Any Libertarian Socialists out there? :)

[Mnemosyne]

Hey!

New to the forum - was lurking for a while and it seemed liked a place I would enjoy.

I didn't see an 'Intro' section so typical of other boards, so I thought I would introduce myself a little while seeking out others who maintain similar political philosophies. :)

I'm an anarchist at heart. Industrialism and the further development of civilization as been defined over the past 2000 years... I find sad, inefficient and incompatible with nature, not to mention most peoples' happiness. I think any currency formed outside of commodities based trading will always lead to wage labour and essentially... slavery.

But, since all the best fertile soils are currently occupied on this planet- I'm forced to function with the rest of you and give up my idealism. In this case, I'm a Libertarian Socialist.

I've seen a lot of socialists on here, but not too many (if any?) libertarians. I guess because libertarianism is typically associated with the right, and it's interpretation is most often a sad and mutated butchery of the classical political system.

I live in America and think that if we had actually stuck to it, the constitution was a pretty great idea. I grew up lower middle class as an only female child. Today, I own property and am working hard to become entirely self sufficient including growing my own produce and raising my own livestock. I created and run my own business based on a trade and service that has been around for more than 3,000 years. The culture of people like me is dying, if not already dead, as a result of industrialization and technological advancement. I am not opposed to either of these things... I AM apposed to forced participation as a requirement for survival. Hence, the libertarianism. ;)

Nice to meet you!

[Tim Cornelis]

Actually about 50% of the revleft-"population" is libertarian.

[Conscript]

Actually there's an intro forum.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

1. There is an intro forum.

2. The majority of this forum are anarchists, anarcho-communists or libertarian Socialists. I am one of them. Welcome.

3. Sorry to give you such a hard time in the Ron Paul thread, but I think you've got a lot to learn about libertarian Socialism. I advise you to join the Libertarian Socialism tendency (at the bottom of the main page), and check a few of the threads in learning or make some of your own to get a better understanding of libertarian Socialism.

We're all here to learn, comrade.

[CornetJoyce]

If Barto Vanzetti had only known that "Libertarianism is associated with the Right."

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Yup,there are many,many Libertarian Socialists here...

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=274

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=2

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=405

[Agent Equality]

Actually about 50% of the revleft-"population" is libertarian.

The only sane half :laugh::D:laugh::D

but yes there are lib socialists here. What you'll find is autho's, lib's, and everything in between here

[ellipsis]

Moved to introductions.

Really, you must not have looked very hard for the intro section...

Welcome to the forum, always glad to see a lurker join the ranks.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Really, you must not have looked very hard for the intro section...

I don't blame him for missing it.On most forums the Introduce Yourself forum is right on the top of the forums in plain sight where as here it is all the way in the bottom.When I first joined I didn't even see the forum of interest for at least a week.

[Susurrus]

Welcome, though I don't think owning property is the best way to introduce yourself at a leftist forum. Also, the constitution was intended to establish government by a rich, "enlightened" elite to protect the interests of this elite. Read some of Madison's Federalist papers, 10 makes this especially clear.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

On the social scale, I'm more or less on the border between civil libertarian and authoritarian, and far, far, far to the left.

[Yazman]

There are a lot of anarchists and anarcho-communists here, both of which tend to be libertarian in nature. You'll fit right in, really.

[Mnemosyne]

Thank you all for the welcome! :)

I'm surprised at the recommendations of self-censoring... should I not admit to owning guns either? Or is the majority here just revolutionary enough to be okay with it? ;)

I am also a subscriber to the ideas of esoteric philosophy and collective consciousness so no, I am not truly in support of owning land, or anything on the Earth for that matter. However- while *****ing about the world's injustice from a dark, damp inner city apartment enjoys a kind of transient fashionability... I've been there done that and it doesn't particularly suit my lifestyle/goals of self-sufficiency. :)

No hard time here in the Paul thread- I just posted there and hope I made my beliefs more clear. Just because I consider myself a Libertarian Socialist does not mean I do not advocate a just more Libertarian society as I think this would be much better than what we have.

Susurrus- I must disagree with you and having read the Federalist Papers I read Madison's words a bit differently, especially when also considering his notes from the Constitutional Convention. How does advocating eliminating the power of factions by giving equal liberty and opportunity to all other persons argue for protecting the 'enlightened elite's' control??
Even so- Madison was not the only person behind the constitution. Your argument is akin to saying that any argument Jefferson made against slavery was nullified by the fact that he owned slaves. Disappointing? Yes, but eliminating? No. Some people felt the way you described (and were the same people to oppose any public education system in the belief that some people 'can't learn'), but absolutely not the majority.

