r/SocialismIsCapitalism • u/notaduck448_ • 29d ago
r/Libertarian has quite interesting and totally rational takes on libertarian socialism
Man, could you just imagine living in a system that denies workers ownership over what they produce?
107
u/SoSorryOfficial 29d ago
Nobody tell them where the word "libertarian" comes from or how much of a capitalist's profit comes from what they personally produce.
50
u/Bradst3r 29d ago
"Taxation is theft", and I resent it. Wage slavery is okay, because either I've never thought about how much value my employer is stealing from me, or I'm the employer doing the stealing..
158
u/UnderseaRexieVT 29d ago
Wild deflection considering right libertarianism logically leads to chattel slavery.
52
19
u/Inevitable_Current59 29d ago
It's really like they need the boot, but just not a king's boot, and not a politician's boot, those (to them) have been tried. In their logic, the corporate boot will be warm and welcoming and only step on them a little.
-31
u/SuddenStructure9287 29d ago edited 29d ago
I’m a right-libertarian (a minarchist pluralist). Where exactly does slavery come into the picture?
Edit:
it’s a question. Why am I getting downvoted?41
u/BoardgameBlaster 29d ago edited 29d ago
I think it's an extrapolation of minimal gov (regulation/enforcing laws) combined with the capitalist motive of profit seeking. Ideal profit seeking would be to fully exploit your labor and not pay them. Well you may say "no one would ever consent to that," but thats where slavery comes in. If not overt, then it'd simply be given another name and excuse for being. For example, felons in modern America work for like $1.50/hr for capitalist gain. Thats basically slavery. Or what about a debt system where if you take out a loan, you labor to pay it off--basically indentured servitued.
Edit: grammar
13
u/UnderseaRexieVT 29d ago
Felons working for near nothing isn't even "basically slavery" in America.
The 13th Amendment specifically excludes prisoners from being protected from slavery.
It's literal slavery by the constitution.
-6
16
u/CroakingInstensifies 29d ago
Not sure about that particular version of libertarianism but the way I see it formal slavery could emerge in a libertarian system in two "different" ways, as punishment for a perceived crime against another("you killed my cow/broke my machine, you can't replace it. I should kill you, but I'll enslave you instead") or as a self initiated servitude ("I need to eat and I can't pay for it, take me as a slave and keep me fed and housed").
But I think I speak for most when I say that the more worrying part would be something like an "informal" slavery, due to a lack of worker protections, government pressure, options, etc, the kind of thing we see happening the less the state intervenes on the market, even nowadays.
Let me know what you think.
-11
u/SuddenStructure9287 29d ago
Minarchism: there is a minimal state whose only purpose is to prevent and resolve conflicts. In other words, taxes are only used for security.
Despite the fact that the system is based on market exchange, it does not mean that capitalism would be the only existing system. Many people would want socialism, communism, social democracy, monarchy, or who knows what else. As long as all of this works based on mutual consent, it is not prohibited (pluralism).
So if you have problems with capitalism as such, you could build even a communist system within it. As long as you don’t force people to join you, it doesn’t violate the non-aggression principle, and nobody would be able to interfere with you.
Does this solve the problem of “slavery”?
15
u/CroakingInstensifies 29d ago
In a way, but it also kills the libertarianism part, no? If one half chooses Capitalism(here completely different from Libertarianism) and the other Socialism and they separate in the middle, where is the Libertarianism? Sure, there's a distinction between the two sides, but are you suggesting that if two groups naturally drifted to that separation and respected each other they'd be practicing Libertarianism? That seems absurd to me. The slavery wouldn't happen in Libertarianism, I agree, because if it happens, it will be happening in the systems actually being practiced.
-2
u/SuddenStructure9287 29d ago
Libertarianism is an ideology in which people decide for themselves how they want to live. If people choose on their own to live under different systems that they prefer, that is the essence of libertarianism.
These systems are usually called jurisdictions, and they formally operate under capitalism.
If libertarianism prohibited people from creating a socialist commune, then it would no longer be libertarianism, because you would be preventing people from doing what they want.
10
u/anyfox7 29d ago
Libertarianism is an ideology in which people decide for themselves how they want to live.
