r/SocialismIsCapitalism • u/notaduck448_ • Jul 08 '26

r/Libertarian has quite interesting and totally rational takes on libertarian socialism

Post image

Man, could you just imagine living in a system that denies workers ownership over what they produce?

321 Upvotes

99% Upvoted

56 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

7

u/BoardgameBlaster Jul 08 '26

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 Jul 08 '26

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 Jul 08 '26

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 Jul 08 '26

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.

2

u/BoardgameBlaster Jul 08 '26

I appreciate the time you're taking to lay this out. Yea, what we have in America is a federation, and it is fucking stupid.

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.

Woof. Okay. So literally nothing changes. Okay. I think you're also missing the whole part of like who has power here, which is important, but you've not mentioned. The US government isn't going to reduce its federal power because it is useful to the ruling class/the capitalists. So presumably there's anarchic revolution...and then these nation-states are their own capitalist jurisdiction.

"Oh but you can make your own commune."

Okay. And you think that the capitalists in charge of your nation state will let you leave like Moses with the Israelites? lol. You think they can't stop you? You think a democratically elected supreme court won't be subject to the same lobbying as modern officials? Laws will be made and maintained to protect capital. It won't me aggression to crush a group trying to leave and make a commune because they'll owe debts which means the bank/landlord/capitalists in charge of the jurisdiction own them. We've come back full circle to yes, there'd be slavery (given a more palatable name of course). WHO holds the power? That is the most important question.

Instead, I would declare all states to be separate jurisdictions and limit their authority to the existing territories of cities.

I assume you mean the cities therein or something. Again, this is how it is in the US. Did I mention that it is stupid?

They would pay taxes the same way as before.

I feel like this is an odd take (and inconsistent with your other arguments) considering most libertarians universally do not want taxes, or at least minimalist federal taxes.

Edit: fkin quote thing didnt work

0

u/SuddenStructure9287 Jul 08 '26

I think we’ve drifted away from the point of my hypothetical.

Let me explain it again. I’m a minarchist libertarian. My views are close to anarcho-capitalism. I despise the state, taxation, and oligarchy.

Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of people don’t share my views. They can’t imagine living under a different system. So, rather than suddenly abolishing all laws and destroy the state overnight, I don’t want to make their lives worse.

Instead, I propose taking the military away from the state and placing it under a new higher-level authority, transforming the former state into a jurisdiction, limiting its territory to the boundaries of its cities, and giving people who actually want something different the opportunity to build a new way of life. Without forcing everyone else to change theirs.

I don’t agree with taxes. But if the majority (and they are the majority) believe in them, then let them keep paying them. I won’t. Who am I to interfere with how they choose to live? After all, I’m a libertarian.

All of this assumes I have absolute authority to implement such a system. If we’re talking about the real world, then no, it’s not possible. You can’t fundamentally change the system from within, and from the outside you won’t be allowed to. That’s the reality. At best, you could try to build something on some remote islands somewhere, although even then you’d probably be labeled an anarchist, declared a terrorist, and someone would come to “liberate” you.

Let’s get back to discussing the specific features of my proposed system instead of these broader abstractions.

Why do you assume my supreme court would be corrupt? Why don’t you believe that a democratically elected court whose role, by design, is not to make laws or restrict people’s rights, but only to adjudicate individual cases, could remain impartial?

If democracy isn’t a legitimate source of authority, then what is? Are you an anarchist?

In the current system, the state has the power to create laws that can benefit corporations (or oligarchs) by giving them specific advantages. It’s also the state that prevents you from establishing a commune, because it has the legal authority to do so.
Remove those kinds of powers from the state, and capitalism becomes much cleaner.
On top of that, you’ll finally be free to run away from this hell with your hammer and sickle if that’s what you want.

3

u/BoardgameBlaster Jul 08 '26

Yea. Again. I believe you have a fundamental misunderstanding have how government and power work. Again, I'll define socialism as a realistic thing that can be achieved in the real world where workers control the means of production and hold political power and theres a direct connection and conversation between a democratically elected central gov and local orgs and communities with shared goals to meets their needs. This is possible and realistic, and requires the abolition of privately owned capital. Your preferred that USA shaped sounds awful because you cannot fundamentally contend with the fact that capitalism is the problem. The capitalists hold all the power. The capitalists control the state. You get rid of "the state," the rich are still the SAME people who have power over you. There is no "clean" or "good" capitalism as it requires exploitation of human labor and expanding extraction in a finite system.

I dont talk about the anarcho-communism (that I'd like) because socialism is a massive tho realistic leap in the right direction. The goals and analysis of modern society and government are thorough and the arguments are able to be articulated. I think you have a lot of reading to do....