of government of them all.
I think the public school system needs improvement in some ways, but overall it's pretty effective at churning out workers and followers. If we resorted to laissez-faire capitalism in the schools, then many people would opt out of education altogether, as was the case hundreds of years ago. It is possible to turn back the clock on literacy if you are disturbed by the idea of people knowing how to read.
I don't know where we'd be if we disbanded the police departments in every city and every state, and did away with the FBI, CIA, et cetera. These socialist organizations seem to do a bit of good in the world, although it's true there are excesses.
All church organizations, and everything run by a religious order is of course by definition socialist, since these are non-profit organizations exempt from federal, state, and local taxes. Shutting down churches might ignite a civil war.
You could argue that a state like Utah has become far too socialist. That may be true in many ways.
Overall, I think socialism is here to stay. It's been around for thousands of years and shows no signs of aging. In fact, it continues to improve right here in the U.S. of A. -
I'm not much of a socialist, at least not in the sense that most Americans understand the term. I believe it's confused all too often with Communism, and it certainly doesn't help that the Nazis called themselves "National Socialists" when they would be more correctly called Fascists.
In the sense of European-style social democracy, FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society, I'm all for socialism. I like having paved roads, firefighters, a postal service, FDIC insurance, etc.
I saw that a few of you above were confused by the idea of a "Libertarian Socialist" as the OP described themself, and I believe this is because you've been fed a string of false dichotomies by the modern political climate. I would put forward that when Teddy Roosevelt left the Republican party and founded the Progressive ("Bull Moose") party in 1912, he was very much advocating a form of "libertarian socialism."-
If people understood what socialism was, they would be in favor of it. The business criminals have succeeded in deceiving the simple.
-
-
I know what a Libertarian is, but how do they have anything to do with a socialist? I am far from anything that has to do with bigger government and socialism terrifies me as this belief has already started altering and twisting a constitution that has made the youngest country in the world the most powerful but slowly declining in time. The free-er The better, and socialism tends to want to take freedoms away
-
Freedom is only possible in a socialist context. I'm a Republican (European context) and a socialist. When you understand yourself first as a social being and secondly as an economic or political being, you free your self identity from ownership concerns to an identity concerned with just getting on in life. Modern socialists are beginning to understand that markets are the means by which modern humans conduct their commercial affairs. However, until the people collectively control the markets, the markets will control the people. As the markets are now constituted, they are becoming increasingly inefficient in meeting the needs of ordinary citizens; indeed the US middle classes have been experiencing declining income for years.
The markets do not belong to Capitalism nor to Socialism. They are merely utility mechanisms by which we conduct commerce. Whilst Capitalism lives by the doctrine of capital accumulation in and of itself (zero sum game) Socialists seek to make the markets work to benefit of all society. Study Denmark, Sweden, Norway and such countries. They continually top the leagues polls in quality of life issues and population contenment.
Once you wipe away the vulgar "dictator-of-the-proletariat" nonsense espoused by those who don't understand the complexities of Marx's writings (i.e. Lenin and co.), socialism loses the stigmatism associated with failed tyrannical projects.
Marx and Adam Smith wrote their analysises in a different era and under different economic conditions. Socialist doctrine will evolve to meet the new challanges. From the outside looking in, Capitalism seems to be tettering on the edge. The zero sum game is just too costly in a world where surpluses are becoming rare. -
Dear friends; I'm writing to invite you all to check out my blog: 'Left Focus'. We provide progressive perspectives from the Left: including liberal, social democratic, democratic socialist and Green viewpoints.
While the blogmaster is based in Australia, we also welcome perspectives from around the world - including the US. Our blog has a mixture of Australian, American and international perspectives.
Pls feel welcome to visit us regularly. And if you're a capable left-wing writer - maybe even approach us with ideas for articles... Further - if you're sympathetic you're also welcome to give us a positive rating, and positive feedback. Again - the name of out blog is: Left Focus.
ALSO - of course feel welcome to raise the issues we raise here - or even comment on the Left Focus blog... What do you think about Venezuela and Cuba? What do you think of land tax? Want to learn about the political scene in Australia? Hope to hear from you - here or there.
most sincerely,
Tristan
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