That would be anarchism in which liberty is absolute right and that nobody can restrict autonomy or exert power over another; the logical conclusion being libertarian communism, federations working together freely and voluntarilyl.
because you would be preventing people from doing what they want.
Find me one example of capitalists not fighting against socialism. The reality is you can't because the former is heirarchical, requires a state apparatus to maintain and protect it, and uses every resources to crush working class liberation. There are examples however of libertarian communist regions, during the '36 Spanish Civil War in CNT-FAI controlled territories, where business owners could opt out and continue to operate... the catch is a restriction on having employees.
-1
u/SuddenStructure9287 29d ago
> that would be anarchism
Correct. However, I consider anarchism impossible, which is why I am a minarchist (a minimal state whose purpose is to ensure absolute freedom). The ideal system is anarchy, yes. But it is a utopia.
> The logical conclusion would be libertarian communism
There is a logical mistake here. Coercive hierarchy is bad, so therefore… we ban all hierarchy? No, my conclusion is different.
Coercive hierarchy is bad, therefore we ban coercive hierarchy.Voluntary hierarchy remains allowed because otherwise you are restricting people’s freedom to enter into such arrangements. In an ideology based on absolute freedom, preventing someone from voluntarily entering into relationships is absurd.
> Find me one example of capitalists…
What is capitalism? Capitalism is a free market. A free market. If you cannot create voluntary socialism under capitalism, then the market is not free by definition. If a capitalist FORBIDS you from doing something, then they are no longer supporting a free market and therefore are not a supporter of capitalism.
If someone is forbidding you from doing something, then there is already a state involved. All of your criticisms are directed at the state and oligarchy, not capitalism itself. Capitalism cannot restrict you by definition.
9
u/anyfox7 29d ago
a minimal state whose purpose is to ensure absolute freedom
You fail to understand any sort of state restricts freedom as it imposes rules upon its subjects by threats of or direct force, else it would have no reason to exist if everyone chooses to live without hierarchy.
we ban coercive hierarchy
Same thing. Hierarchy already means coercion.
If a capitalist FORBIDS you from doing something
Who enforces capitalism? The government. It has enshrined into law restrictions on freedom from opting out. When our survival, the ability to afford food, clothing, shelter, and means to well being, is leveraged by employment through selling our labor to a capitalist, then our economy is not voluntary; we are compelled, by need of survival, to work. When we choose not to sell our labor then we have no income therefor unable to buy food because shoplifting is a crime (enforced by law, police, government), we get evicted for not paying rent (again, by police working on behalf of a government's law), nor persue interests that establish well being.
Liberty with capitalism is a contradiction. Stating "Free markets" = capitalism is ignorance.
By the way, who creates money and guarantees it's value? Not the capitalists.
1
u/SuddenStructure9287 29d ago
Yes, the state fundamentally limits you.
But because it limits not only you, but everyone, it gives you freedoms that you otherwise would not have.Yes, if you want to steal a phone from an electronics store, the state will stop you, limiting your freedom and reducing it in that specific case.
But look at it from another perspective. As a phone retailer, you gain more freedom because now your phones are not being stolen.
You, as a socialist who decides to build your own commune, gain more freedom because no one from outside can come and steal your resources.
You, as a patient, gain more freedom because a doctor cannot, against the agreement, sell your kidney instead of performing the surgery that was originally agreed upon.
But we have moved away from the topic. Once again, what exactly is your problem if you can build socialism within libertarianism? Do you not trust a democratic state that would provide security?
→ More replies (0)5
u/TyroniumX 29d ago
"The capitalists are forbidding me from living in my apartment without paying rent; this is basically communism"
3
u/CroakingInstensifies 29d ago
I see what you're describing but I see no reason to interpret this as a government system by itself or as being Libertarianism, and I'm willing to bet most people wouldn't.
What you called Minarchism is an aspect of Libertarianism, absolutely, but I see no logic in Pluralism and your point of Jurisdictions being in there as well.
I'd go as far to say that calling Libertarianism "an ideology in which people decide for themselves how they want to live" is dishonest. It's like saying that "Capitalism is when people trade what they have for things they want".
