Libertarianism and Socialism: the implementation

[oldscratch]

Quicksilver was more or less right, but I’m still willing to take things from Lib’s point of view. So here goes.

Well. That does present a problem Libertarian. Let us say, hypothetically that a socialist government is set up in the United States. Private property, that which is considered the most important asset (or one of them) in libertarianism, would cease to exist. So where does that leave libertarians? at first glance, not in a very good position. But, in truth, for hard libertarians, the situation might be better than the one in the US now.

Let us take a theoretical situation. Socialist revolution in the US. The only violence from socialists was of defensive and retaliatory kinds. We have a government that is elected based on workers counsels, we start socializing industries.

We now have Libertarian and his family. You are employed by Large Widget Works. or LWW. LWW elects members to the citywide counsel, which in turn makes decisions on what LWW should do with employees and work output. If you do not like those decisions, even though they come from a democratic majority, you are free to quit LWW. You are also free to argue your case for Libertarian ideas, and attempt to become elected LWW representative to the city counsel.

Even though you have some success, and even win a few converts to the Libertarian view of life, most people are happy with socialism and what it brings them. They do not join with you. However, over the internet, you are able to find around 10,000 other people who share your Libertarian viewpoint. You petition the government. You and the other 10,000 people, feeling unwelcome and not fully being able to achieve happiness under socialism, wish to break off and form a libertarian subcountry. Now, depending on the strength of your proposal, and your skills in proposing it, this may or may not be accepted. There would be nothing under socialism to prevent it though. If it was not accepted you would be able to continue arguing for and submitting your proposal. Even form a political party to argue for it. As elections would be much more localized, it would be easier to form a viable party.

You could also quit your job and become self employed. Get approval from the local counsel, many of whom would know you and be more willing to listen than a state wide or national government, to form a little slice of libertaria right at home.
Now. Personal property, that which you have yourself, your home, your toothbrush, is still owned by you. It is still controlled by you.

But I fear that there will always be a definite split between socialism and libertarianism. Socialists wish to see the greatest possible good for the greatest possible number of people. This involves sometimes repressing the interests of the minority. But at least it’s done democratically.

[manhattan]

I think you’ve nailed it exactly in your last paragraph, Oldie. Because you say that “only violence from socialists was of defensive and retaliatory kinds,” but I think that Libertarianism would define force (or coersion) differently from your revolution.

Say I own a polyethelene plant. A really good one, too. 1 B lbs/yr, multiple feedstocks, OK pollution controls, on the river and near the trains, the works. Is there a way for a socialist revolution to wrest control of my valued plant without coercing me by the Libertarian definition? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m presuming here that the revolution lacks the cash to buy out me and all of my competitors in a free and fair arms-length transaction.

[Mr.Svinlesha]

manhattan writes:

Say I own a polyethelene plant. A really good one, too. 1 B lbs/yr, multiple feedstocks, OK pollution controls, on the river and near the trains, the works. Is there a way for a socialist revolution to wrest control of my valued plant without coercing me by the Libertarian definition? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m presuming here that the revolution lacks the cash to buy out me and all of my competitors in a free and fair arms-length transaction.

Let me give it a shot:

1. Maybe you become a socialist.

Oldie sees socialist revolution ideally as a democratic process. It would be the result of democratic elections in which the majority of people voted for, let us say, a socialist government. In such a scenario it’s possible that many businessmen come to believe that socialism is the best option for everyone, even if it means a reduction in their own personal standard of living. That’s arguably one of the implications of class consciousness.

2. The playing field has changed.

A democratically-elected socialist government changes the laws concerning private ownership. What you assume to be a “right” under our current system is no longer a “right” under the new system. The democratically elected gov’t grants a local counsel of workers the legal right to confiscate your plant. If you refuse, you must initiate illegal coercion in order to protect property that can no longer be seen as properly belonging to you.

From a Libertarian perspective, as long as you’re part of democratic society and reap the benefits thereof, you must also uphold your side of the contract.

3. Hi Opal. (I just had to. I’ve never done it before.)

4. You’ve already intiated coercion.

You’re an owner of the means of production, and you’re exploiting the workers by stealing the surplus value of their labor. This is the initial violence, and the workers’ response would be classified as either defensive or retaliatory.

Libertarian writes:

Chomsky has always used anarchism and libertarianism as synonyms, doubtless due to his fetish with authority. He’s no more libertarian than Ayn Rand.

I heard dat(although I don’t know what you mean regarding his “fetish”). Chomsky’s anarcho-syndicalist, near as I can figure it, but that may be the closest thing imaginable to “libertarian socialism.” Which touches on Quicksilver’s question about common elements between socialism and libertarianism. Off the top of my head, I can think of maybe one or two. One of course is that they are both politics of protest; they aren’t mainstream ideologies anyway, at least not in the States. Two, admittedly stretching it a bit, is that at least some forms of socialism (particularly anarchist socialism) share libertarianism’s emphasis on individual freedom. The main difference is that freedom from a socialist perspective isn’t tied to ownership of property. There are lots of other kinds of freedom. Syndicalism, for example, might allow all the political and social freedoms we enjoy today, including ownership of private property – except for the means of production, which would be held communally.

Finally, JayAndrewAllen writes:

*Within that structure, communities could organize themselves voluntarily into cooperatives, where income is pooled and redistributed according to non-market criteria. *

But then contradicts his idea of “non-market redistribution” with:

This will, of course, only appease voluntary socialists - run-of-the-mill socialists will still ring their hands over non-coop businesses and individuals that rack up billions in profits at “society’s expense”.

Otherwise an excellent post, except for the following, which I’m also going to have to disagree with:

The gradual diminishing by necessity of the Swedish welfare state’s a perfect example of this.

I don’t think the “diminshment” of Sweden is a perfect example of very much more than the power of the neo-liberal international economy. On a personal note, however, I agree with you that in a socialist system there will always be free riders.