New here, how do you guys feel about libertarian socialism?

[That_Which_Isnt]

Libertarian socialism just being a nice word for anarchy obviously.

There are usually lots of misconceptions about anarchy so let me clear up what anarchy is. Anarchy is opposition to all forms of hierarchy,Capitalism (no anarcho-capitalism is NOT a form of anarchy), the State, racism, sexism, discrimination upon the basis of sexual preference, etc. Anarchy is opposed to hierarchy because anarchy seeks to maximize liberty, equality, and solidarity (these three all naturally follow each other of course), and hierarchy by nature limits these three.

Property is Theft

 

[bue519]

Ummm welcome to the escapist. But if you really want to discuss why not join a forum about politics?

 

[That_Which_Isnt]

You guys seemed pretty cool I've been here a few times, can't hurt to get a bunch of opinions. Always learning you know, who knows maybe one of you might change my mind.

 

[ReincarnatedFTP]

Wait so are you one of these guys?





/Not an anarchist myself
/Generally support the anti-fascist sentiment though

 

[Phoenix Arrow]

*breathes in*
*breathes out*
Ok. If you want a political debate, I can give you one. But only if you genuinely believe in this form of socialism. I don't want to be talking to some 13 year old poser but seeing that you know the full name for anarchy I'm going to assume you fit the bill.

I'm a liberal that leans on the side of socialism. I'm from Britain and I vote for the Liberal Democrats. I believe in higher taxes for higher quality public services. A lot of these things wouldn't carry across to America seeing that seats in office are bought by coorperations and I guess that's part of why you believe what you do.

But I say this as a big believer in freedom of speech and I wish you well in what you believe in but it doesn't work. Let me justify that, it would work fine in a small community or country with 5 or so small towns, but not in anything bigger. For the idea to work, you need to have a people that trust one another because if you take away the hierarchy and the lack of someone to answer to, then if there's no respect and trust between people, then it will descend into chaos. When you look at the people of Britain and America and wherever else, do you see those qualities? I don't and I think we're too far gone to ever have that. It's a shame but that's the cold hard facts. People need someone to answer to these days to keep themselves in check.

TL;DR: it's a beautiful idea, but it won't work in practice. Much like communism.

You guys seemed pretty cool I've been here a few times, can't hurt to get a bunch of opinions. Always learning you know, who knows maybe one of you might change my mind.

Ignore him, he's being a douche. In the off-topic section, feel free to discuss anything like this. I miss when we used to have lengthy discussion about politics and rights. Now it seems 90% of threads on here are about youtube videos and have no substance. You know what that says to me? People who follow trends (ie Zero Punctuation becoming popular) are shallow. But then I already knew that. =]

 

[Yoshemo]

Its good on its own, but as humans are naturally greedy; property, slavery, and violence would erupt in a few years

 

[Smokepuddle]

People are natural jerks who need someone to follow so it won't work

 

[Perticular Elk]

It is a nice fantasy. No Government. I suppose Anarchy to Americans is like communism Europeans. Like Communism, Anarchy conflicts with human nature. Humans will create order in search of stability and peace, thus hierachy. Its just the way people are; they try to conquer fear and uncertainty with security of government.

 

[LockHeart]

I don't see how it can feasibly work. Without a government sanctioned by the people, what level of society there is will be controlled by the person with the biggest stick. At least in democracies, in theory, we can choose who gets the stick...

I'm just a straight out libertarian; I believe that the government is a necessary evil and should be kept as small and as limited as possible, having the least possible impact on the lives of the people.

 

[ReincarnatedFTP]

in an Anarchist state.

Okay, I lol'd, was that intentional?

 

[Gaderael]

The only problem with Anarchism is the human element. I don't have much faith in them, and I don't think it'd take very long before is breaks down in to total chaos. Yes, I know Anarchy and chaos are two different things, I'm just saying stupid people will take advantage of such a system and it will devolve into a chaotic world.

 

[That_Which_Isnt]

*breathes in*
*breathes out*
Ok. If you want a political debate, I can give you one. But only if you genuinely believe in this form of socialism. I don't want to be talking to some 13 year old poser but seeing that you know the full name for anarchy I'm going to assume you fit the bill.