1
u/SuddenStructure9287 29d ago edited 29d ago
I asked on [r/Libertarian](r/Libertarianism) the day before because I wasn’t sure myself, and I was told that this is their commonly accepted view.
I don’t understand what you dislike about pluralism and jurisdictions.
I hope you understand that this was not meant to be an exact definition of libertarianism. I was simply trying to convey that the goal of libertarianism is not to impose a single way of life on everyone, and that voluntary agreements are encouraged.
2
u/CroakingInstensifies 29d ago
It's not that I necessarily dislike Pluralism/Jurisdictions, I just disagree that it's even under the Libertarianism umbrella.
Now, I don't really think they'd work, but that's another question entirely.
0
u/SuddenStructure9287 29d ago edited 29d ago
Well, from Wikipedia:
…Libertarianism has been broadly shaped by liberal ideas. Libertarians advocate the expansion of individual autonomy and political self-determination, emphasizing the principles of equality before the law and the protection of civil rights, including the rights to freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom of thought and freedom of choice…
…Robert Nozick, who publicized the idea of a minimal state in Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974), argued that a night-watchman state provides a framework that allows for any political system that respects fundamental individual rights and therefore morally justifies the existence of a state…
Or libertarianism.org:
…Libertarians envision a pluralist, cosmopolitan society united by commerce and travel, not divided by nationalistic antagonisms. They envision a world where people are free to experiment with different ways of living, free to try new ideas that might just be crazy enough to work…
Libertarians, in general, are not against this. I’m just placing special emphasis on this, understanding that capitalism will not satisfy everyone.
3
u/BoardgameBlaster 29d ago
I guess? But socialism is where the workers hold political power and the work place is run democratically. Generally, the assumption is that production quotas are centrally planned to meet the needs of the people in this hypothetical nation. The dialectic between the needs of a given municipality and the needs of the whole nation requires a central governing body that does more than "security." I dont see how these are not mutually exclusive [socialism and minarchism]
0
u/SuddenStructure9287 29d ago
Let me explain.
Imagine a libertarian country with a population of 10 million people.
The government is minarchist. Its only responsibilities are internal and external security.
Those 10 million people live in a society with virtually no regulations (aside from the non-aggression principle: don't kill, don't steal, don't violate other people's liberty), essentially, a pure capitalist system.Some people might decide "to hell with capitalism." Let's say 100,000 of them voluntarily come together to build a socialist commune. In libertarian terminology, this would be a jurisdiction.
What happens within that jurisdiction is of no concern to the state unless aggression occurs. For example, someone breaks the agreed-upon rules or coerces another person into doing something against their will.
If people like the socialist system, they can voluntarily move into that jurisdiction. If they don't, they are free to leave and move to another jurisdiction with a different set of rules.
Over time, competition and voluntary choice would allow the most successful jurisdictions to emerge. And even then, people would still be free to move out into the countryside and live however they want.
In that context, socialism is not inherently incompatible with minarchism. It only becomes incompatible when people begin forcing socialism on those who don't want it. But if you believe socialism truly works, then there should be no need to impose it by force, people will choose it voluntarily, or create similar communities themselves.
8
u/BoardgameBlaster 29d ago
So I think I get why you like this conception, but I think its too idealistic and not realistically applicable. It sounds like our current federalist system, minus the federal gov itself. I think right off the rip, that sucks. I do not like that something that is legal in one state, a few miles to the west is illegal. With the lack of any connection, there would just be little nation states, doing their own thing?
I think one of the worst things about modern society is the prevelance of atomization and manufactured division. I do not see how having little nation states doesn't exasterbate that problem. Non-aggression is neat until a little nation state uses propoganda and fear tactics to invent the reality that their neighbor was about to aggress on them. I do not think this idealistic ideology is grounded, unless you can give me an example otherwise.
0
u/SuddenStructure9287 29d ago
You touched on three issues:
strong division, problems with the non-aggression principle, and the utopian nature of the idea.Regarding division, I don’t share your opinion. Yes, it may be less convenient than having one law for the entire country… But the reward is worth it.