The constitution clearly states that in congress, there can be no more than one representative for every 30,000 people. This is a very small number and if it wasn't for the Act of 1911, this would result in around 10,000 representatives today... do you not feel that the 'people' would be better represented in such situation? I do not see how this protects the power of the elite...

Especially when we remember that today, among the small group of 435 representatives are around 5000 lobbyists in Washington.

[Agent Ducky]

Awww yeah, another libertarian socialist female! High five!
Welcome to revleft. Have a nice stay :D There's a crap-ton of libertarian socialists here to back you up, don't worry. :lol:

[Agent Ducky]

Thank you all for the welcome! :)

I'm surprised at the recommendations of self-censoring... should I not admit to owning guns either? Or is the majority here just revolutionary enough to be okay with it? ;)

in my experience Revlefters are okay with people owning guns. Some of them don't see a point, but a lot of Revlefters are gun owners themselves. Arm yourself for the revolution? Sure, why not.

[Susurrus]

Susurrus- I must disagree with you and having read the Federalist Papers I read Madison's words a bit differently, especially when also considering his notes from the Constitutional Convention. How does advocating eliminating the power of factions by giving equal liberty and opportunity to all other persons argue for protecting the 'enlightened elite's' control??
Even so- Madison was not the only person behind the constitution. Your argument is akin to saying that any argument Jefferson made against slavery was nullified by the fact that he owned slaves. Disappointing? Yes, but eliminating? No. Some people felt the way you described (and were the same people to oppose any public education system in the belief that some people 'can't learn'), but absolutely not the majority.

The constitution clearly states that in congress, there can be no more than one representative for every 30,000 people. This is a very small number and if it wasn't for the Act of 1911, this would result in around 10,000 representatives today... do you not feel that the 'people' would be better represented in such situation? I do not see how this protects the power of the elite...

Especially when we remember that today, among the small group of 435 representatives are around 5000 lobbyists in Washington.

Madison's attempt to "control" factions is primarily an attempt to control the population. We must remember that the main event that contributed to the constitutional convention was Shay's Rebellion, a rebellion of impoverished farmers in debt. In short, a rebellion against property owners. This shows that the Articles of Confederation are not properly keeping order and controlling the population. Those at the constitutional convention are all property owners. It is no coincidence that Madison discusses the division over the unequal holdings of property as "the most common and durable source of factions."
Thus, when Madison talks of protecting the rights of the minority against a faction of the majority, he is referring foremost to the right of property. He, and the other founding fathers, feared the majority of the population gaining power and infringing the upper class's right to property.
To counter this, Madison believes that a republican government is the best solution. Remember, in the original constitution, there was no popular vote in either the presidential nor the senate elections. Rather, the electoral colleges, selected by their state legislatures, would vote for the president, and the state legislatures would appoint the senators. Not to mention that the qualifications for voting were to be a white male landowner. So this concentrates the power in the hands of the educated and land-owning elite, and for the maintenance of the status quo. He states it bluntly, while he argues that a large republic will dilute any change or faction:

"A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union, than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State."

So, in fact, the constitution was conceived as a buffer against the will of the people. Madison is well known as the primary contributor to the construction of the constitution, and though his model, the Virginia Plan, was altered, the essence of his conception still remained. It was government selected by the elite, consisting of the elite, and governing over all.

[Commissar Rykov]

Welcome to the Boards. Sorry not a Libertarian just an ebil Authoritarian Socialist who wants to GULAG the shit out of you...with love.:lol:

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Another libertarian socialist welcoming you to the board. Enjoy the stay.

[EvilRedGuy]

Libertarians FTW.

[Red And Black Sabot]

hey there comrade.
I'm an Anarchist but I find it useful to call myself a libertarian when talking to certain folks... I live in the south.

[Luc]

I can't think of anything humorous or clever (:() so I hope a simple "welcome" suffices.

Welcome!:)

[Ryan the Commie Girl]

Welcome to the board from an anti-Anarchist Authoritarian Marxist-Leninist-Hoxhaist.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Welcome, I hope you enjoy your time here and learn more about all different revolutionary leftist ideas.

[Mnemosyne]

Susurrus, I appreciate the discussion your ability to share a perspective with facts... this seems rare on the internet. :)

I must disagree a bit however as I think you are trying to inaccurately simplify Shay's Rebellion by saying it was a rebellion against property owners...

