The Basics of Liberal Socialsm

[DinodudeEpic]

Disclaimer: Sorry if I some how pissed off anybody by posting this. I'm just making my views more clear in this post, so sorry if I'm being redundant. Also this post was posted in other political forums, and thus it will have so parts that explain things that most of this forum probably already know. Sorry if I already stated the obvious.





Now, people are going to say three things when they hear liberal socialism.

1.You mean those big government liberal commies? (Which is really stupid and nonsensical.)
2.Liberalism and Socialism are contradictory. (Especially if you're in Europe.)
3.It is redundant, socialism is just a more radical version of liberalism. (This is pretty just plainly wrong.)

Liberal Socialism is actually an ideology that I admittedly made up. But, Marx made up Communism out of his head. And, Rousseau made up Liberalism
out of his head too.

So what exactly does Liberal Socialism advocate? The name actually says it all.

Let's look at the Liberal part. Liberal doesn't mean any sort of social-democratic centre-leftist who wants a welfare state. Instead, Liberalism actually means free markets, civil/political rights, democracy, equality of opportunity/equal rights, and support for a republican (Not the GOP) system of government. You can say that the Liberal part refers to the classical liberalism and radicalism of the 19th century.

The socialist part refers to purely economic aspects. Rather then the state ownership that is usually thought of when the word Socialism is spoken off, I'm actually referring to worker's control of the means of production. What does that mean? Well, let's look at a corporation. Notice how the structure is oligarchic, dictatorial, and hierarchical? Notice how that contradicts a free markets where the individual is allowed to do what he wills to do? Now, look at something called the worker cooperative. A business of the workers, by the workers, and for the workers. It respects the individual rights of the workers however it wishes. The workers vote on what the business does. This system is called Mutualism, and it is actually a type of socialism. So, the socialism part actually refers to the abolition of the corporation and wage labor, democratic labor unions (Not bureaucratic) controlled by the workers directly, welfare that is provided (no nationalization, just providing welfare, a public option. You can choose not to have welfare, and buy the same services from a cooperative) by a democratically controlled organization (direct democracy), and mutual banking.

In total, Liberal Socialism is a system where the workers control the means of production (Businesses and banks) in a free market, with a limited, free, and constitutional semi-direct democracy where a certain percentage of the laws have to be made directly by the people. (Mostly just federal/national governments, state/municipal/provincial governments would be fully direct democratic.)

(Forgot the definition of tenant....again. Sorry for the confusion of definitions.)

[Tim Cornelis]

You sound like a libertarian socialist who has not read much or anything on libertarian socialism.

Libertarian socialism is sometimes seen as a synthesis between socialism and classical liberalims: the emphasis on individual freedom combined with socialism. Rudolf Rocker and Noam Chomsky adhere to this view, but I disagree. Libertarian socialism is simply socialism which rejects authoritarianism. It has nothing to do with classical liberalism as it hasn't adopted it stances on virtually anything.

[Koba1917]

I don't get why you're calling it 'Liberal Socialism'. You pretty much described a certain type of Libertarian Socialism which can be held. 'Liberal' when used politically is used to describe a Market in which Means of Production are Owned privately.

[eyeheartlenin]

Marx made up Communism out of his head. And, Rousseau made up Liberalism

With all due respect to the Epic Dino dude (are you a pacifist brontosaurus or a vigorous self-defending, food chain-participating T Rex?), it is a little misleading to say that Marx made up communism out of his head. In the Vintage edition of the first volume of Capital, the "Index of Authorities Quoted" extends from page 1095 to page 1119, encompassing maybe a couple of hundred different sources for Marx's work.

[DinodudeEpic]

I know what libertarian socialism is, (You can say that Liberal Socialism is a tendency of libertarian socialism, except less anarchistic and more minarchistic.) but I wasn't describing libertarian socialism. The 'liberal' part just simply means free markets AND a dedication to freedom. Libertarian means anything that is for freedom and against authoritarianism. So as I said above, Liberal Socialism is a type of libertarian socialism.

As for Marx making up communism, yes Marx was inspired by many people. (So am I with inspirations from libertarian socialists, and classical liberals.) But, the ideology came from Marx's mind, after he pieced together the information that he got. Same with Rousseau, who was inspired by John Locke, Voltaire, and other thinkers of the time.

[Tim Cornelis]

I know what libertarian socialism is, (You can say that Liberal Socialism is a tendency of libertarian socialism, except less anarchistic and more minarchistic.) but I wasn't describing libertarian socialism. The 'liberal' part just simply means free markets AND a dedication to freedom. Libertarian means anything that is for freedom and against authoritarianism. So as I said above, Liberal Socialism is a type of libertarian socialism.

