Theory of Libertarian Socialism

What do you think of the theory of libertarian socialism (anarchism)? Do you think it is a route to genuine freedom? (“Freedom” being defined as negative rights without infringing on the same negative rights of others)

Do you think it would be beneficial for positive rights (schools, hospitals, etc.), or do you believe that only a centralized state can provide such institutions?

Do you believe that the nature of humanity in general is conducive (or not) to manifesting this theory in reality?

nope. but we need more revolutions where leftwingers get fed into the revolution machine.

tell your poly sci professor to pick up a gun and bring the revolution to the people.


Define “genuine freedom” as you personally see it as. I feel that “slavery” to the community is generally “freer” for human beings than slavery to the state, or capitalism, or whatever artificial institution; as human beings are inherently socially inclined animals.

slavery to the community is slavery to the state is slavery to whatever artificial instuition. they are all slavery.

freedom is exactly that. freedom. a total lack of slavery.



I’m sorry, but Libertarian socialism does away with the Capitalists conception of the State. No government.

What is this supposed to mean? That the reason rejected theory brought up this topic is because he/she has been influenced by left wing professors? Is this an ad hominem, or random nonsense?

Do us a favor, explain how “a total lack of slavery” is possible in any society, or if you find it easier, explain how another political system offers more freedom.

who said I was ever worried about society?

[size=200]VIVA LA REVOLUTION!!![/size]


If the manifestation of the theory means simply the decline and disappearance of the state as we currently conceive it, it seems possible to me. We can imagine a crisis in the global economy which would leave the great majority of people wretchedly poor and the states bankrupt, leaving some form of anarchy in its wake. But I think it wouldn’t take long until a new form of political organization (probably not democratic) would emerge by the initiative of the most powerful interest groups. I find it hard to believe that the powerful would really see it as their best interest to simply mind their own private business. The public interest usually serves the people in power more than it serves the general public. Libertarian socialism has a certain appeal because it’s a simple theory. Too simple, in my opinion.


So you’re changing your position from “centralized tyranical government” to “slavery to the group”? Not surre what this is supposed to mean, but it’s good to know.

What question? … what complete garbage. We all know it was an ad hominem, no sense in denying it.

Do us a favor, explain how “a total lack of slavery” is possible in any society, or if you find it easier, explain how another political system offers more freedom.

I find the theory naive. I don’t believe that anything in evidence gives us reason to suspect that human nature would allow for such a system. Selfishness has been selected for throughout history, and while some cooperation is self-serving, a complete commitment to the community, one that shuns all possibilities for extravagant personal gain, is unfeasible. All it would take is for one individual to act selfishly, and the whole system would spoil (unless everyother person has buddhist-monk-like selfless resolve).
I think the same problem would arise here as in communism: as people become more and more community oriented and equal and sharing, the rewards for acting selfishly increase. Ultimately, it will reach a point where finite social risk is balanced against infinite material rewards, and it becomes preposterous to expect the peace to remain.

Having been to the Iraq war and seen anarchy and lawlessness with my own eyes I can’t say there is any benefit to it. Armchair intellects like to rant on and on about liberating mankind and taking down oppression and what not but they have never been in a situation in which oppression has actually been removed and the community of fear and destruction surrounds them on all sides.

The thing is, there isn’t an opportunity to act selfishly(economcially) in this type of Libertarianism, or in Communism. Private property is abolished, extravagant luxuries are not produced any more, everyone has what they need, and the society does not indulge in superfluous luxuries. You cannot amass wealth, if wealth does not exist.

It’s not so much a question of whether anarchy can work, as of whether it can exist. I don’t think it can, except in small bands such as our precivilized ancestors (who actually lived in a communistic economy without formal government or organized religion) lived in.

The problem is that a minority of the population is highly driven towards acquiring personal power over others. In the absence of a state, the less intelligent of these people will acquire that power as thugs or leaders of groups of thugs. Depredation by thugs will swing popular opinion behind the creation of formal government and laws, and the more intelligent of the power-driven will organize such an arrangement, allowing them to acquire personal power over others by making adroit use of the rules to get the power of the state behind them.

Anarchy is unsustainable, which is why it never exists for long.

I think the ultimate flaw in Anarchy is the assumption that society is driven ONLY by monetary value and that removing this value the world will somehow be happier, when perhaps anarchial theory is the result of a broader collapse in social fabric. Sure, it might work, but for most people it would be a miserable and frugil existence. Why not have luxuries and commodities? I think the real problem here is value: what drives people to exist? what social values do they hold and why do they hold them? In a traditional civilization such as Ancient China or Ancient Rome such thoughts on anarchy as the above probably wouldn’t make a lot of sense to people because they would see society being analyzed in a light that defines it soley in terms of monetary value and production rather than traditional values.