I'm a liberal that leans on the side of socialism. I'm from Britain and I vote for the Liberal Democrats. I believe in higher taxes for higher quality public services. A lot of these things wouldn't carry across to America seeing that seats in office are bought by coorperations and I guess that's part of why you believe what you do.

But I say this as a big believer in freedom of speech and I wish you well in what you believe in but it doesn't work. Let me justify that, it would work fine in a small community or country with 5 or so small towns, but not in anything bigger. For the idea to work, you need to have a people that trust one another because if you take away the hierarchy and the lack of someone to answer to, then if there's no respect and trust between people, then it will descend into chaos. When you look at the people of Britain and America and wherever else, do you see those qualities? I don't and I think we're too far gone to ever have that. It's a shame but that's the cold hard facts. People need someone to answer to these days to keep themselves in check.

TL;DR: it's a beautiful idea, but it won't work in practice. Much like communism.

You guys seemed pretty cool I've been here a few times, can't hurt to get a bunch of opinions. Always learning you know, who knows maybe one of you might change my mind.

Ignore him, he's being a douche. In the off-topic section, feel free to discuss anything like this. I miss when we used to have lengthy discussion about politics and rights. Now it seems 90% of threads on here are about youtube videos and have no substance. You know what that says to me? People who follow trends (ie Zero Punctuation becoming popular) are shallow. But then I already knew that. =]

Yea I'm really an Anarchist broski, JUST started reading actual anarchist literature though, right now is The Ego and Its Own, next up is Proudhon's works, then Kropotkin. I've read over most of this website http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html and have read some of A People's History (reading along with my US history class to counter the white-washed male State perspective of history)

Everyone says it doesn't work, but we've lived in Anarchy for the past 50k or 5k years depending on if you're religious or not, heck Native Americans (I refuse to call them by the "i" word, shame that the name given to people by their conquerors is the one that sticks)lived in Anarchy until European settlers came. And yes you are correct that it would only work in small-scale commune sort of deals, which is exactly what I desire.

Its good on its own, but as humans are naturally greedy, property, slavery, and violence would erupt in a few years

If humans are naturally greedy, why put them in positions of power? To have an anarchist society you'd need anarchists of course, and anarchists believe what I stated in the OP, so I don't think it'd devolve in to that, plus my Native Americans example that they didn't stop being anarchist until the idea was shoved down their throat at gunpoint and they were near dead as a people anyway.

It works in theory but it's human nature to try and be better than everyone else.

It only appears that way because Capitalism emphasizes greed for success so people are forced to become greedy in order to become free (You can buy freedom under Capitalism)

 

[101194]

Libertarain...Socalisim...So you believe that every should take care of themselfs, But at the same time Takeing care of eachother? You just confused me, I'm sad now... D:>

 

[Yoshemo]

Its good on its own, but as humans are naturally greedy, property, slavery, and violence would erupt in a few years

If humans are naturally greedy, why put them in positions of power? To have an anarchist society you'd need anarchists of course, and anarchists believe what I stated in the OP, so I don't think it'd devolve in to that, plus my Native Americans example that they didn't stop being anarchist until the idea was shoved down their throat at gunpoint and they were near dead as a people anyway.

I know. I am native american. But we had a waaaaay different culture than americans do now. In todays society, it just wouldn't work

 

[That_Which_Isnt]

People are natural jerks who need someone to follow so it won't work

People are jerks, why give people armies and let them dictate how you can live?

Property is theft? You won't think so when I steal all your shit in an Anarchist state.

Oh, and I'm a Centrist, if we are posting our ideologies.

Property =/= Possession

It is a nice fantasy. No Government. I suppose Anarchy to Americans is like communism Europeans. Like Communism, Anarchy conflicts with human nature. Humans will create order in search of stability and peace, thus hierachy. Its just the way people are; they try to conquer fear and uncertainty with security of government.

There's a branch of Anarcho-communism just so you know. Anarchy isn't against order, again with my Native American example, or lets use a fresh one, the Paris Commune (not entirely Anarchist, but it displays the principles well enough), or the Spanish Revolution.