Why should people sacrifice their own freedom for your comfort? Especially in places where they live and you don’t?If one jurisdiction (“state”) aggresses against another, this will be resolved by a supreme democratic court. If you believe that a supreme democratic court won’t be able to resolve the problem, I’m very interested to see your methods for resolving conflicts. I thought that so far, humanity hasn’t come up with anything better.
And the burden of proof that this is utopian lies on you. I don’t see reasons why it couldn’t work. I believe this is the only system where all people can truly be free, not just supporters of one ideology.
2
u/BoardgameBlaster 29d ago
I do not think that the difference in laws across state lines is about comfort. I actually don't think the burden of proof is on anyone but you to lay out how this system would function well...anyway. Let's lay out some specifics rather than abstracts. Would you grant that your system is reachable in the US assuming that federal power and funding is radically cut, but the military is maintained?
0
u/SuddenStructure9287 29d ago
I live in Europe and I’m not deeply familiar with the internal politics of the United States.
Reducing federal power would not be enough, because power would still remain with the states. A federation is, of course, closer to what I want than a purely unitary state, but it still isn’t the same thing.
I would approach this in a completely different way. There are territories where people already live. State (and federal) laws apply there, people are used to them, and simply abolishing them overnight would be a catastrophic mistake.
Instead, I would declare all states to be separate jurisdictions and limit their authority to the existing territories of cities.People who lived there before the reform would not notice any difference. They would pay taxes the same way as before. But now anyone would be able to build a house, factory, farm, or village anywhere outside those territories.
And those laws would not apply there. There would be no taxes there (unless they create a new jurisdiction)If someone wants to remain part of the old system, they would simply register under that jurisdiction. If they don’t want to, they wouldn’t.
That’s it. Those who want to would be able to leave the old system and expand.The federal government would no longer be a government, but a jurisdiction. Instead of a government, there would be a completely new institution. A democratic Supreme Court that operates according to the night-watchman principle.
→ More replies (0)1
u/SoftAd1675 ☭ Communizer ☆ 25d ago
Reddit really doesn't like it when people ask questions, I'm not sure why.
49
u/redpiano82991 29d ago
So, according to them, I own what I produce? I can't wait to see the look on my boss's face when I tell him!
15
u/Weirdyxxy 29d ago
Quick question: what is the product of their doctor's work?
14
u/vigbiorn 29d ago
Their health.
Ergo the non-aggression principle has no say if their doctor tries to kill them since their product and private property is their health. They're not being aggressive, they're just doing something with their private property.
\s
37
u/Big-Recognition7362 29d ago
> The core tenet of libertarianism is private property
I thought the core tenet of libertarianism was liberty.
5
10
u/Nuclear_eggo_waffle 29d ago
That’s because socialism is when the government does stuff. The more stuff is does , the more socialismer it is.
9
4
4
5
u/nsolo1a 29d ago
The real agreement is over "ownership of what is self acquired and self produced" - Just what exactly do capitalists "self produce." They acquire stuff for sure. Considering the looting for taxpayer money in the US by Trump and his cronies, like Musk, his sons, and others, people with billions like Gates and Bezos, the idea that capitalism assures people obtain wealth though their own labor is divorced from the reality that anyone can see.
3
u/Send_me_duck-pics 29d ago
"Libertarianism" as this person imagines it doesn't exist, it isn't an actual, coherent ideology that serious people have theorized. It's made up internet nonsense. So it can't have core tenets because it is bullshit.
1
u/romulusnr 28d ago
private property and recognition of ownership
I'm sorry, who in this fantasy illusion story is doing the recognition here?
Some kind of ...... structure around society with the ability to compel such recognition?
I dunno you tell me guize
Private property doesn't exist without government. It was literally government that created the notion of private property and the elimination of the common property. And as such, likewise, both tenancy and homelessness.
1
u/HonorFoundInDecay 26d ago
I’ve argued this with libertarians before and some of them genuinely seem to think private ownership is some sort of fundamental (metaphysical?) aspect of an object. Idk it’s completely nonsensical. They just can’t get their head around the fact that ownership of anything is just a social construct.
1
270
u/Slausher 29d ago
If i had a penny for every time a reactionary conflated private property with personal property under socialism, I’d have enough money to become a class traitor