Is "Libertarian socialism" an oxymoron?

Post Reply New Topic

How can you have socialism without the state enforcing it?

It is not an oxymoron, but it is a fairly implausible political philosophy. It has some relationship to Communism in that both seek a stateless and classless society. Such societies have existed on a small scale in several different times and places, but it is highly questionable whether the approach would still be valid in the context of the complex and interconnected modern economy that spans multiple continents and billions of individuals.

There can be a libertarianism with a big state - a big state that is committed to civil liberties. A big state that has the power to neutralise the anti-freedom tendencies of private concentrated power such as corporations. A big state that guarantees the necessities of life to all and does not put it into question and use it as leverage to micromanage lives as the Right's Small Government people demand. "Want to be hooked up to the water system? Submit to random drug tests." Seriously, how's that different from the welfare for drug tests demands? Leverage used because nothing is a right... because very survival must be earned, they argue.

There are many different types of socialism.

Not all socialists want greater state power. Some want greater worker involvement in the management of corporations ... up to and including complete worker management. So a socialist organisation might try to help workers buy out their employers and become self-governing. One of Spain's largest corporations works this way - and they managed to operate under the Franco regime, despite that regime's opposition to the left. Actually, the Spanish worker-owners set up their own worker-managed businesses which just grew and grew. But they also buy out existing businesses. Organisations with (somewhat) similar goals exist in other countries - eg England and Australia. There are American worker-owned businesses too. They might not call themselves "socialist", but that is what they are IMHO.

Of course, turning an investor-controlled corporation into a worker-controlled corporation can be undertaken on a piecemeal, voluntary basis, or on a wholesale, involuntary basis. The problem is, any government that tries to force all corporations to become worker-controlled is also not likely to let the workers themselves have real control. This was a problem in Russia under Lenin, I believe - they turned corporations into worker co-operatives, but wouldn't give those co-operatives real self-government.

Without a strong central power pushing worker-management, however, it is hard to see how it would become the norm unless it slowly grows. If people saw it as a civil rights issue - "no work without representation" - maybe it could happen without a revolutionary coup that took control, and never let go of it. Once power grabs begin, the worst dictator will emerge - because if the current leaders are not the most ruthless available, then the more ruthless will take over.

So yes, non-authoritarian socialism is possible. But it works much more slowly and "invisibly" than the authoritarian, revolutionary kind. But it does exist.

I agree with Orwell in some sense, and at the same time, I have to point out that "libertarian" originally ONLY applied to libertarian socialism. The term "libertarianism" came to be applied to a pro-market, anti-government ideology when (I think) Murray Rothbard co-opted the term "libertarian", and it grew to be popular. And, well, the term was stolen because the term that market libertarians liked, "liberal" was taken by FDR to refer to progressives.

Libertarianism can mean pro-civil liberties and the end of laws to regulate lifestyles and so forth, including drug laws. Now I suppose that it could happen that marijuana can be legal but the corporations can give themselves the right to fire anyone caught with any on a drug test. But a Big Government can always pass a law banning such a practice, thus preserving the liberty of the people faced with a corporation and its leverage over its workers.

There does not seem to be an implicit contradiction between them. I suppose it would then be up to the person who claims they are not to demonstrate any contradiction in practice.

Many so-called libertarians perversely argue that people have no rights at all, that powerful people and institutions instead have the absolute right to use their power and leverage over others to control their lives if they so choose. The talk about forcing people on food stamps, Medicaid and welfare to take drug tests, for example. The idea is that someone uses a government service, they should abide by whatever conditions the government wants because there is no right to that service. The government thus has the right to micromanage the lives of those receiving services. The same could apply to any government service. If you want police protection, go get drug tested. Otherwise, too bad. The water should be cut off if your body mass index passes a certain level. The list of these things are endless and it's always the Right that wants to go in this direction. They of course claim that it saves money to demand these conditions - but in the end, the idea is that these services are not rights... Corporations also have the right to extract conditions from workers - the only limit is what they can get away with doing considering the circumstances. Consequently, people paid less are more likely to be highly-regulated because lower pay is a function of less bargaining power and such people would be less likely to resist tight regulation. Higher paid people in contrast would not be subject to any such micromanagement.

That a nightmare scenario of governments using public services as leverage to control lives is used often by so-called libertarians and the right to then say that the only solution is privatisation of government services - as these things are not rights, why not give have the services be provided by people who can really demand only money for access instead of using sovereign power. That of course ensures that many more people do without and it's highly regressive and more people are forced to work 100% of the time for survival and survival only - and not be free.

Anarcho Socialism would be an oxymoron but with Libertarianism you still have a government. All Libertarianism is is maximizing the rights and civil liberties of people.

I think Libertarian Socialism is an oxymoron because in socialism everything is owned collectively and private property is nonexistent only personal property.

Does Libertarianism have a state?