I don't see how it can feasibly work. Without a government sanctioned by the people, what level of society there is will be controlled by the person with the biggest stick. At least in democracies, in theory, we can choose who gets the stick...

I'm just a straight out libertarian; I believe that the government is a necessary evil and should be kept as small and as limited as possible, having the least possible impact on the lives of the people.

Anarchy promotes Direct Democracy, which is the only REAL form of democracy. In Representative "Democracy" you vote for someone to think for you on issues.

The only problem with Anarchism is the human element. I don't have much faith in them, and I don't think it'd take very long before is breaks down in to total chaos. Yes, I know Anarchy and chaos are two different things, I'm just saying stupid people will take advantage of such a system and it will devolve into a chaotic world.

I've come across many a Marxist who admits that Anarchists know the social aspect of humans the best.

 

[That_Which_Isnt]

Its good on its own, but as humans are naturally greedy, property, slavery, and violence would erupt in a few years

If humans are naturally greedy, why put them in positions of power? To have an anarchist society you'd need anarchists of course, and anarchists believe what I stated in the OP, so I don't think it'd devolve in to that, plus my Native Americans example that they didn't stop being anarchist until the idea was shoved down their throat at gunpoint and they were near dead as a people anyway.

I know. I am native american. But we had a waaaaay different culture than americans do now. In todays society, it just wouldn't work

That's not backed up with anything so I can't rebutt.

 

[Yoshemo]

Its good on its own, but as humans are naturally greedy, property, slavery, and violence would erupt in a few years

If humans are naturally greedy, why put them in positions of power? To have an anarchist society you'd need anarchists of course, and anarchists believe what I stated in the OP, so I don't think it'd devolve in to that, plus my Native Americans example that they didn't stop being anarchist until the idea was shoved down their throat at gunpoint and they were near dead as a people anyway.

I know. I am native american. But we had a waaaaay different culture than americans do now. In todays society, it just wouldn't work

That's not backed up with anything so I can't rebutt.

I can't really give any concrete evidence as to why it won't work today other than people just won't let it happen.

 

[Phoenix Arrow]

Everyone says it doesn't work, but we've lived in Anarchy for the past 50k or 5k years depending on if you're religious or not, heck Native Americans (I refuse to call them by the "i" word, shame that the name given to people by their conquerors is the one that sticks)lived in Anarchy until European settlers came. And yes you are correct that it would only work in small-scale commune sort of deals, which is exactly what I desire.

I hear you and I really want to agree with you, but you know the say "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely"? It has. It's corrupted government and it's corrupted society and the damage that has been done is irreversible. Look at the example of the Native Americans. The idea worked for them as they had relatively small communities. It was as if each town was its own country with its own language (I think so anyway, I'm applying what I know about Aboriginals to this and assuming it's similar). But then when a society that didn't embrace those philosophy came across theirs, they crushed it. If that happened these days, it would be a disaster. The only way you could get to work in a large country is if you got every other country to play along and there's no chance in hell that will happen.

By the way, I went on holiday to the Greek island of Kethalonia. Beautiful island. But because of the nature of the Greek people, it was as if it was an anarchist state. I mean, in the whole time I was there, I never detected the slightest hint on a police force and it was just fine. Everyone got on with life, having fun and drinking Ouzo. It's in that kind of society that these ideas work but that's about it.

 

[That_Which_Isnt]

Its good on its own, but as humans are naturally greedy, property, slavery, and violence would erupt in a few years

If humans are naturally greedy, why put them in positions of power? To have an anarchist society you'd need anarchists of course, and anarchists believe what I stated in the OP, so I don't think it'd devolve in to that, plus my Native Americans example that they didn't stop being anarchist until the idea was shoved down their throat at gunpoint and they were near dead as a people anyway.

I know. I am native american. But we had a waaaaay different culture than americans do now. In todays society, it just wouldn't work

That's not backed up with anything so I can't rebutt.

I can't really give any concrete evidence as to why it won't work today other than people just won't let it happen.

Yea that's kind of the point of being an anarchist, spreading the word, direct action grass roots movements sort of thing. Got to raise awareness, if people would've accepted it we'd be in an anarchist society already obviously we're not.