As for Marx making up communism, yes Marx was inspired by many people. (So am I with inspirations from libertarian socialists, and classical liberals.) But, the ideology came from Marx's mind, after he pieced together the information that he got. Same with Rousseau, who was inspired by John Locke, Voltaire, and other thinkers of the time.

Your "liberal socialism" is just individualist anarchism in the American tradition: free markets combined with worker cooperatives and "the preservation of individual sovereignty" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josiah_Warren). Except your "minarchism", but that's compatible with libertarian socialism, imo.

And communism existed before Marx, for example Théodore Dézamy was a communist and convinced Marx to become one. Theories never spring up from one mind.

[DinodudeEpic]

Yes, I am a libertarian socialist. Also, I am pretty much an individualist anarchist, but replace anarchy with a semi-direct democracy. (Still in that usergroup for a reason.) Liberal socialism is just a type of libertarian socialism. Like how Trotskyism is a type of Marxism.

But, thanks for telling me about pre-Marxist communists. Then again, my ideas actually are just a combination of past ideas. (Which I kinda said in the past post.) Note how similar my ideas are to libertarian socialism and individualist anarchism. That's the same relation Marx had with Theodore. Now, do you say that Marxism is the same as Theodore's communism?

So, my ideas weren't actually made from nowhere. Sorry for the misinformation that I posted, instead they were actually were made from combining various already existing ideas. For now on, may all of you please skip any semantic debating. (I wanted to see how Revleft users think about the system by itself.)

[Bronco]

Isn't this basically just Mutualism?

[RGacky3]

It totally depends on what you mean by the word "liberal".

[ZeroNowhere]

See, Marx's theories were a result of a synthesis of earlier socialist movements with Hegelian and Feuerbachian theoretical work, and an analysis of political economy and the historical tendencies of capitalism, especially as pertains to crises. Its developments upon prior socialisms were primarily theoretical, rather than its simply sounding nicer, which seems to be the basis of yours. Further, yours is basically a mutualist system anyway, and is ultimately a capitalist system which cannot do away with the tendencies which Marx noted as existing in capitalism.

[RGacky3]

I don't think market socialism is antithical to marxism, markets have existed for a long time, and they arn't always capitalistic.

I'm torn on it, of coarse markets have internal contradictions, especially when mixed with the capitalist mode of production. But there are some places where I think markets have a place.

[tir1944]

markets have existed for a long time, and they arn't always capitalistic.
Yes,so has,i don't know,small trade.However today it's always "capitalistic".


But there are some places where I think markets have a place.
What places?

[ModelHomeInvasion]

Libertarian socialism is simply socialism which rejects authoritarianism.
I'll let my boy Freddy field this one:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm

Works of Frederick Engels 1872
On Authority

Written: 1872;
Published: 1874 in the Italian, Almanacco Republicano;
Source: Marx-Engels Reader, New York: W. W. Norton and Co., second edition, 1978 (first edition, 1972), pp 730-733.;
Translated: Robert C. Tucker;
Transcribed: by Mike Lepore.

A number of Socialists have latterly launched a regular crusade against what they call the principle of authority. It suffices to tell them that this or that act is authoritarian for it to be condemned. This summary mode of procedure is being abused to such an extent that it has become necessary to look into the matter somewhat more closely.

Authority, in the sense in which the word is used here, means: the imposition of the will of another upon ours; on the other hand, authority presupposes subordination. Now, since these two words sound bad, and the relationship which they represent is disagreeable to the subordinated party, the question is to ascertain whether there is any way of dispensing with it, whether — given the conditions of present-day society — we could not create another social system, in which this authority would be given no scope any longer, and would consequently have to disappear.

On examining the economic, industrial and agricultural conditions which form the basis of present-day bourgeois society, we find that they tend more and more to replace isolated action by combined action of individuals. Modern industry, with its big factories and mills, where hundreds of workers supervise complicated machines driven by steam, has superseded the small workshops of the separate producers; the carriages and wagons of the highways have become substituted by railway trains, just as the small schooners and sailing feluccas have been by steam-boats. Even agriculture falls increasingly under the dominion of the machine and of steam, which slowly but relentlessly put in the place of the small proprietors big capitalists, who with the aid of hired workers cultivate vast stretches of land.

Everywhere combined action, the complication of processes dependent upon each other, displaces independent action by individuals. But whoever mentions combined action speaks of organisation; now, is it possible to have organisation without authority?

Supposing a social revolution dethroned the capitalists, who now exercise their authority over the production and circulation of wealth. Supposing, to adopt entirely the point of view of the anti-authoritarians, that the land and the instruments of labour had become the collective property of the workers who use them. Will authority have disappeared, or will it only have changed its form? Let us see.

