Secure Da Bag
Veteran
i didn't even know you can put those 2 words together. can you give us a brief overview at least of the definition of a libertarian socialist?
Is there anything more stupid in the 21st century than Libertarianism :mjlol:
- Thread starter momma
- Start date
i didn't even know you can put those 2 words together. can you give us a brief overview at least of the definition of a libertarian socialist?
i'M nOt An AnArChIsT tHo
Basically socialism but with control in the hands of people instead of centralized power in the state. The state sets up systems that discourage exploitation and keep wealth from being concentrated - mostly in terms of breaking monopoly power, enforcing worker's rights, and reforming the money system (new basis of currency, negative interest rates) such that wealth distribution is implicitly encouraged. But the actual governance of the structures is put in the hands of the people rather than the feds - co-ops, worker unions, community councils, etc. As much as possible power is delegated to the people most directly affected, with feds only stepping in to regulate the decisions that affect the whole country.
It has the goals that libertarians claim - to make people as free as possible and as free from exploitation as possible - but it actually works to remove exploitative structures rather than allowing the status quo by which the powerful have all the advantages to exploit the weak.
I don't talk about it much because it's not really something that can be implemented on a small basis - you need to make major changes to the structure of our system first or it won't work. Primarily, you need to change the basis of currency so that it is no longer based on loans at interest, because that is the central structure that dictates the constant competition, overproduction/overconsumption, and wealth accumulation that fukk our system up
Libertarian socialism - Wikipedia
I was introduced to the whole concept via the economist Silvio Gesell and the writer Charles Eisenstein
Silvio Gesell - Wikipedia
Sacred Economics: Introduction - Sacred Economics | Charles Eisenstein
Family Man
Banned
Just trying to make sense of this strange new world we're living in my brother.Someone's been in the Intellectual Dark Web.
Last edited:
So... democratic socialism, basically?
EDIT: On the real tip, I don't see how putting the majority of power in unions/community groups is fundamentally different--or more efficient--than what we refer to as "government".
I do think co-ops for property ownership are good things, though.
Last edited:
So... democratic socialism, basically?
EDIT: On the real tip, I don't see how putting the majority of power in unions/community groups is fundamentally different--or more efficient--than what we refer to as "government".
I do think co-ops for property ownership are good things, though.
There are a lot of major differences, even though the objectives are basically the same. I'm not in a place to do a deep-dive yet, but the differences between a Dem Soc and a Libertarian Socialist are as big as, say, the differences between Reagan and an actual Libertarian. But like most libertarians in the Reagan era, I'm willing to co-sign Dem Soc policies as they are the most realistic avenue I see for now.
Read those links I posted if you want to see how radical some of their structural suggestions are compared to the typical Soc Dem agenda. I do think
Silvio Gesell - Wikipedia
Sacred Economics: Introduction - Sacred Economics | Charles Eisenstein
edit: Also, I don't really support more community-based control because I think it's "more efficient". In fact, it might even be less efficient, in a good way. I support more community-based control because I think it results in better long-term thinking and is less susceptible to corruption. Power corrupts, and centralized power has too many opportunities for corruption even if the "good ones" are in charge at some particular moment. And a centralized power structure cares too much about the next year or the next 2-3 years, while people who are making decisions about their own community are more likely to protect their concerns regarding how things will be in 10 years, 20 years, for their kids and grandkids, etc. Also, local people in the community know other people in the community, so they are somewhat less likely to act callously towards people they know in day-to-day life than they are abstract entities they've never seen before. The difference between sending faceless soldiers to war and sending Amy Sue's new husband to war. The difference between refusing to regulate a polluter who is poisoning some river you never heard of, and regulating a polluter where a friend of yours works who has cancer now and you see them polluting your own community's water supply.
Same thing happens in business. The average CEO needs results NOW, cause otherwise he might be fired, and if shyt goes south in 5-6 years he's in the clear cause he's still walking away with a bag. Shareholders care about profits and virtually nothing else. But the workers in general don't want to fukk their company over for short-term profits and then see the business crash in 5 years, their livelihood is much more dependent on stability and long-term guarantees so they are more likely to co-sign sustainable plans. They're likely to take more pride in their product over the long haul than the CEO does and they care more about their coworkers' jobs (and their own) than the CEO does.
Last edited:
Red Shield
Global Domination
Aren’t you a magatSome coward ass weirdo I don't even know just negged me for my opinion.
@GMoneyMafia explain yourself you emotionally frail punk.
Secure Da Bag
Veteran
Nope.
Absolutes are silly.
The no gov. crowd is just as looney as the gov is the answer to all our problems crowd.