The only difference between democratic socialists and libertarian socialists:
Is the democratic socialists at least think you need to take a vote before you redistribute wealth.
Posted Dec 16, 2020, 11:09 AM UTC
3923
"Libertarian" socialists aren't libertarians, they're just socialists.
PROTIP: Put "Libertarian" in quotes whenever referring to them that way they can't occupy mindspace in the word "Libertarian". They shouldn't get that, they don't deserve it. They are just pissed that their words come with so much baggage (you know, because they murdered so many people and caused so much death and misery by being the bad guys) and so they want to latch onto our word to make themselves look better.
Fuck 'em.
27
It's a bit off topic - but I am very intrigued by the amount of language that has been co-opted or changed over the past few years. It's literally doublespeak. Fascism isn't fascism, war is peace, socialists are libertarians, good is evil. We are living in fucking clown world. Thanks public schools!
11
I was on a libsoc subreddit, and there was a poll if vaccinations should be mandated.
50% said yes.
5
figures.
5
"Libertarian" socialists aren't libertarians, they're just socialists.
Fully agree.
5
[removed]
0
[deleted]
14
What is REALLY going on is that the far left are simply attempting to use the common infiltration technique they have used since Leon Trotsky, entryism. in order to co-op the modern liberty movement and change it into something else.
That's pretty much how r/libertarian was corrupted.
They try to use an old definition of the word libertarian to conflate a socialist movement with the Rothbardian modern libertarian movement.
The two are diametrically opposed to each other, but they use the name similarity to try to make the word mean something and its opposite to destroy any cohesive identity for the movement, and to ostracize real libertarians as an out-group in their own forums.
5
Honestly I don’t pay attention to all the different “flavors” of leftists any more. At the end of the day, it’s all the same. They want to forcibly take wealth from one group and give it to another.
I don’t care what particular mental gymnastics they use to philosophically justify theft.
10
They want to forcibly take wealth from one group and give it to another. themselves.
3
„Libertarian“ socialists usually are libertarianish about weed, and socialist on everything else
6
I know there are real libsocs but I wouldn’t trust anyone who called themselves a libsoc. There’s just too many clowns and liars.
5
Thank you
1
The libertarian would likely form their own intentional socialist community where people could voluntarily take part in with its own system of shared wealth/labor/profit, the democratic socialist would use the government to impose their will on all of their society.
But in reality a libertarian socialist is a bit of an oxymoron.
It’s not socialism if it’s voluntary
Agreed, if it is voluntary then it is collectivism. Not socialism.
Socialism is by definition collectivist
Collectivism imposed by government. Volunteerism is a type of collectivism too but it is not imposed by government.
It's the bourbon/whiskey comparison.
Semantics. Socialists define their system as “worker ownership of the means of production”, this isn't inconsistent with voluntarism in and of itself.
Its not semantics.
There is a fundamental difference between Capitalism and Socialism. Capitalism is individual (private) control of capital. Socialism is group (political) control of capital.
That's not a "semantic" difference. People are individuals first. Groups second.
When you socialize the means of production this means that you are using political control of capital. That is what 'socialism' fundamentally means: You are using the social means (ie: politics) to control productive resources.
Politics is how you coordinate action across many people without a free market.
This means that you are depending on political organizations to organize production and coordinate economic action. Individuals are not to act on their own initiative. They must work with others and achieve a consensus before acting. This is the fundamental distinction from capitalism.
Now that political system can take many forms. It could be a totalitarian dictator government, it could be democratic socialist committees, it could be union syndicates, corporate businesses, democratic communes or anything along those order. You can make it as democratic as you want, but it's still going to be something that exists.
For a fully functional economy you need to coordinate action not only locally, but regionally, nationally, and even globally. This means that group representation needs to exist on both a local level and a national level. Probably will multiple steps in between.
As you move from local representation to national or super-regional representation you create a political hierarchy. Individuals at the bottom with the least amount of authority and then with increasing levels of political authority as you reach the national level.
This political hierarchy is what we call "The State".
If capital is controlled by the group (the state) and a individual seizes a portion of it to control it himself he is effectively stealing from the collective (the state).
In other words: If you live in a socialist society and you carry out individual economic action without the coordination of others then you are privatizing capital, which is a crime. It violates the property rights of the state. You are robbing the collective of it's property.
Now with a Capitalist system with individual private property rights and the rights to purchase and own your own capital you can choose to what extent you are going to work with others.
You can work with others voluntarily. As much as you want, as little as you want. You can refuse to associate with some people and associate yourself with others. Your choice, your decision.
They have no right to compel you to do anything.
This is why Free Market Capitalism is synonymous with a Voluntarist society. There is no real distinction.
If you want to join a Union syndicate or business group to try to increase profits this is entirely allowed under a Free Market Capitalist system. And if you get tired of dealing with them you can take your ball and go home and do your own thing and there isn't anything anybody else can do about it. You have veto power over your own actions. As a individual.
Workers are individuals. Worker ownership of means of production is private (individual) ownership of the means of production. The only system were workers can actually own their own capital is Capitalism.
Great summary
If you actually BELIEVE it will stay "voluntary", then you are the sucker.
I'd say more than a "bit of an oxymoron".
"Socialist" apparently means that there are plenty of cross-obligations assumed. People who don't play along with that become the enemy of the 'majority', or what passes for the majority.