The question is, how essential is economic considerations to life? I’ve always viewed jobs and economic positions as superficial and auxilary. As such, an economic system where I don’t have a specific job, takes nothing away from me, and infact adds to my quality of life. Instead of slaving away at a job for 40 hours a week, that may or may not produce economic success, I would be able to work substantially less, and thus have more leisure time. I’m unsure how others concieve of working, but I think it is insane to conceive of it as an integral part of who you are. It is important only insofar as the structure of soceity makes it so. Likewise, luxuries and extravagancies vindicate the person who makes their job/vocation an integral part of their life. For someone who concieves of working as I do, luxuries are not important. If I created a business that was rather profitable, I would not exert myself to make it more profitable, or to build it up from the millions to the billions, I would take my money, and never work for the rest of my life. I work to meet basic needs, and I want to become rich only insofar as becoming rich would make it so I wouldn’t have to work.

The less you and I work, the better. The less time and energy you and me have to invest in a job, the better. Yes Capitalism offers a very small chance that a few people can strike it rich, and enjoy a life without working, but communism offers by population less work than Capitalism.

The collective work of a Communist society will be substantially less than a Capitalism, and unlike Capitalism, everyone will have their basic needs met.

I hate to say this, but capitalism can possibly be a good system when regulated, because it serves humans natural instict for heirachy and personal achievement/survival etc. To deny these natural insticts is to set yourself up for trouble.

If you make money really important, than that is something better to strive for than for example conquring nations. (and I know that many capitalists do this anyway)

But you have to regulate capitalims, or else you have just as shitty system of foced labor as hard core authoritarian communism. Look at the depression era in the U.S. people were killing themselves just like some folks are in china today.

I like scandinavia, not just because I am from there, but because it seems to be a good mix of both capitalims and socialism, and if you ever took a basic sociology class you would see charts where that area has healthier people, less crime etc . . . except for bike thefts.

Ok, to take away from the serious part of the thread. Try to help me out here someone. Sweden has just as high bike thefts as other industrial nations far less equal in health care, minimum pay etc etc. Your bike will disapear as quick as you blink your eye in a major U.S. city and a major Swedish city. What is it that makes kids want to steal bikes regardless of social/monetary equality in a country?

again, did I ever say I gave a flip about society? no.

do us a favor, pick up a gun and make the change you dream about.


True indeed. I think a lot of our work life has to do with the Puritan work ethic. Ancient civilizations typically viewed work as a boring but necessary, and often put the jobs off on slaves who could take care of the labor.


You didn’t change your conclusion, but you definately changed the way you arrived at that conclusion.

And what does this have to do with the discussion?

Sure ya didn’t, but you attack Libertarian socialism like there is a better system that offers more freedom. Just trying to find out what that system would look like.

Haha, I like that, I’ve never heard that before…Especially from you…I’m surpised you didn’t come up with this gem earlier…It’s so fantastic…You should say that as much as possible…It really adds to the discussion…

make yourself some more freedom… all the marxists/communists/socialists/totalitarians call for revolution for the people and the “people” refuse to pick up a gun and have the revolution?

no, what adds to the discussion is starting from a contradiction.



Ofcourse you didn’t because going from “centralized tyranical government dictating” to “slavery to the group, slavery to the people, slavery to the commune” is not a change at all.

what does his poli/sci professor have to do with the disucssion, why did you make that comment.

I want to live in a society, because by doing so I break the shackles of being a slave to labouring for my basic needs, it allows me more leisure time. However, in doing so I run the risk of entering a Capitalism where I become a slave to the market. Libertarian Socialism makes it so I am neither a slave to labouring for my basic needs, nor a slave to working in the market. Out of all the systems and lack of systems I have found, this one offers the most freedom. Both from working, and from labouring for basic needs, nor does it impose strict guidelines on behavior. It offers the most leisure time, and it offers plenty of personal liberties. Freedom is relative, there is not some ideal state of human existence where absolute freedom is obtained as you imply. You have fun chasing your ideal of freedom that doesn’t exist, and you have fun enjoying your supposed freedom OF work in Capitalism. And I’ll have fun enjoying my freedom FROM work, and the maximization of leisure time.

The people refuse nothing, they have been beat into submission by Capitalists.