Let us take by way if example a cotton spinning mill. The cotton must pass through at least six successive operations before it is reduced to the state of thread, and these operations take place for the most part in different rooms. Furthermore, keeping the machines going requires an engineer to look after the steam engine, mechanics to make the current repairs, and many other labourers whose business it is to transfer the products from one room to another, and so forth. All these workers, men, women and children, are obliged to begin and finish their work at the hours fixed by the authority of the steam, which cares nothing for individual autonomy. The workers must, therefore, first come to an understanding on the hours of work; and these hours, once they are fixed, must be observed by all, without any exception. Thereafter particular questions arise in each room and at every moment concerning the mode of production, distribution of material, etc., which must be settled by decision of a delegate placed at the head of each branch of labour or, if possible, by a majority vote, the will of the single individual will always have to subordinate itself, which means that questions are settled in an authoritarian way. The automatic machinery of the big factory is much more despotic than the small capitalists who employ workers ever have been. At least with regard to the hours of work one may write upon the portals of these factories: Lasciate ogni autonomia, voi che entrate! [Leave, ye that enter in, all autonomy behind!]

If man, by dint of his knowledge and inventive genius, has subdued the forces of nature, the latter avenge themselves upon him by subjecting him, in so far as he employs them, to a veritable despotism independent of all social organisation. Wanting to abolish authority in large-scale industry is tantamount to wanting to abolish industry itself, to destroy the power loom in order to return to the spinning wheel.

Let us take another example — the railway. Here too the co-operation of an infinite number of individuals is absolutely necessary, and this co-operation must be practised during precisely fixed hours so that no accidents may happen. Here, too, the first condition of the job is a dominant will that settles all subordinate questions, whether this will is represented by a single delegate or a committee charged with the execution of the resolutions of the majority of persona interested. In either case there is a very pronounced authority. Moreover, what would happen to the first train dispatched if the authority of the railway employees over the Hon. passengers were abolished?

But the necessity of authority, and of imperious authority at that, will nowhere be found more evident than on board a ship on the high seas. There, in time of danger, the lives of all depend on the instantaneous and absolute obedience of all to the will of one.

When I submitted arguments like these to the most rabid anti-authoritarians, the only answer they were able to give me was the following: Yes, that's true, but there it is not the case of authority which we confer on our delegates, but of a commission entrusted! These gentlemen think that when they have changed the names of things they have changed the things themselves. This is how these profound thinkers mock at the whole world.

We have thus seen that, on the one hand, a certain authority, no matter how delegated, and, on the other hand, a certain subordination, are things which, independently of all social organisation, are imposed upon us together with the material conditions under which we produce and make products circulate.

We have seen, besides, that the material conditions of production and circulation inevitably develop with large-scale industry and large-scale agriculture, and increasingly tend to enlarge the scope of this authority. Hence it is absurd to speak of the principle of authority as being absolutely evil, and of the principle of autonomy as being absolutely good. Authority and autonomy are relative things whose spheres vary with the various phases of the development of society. If the autonomists confined themselves to saying that the social organisation of the future would restrict authority solely to the limits within which the conditions of production render it inevitable, we could understand each other; but they are blind to all facts that make the thing necessary and they passionately fight the world.

Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?

Therefore, either one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don't know what they're talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction.

[RGacky3]

What places?

Barber shops ... coffee houses .... things like that. The main basis of socialism is that labor does'nt belond on the market. I don't think things that are the commons and necessary, belong on the market no matter what the system.


Yes,so has,i don't know,small trade.However today it's always "capitalistic".


Yeah, but thats because we live in a gobal capitalist system.

[DinodudeEpic]

Isn't this basically just Mutualism?

The economic part, yes.



Mutualism is really just an economic system. Liberal Socialism is basically a tendency of Libertarian Socialism that gets most of it's ideas from Individualist Anarchism. I sort just got various ideas and mixed them up.

And as for the origins of Marxism, I already explained it wholely. Also, my system is different due to the existance of a semi-direct-democracy, state-provided welfare, and a minarchistic state. Also, I haven't really went into the theoretical part as much.

Sorry that I said the wrong things about both Rousseau and Marx. (They actually are big inspirations to me.) All that I wanted to do is make a short paragraph summarizing and abridging my politics so people can understand it without reading an entire book on mostly theoretical stuff.

[Tim Cornelis]

I'll let my boy Freddy field this one:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm

We are not here to discuss whether socialism, or revolution, is inherently authoritarian. Fact is, libertarian socialism is socialism that rejects authoritarianism, whether you agree with this or not.