The rebellion was brought on by farming smallholders. High property taxes were most certainly a driving force behind their debt... but not the main culprit. We should remember that post Revolutionary America experienced an economic depression- war investors from overseas (particularly France) were demanding payment from the national government while states owned individual citizens massive amounts for provisions given to continental troops. Not to mention that veterans of the continental infantry (the majority of farmers involved in the rebellion) experienced NO pay or pension and some of them didn't even get promissory note's guaranteeing payment in the future. These debts caused a hike in taxes across the board- including import taxes which one could say were the catalyst of the revolution itself!

Compound all of this together and high property taxes were one problem in a sea of many.... domestic businessmen were refusing to pay fair market price for crops and cattle while the state governments did what they knew how to do best... oppress the little man the hardest. Homes were foreclosed upon and land was confiscated.

There is no doubt that Madison was a bourgeoisie, and we can see this from his several statements on how 'too much liberty' in itself is a dangerous thing. However, to say that his philosophy was the guiding force behind the Constitution's emphasis on property rights is incorrect.... smallholders were considered property owners in the courts and it was these exact people who the 5th amendment was created to protect from the local governments.

Only property owners could vote and yes, in the majority of the colonies only white men could own property. I find it is important to distinguish a difference here between policy and culture. The founding fathers were full of contradictions- emphasizing freedom and equality while owning slaves, issuing mandates and not allowing women to vote.... but as we can see in many of their personal text's, particularly Benjamin Franklin's, it was felt that their society at present wasn't evolved enough or ready for this kind of practiced liberty. Thomas Jefferson is probably one of the most oddball characters ever- he cheered on Shay's Rebellion with his 'tree of liberty revived with blood...' comment, fought passionately against slavery despite owning slaves and attempted to pass anti-sodomy laws (which threatened castration!) to essentially prove a point about the effectiveness of checks and balances.

I am tempted by Ares to slap the silly shit right out of people when they speak as though the founding fathers were akin to the Buddha... because they absolutely were not and very few of them who experienced political careers post the convention did any kind of progressive service to their own creation.... but, as I said before, this doesn't detract from the fact that the Constitution was a great idea.

[CAleftist]

Susurrus, I appreciate the discussion your ability to share a perspective with facts... this seems rare on the internet. :)

I must disagree a bit however as I think you are trying to inaccurately simplify Shay's Rebellion by saying it was a rebellion against property owners...

The rebellion was brought on by farming smallholders. High property taxes were most certainly a driving force behind their debt... but not the main culprit. We should remember that post Revolutionary America experienced an economic depression- war investors from overseas (particularly France) were demanding payment from the national government while states owned individual citizens massive amounts for provisions given to continental troops. Not to mention that veterans of the continental infantry (the majority of farmers involved in the rebellion) experienced NO pay or pension and some of them didn't even get promissory note's guaranteeing payment in the future. These debts caused a hike in taxes across the board- including import taxes which one could say were the catalyst of the revolution itself!

Compound all of this together and high property taxes were one problem in a sea of many.... domestic businessmen were refusing to pay fair market price for crops and cattle while the state governments did what they knew how to do best... oppress the little man the hardest. Homes were foreclosed upon and land was confiscated.

There is no doubt that Madison was a bourgeoisie, and we can see this from his several statements on how 'too much liberty' in itself is a dangerous thing. However, to say that his philosophy was the guiding force behind the Constitution's emphasis on property rights is incorrect.... smallholders were considered property owners in the courts and it was these exact people who the 5th amendment was created to protect from the local governments.

Only property owners could vote and yes, in the majority of the colonies only white men could own property. I find it is important to distinguish a difference here between policy and culture. The founding fathers were full of contradictions- emphasizing freedom and equality while owning slaves, issuing mandates and not allowing women to vote.... but as we can see in many of their personal text's, particularly Benjamin Franklin's, it was felt that their society at present wasn't evolved enough or ready for this kind of practiced liberty. Thomas Jefferson is probably one of the most oddball characters ever- he cheered on Shay's Rebellion with his 'tree of liberty revived with blood...' comment, fought passionately against slavery despite owning slaves and attempted to pass anti-sodomy laws (which threatened castration!) to essentially prove a point about the effectiveness of checks and balances.

I am tempted by Ares to slap the silly shit right out of people when they speak as though the founding fathers were akin to the Buddha... because they absolutely were not and very few of them who experienced political careers post the convention did any kind of progressive service to their own creation.... but, as I said before, this doesn't detract from the fact that the Constitution was a great idea.

The Founding Fathers in general were bourgeoisie (though some would more properly be called aristocrats). However, they all were united in their common class interest, which was to wrest the control of colonial resources from the British government. When the Founding Fathers wrote about "liberty" and "equality", they were talking about liberty and equality for themselves and their own class.