Monday, July 31, 2006

Libertarian Socialist?

Libertarian socialism is completely and utterly ridiculous. One cannot be a Libertarian and a socialist simultaneously. Not only are both at odds with each other but advocate completely different core ideological approaches.
I have heard several individuals make that claim recently and I felt as though it is appoprate to divide the Libertarian hiarchy in however, silly different distinctions.
Nevertheless, libertarian socialism [which] I suppose has always been confronted as "organizational socialism." Depicts the release of individuality consequent upon the eradication of the oppressive structures of class and state, and has often thought in terms of the self-direction of small communities.
The term ‘libertarian socialism’ is fairly imprecise and in some ways misleading. We can contend that there is no “organizational socialism.” In the first place, socialism moves, between the idea of individualism and collectivism, between diversity and uniformity.
The idea of socialism exhibits some very un-libertarian tendencies like emphasis on over-egalitarianism and hyper-moralism, Libertarianism by its very nature, finds the idea of equality irrelevant and morality a relative investment.
This why “Libertarian-Socialism” in singular, is thus a contradiction in terms. Libertarianism means freedom, not democracy, equality, creativity or a guaruntee of happiness. It aims to promote maximum individual freedom, whatever the outcome of the exercise of that freedom for individuals or the wider society.
Another important difference is the concept of self-ownership. This means that individuals are not seen as having commitments to their fellow human beings and forcing them to accept such commitments (through the imposition of redistributive taxation, for example) which undermines their self-ownership. This view of the position of the individual is in tension with a number of socialist commitments, including the values of equality, planning, and democracy and the notion of the essential sociality of people. Yet, another reason why libertarian-socialism is impossible to accept.
The supporters of libertarian socialism claim they do not want to see the type of inequality that can result from the exercise of self-ownership. They argue, in applying a left-libertarian approach to the question of basic income: A Left-libertarian approach to basic income must address the question of what extent self-ownership and self-determination can be limited by the constraints imposed by egalitarian thinking, as there may be some necessary trade-off between liberty and equality.
However, the problem this position raises relates to the meaning of self-ownership. Not only does it defy the purest concept of self-ownership. I argue it is not logically possible to have simply have a sense of self-ownership? Or for self-ownership as a concept to be meaningful, do you not have to make it a reality throughout society? Surely it is not possible to have a little self-ownership? Which is what makes this argument utterly pointless.
One would think, on the other hand that socialists should logically support autonomy and self-ownership to foster a healthy democracy. The socialist conception of autonomy, however, recognizes that there are occasions when that autonomy has to be exercised collectively, rather than individually. Hence the diffculuty, with libertarian-socialism. Which will eventually bring us to the realization that libertarian-socialism is not a theory or even applicable in anyway.

1 comment:

Brainpolice said...

Rothbard wrote about this matter and titled it "anarcho-communism" or "anarcho-socialism". His article on the subject can be found here: Such people are not libertarians or anarcho-capitalists. Rather, they are anarchists that in addition to wanting to abolish the government, they also want to abolish private property and money, living in a communal society where everyone equally shares. It's technically as far left as a person can go - 100% social and 0% economic. A strange form of anarchism.