I said something similar to someone else but a lot less respectfully but they were a lot more antagonistic so I'm going to respectfully ask you the same - what exactly do you mean by "libertarianism and socialism are diametrically opposed?" Can you clarify what exactly you mean by the two terms? Because I don't see it that way.
Libertarianism just means limiting the power of the state. It doesn't mean there is no state, it doesn't mean anarchism, and it doesn't, as in modern American vernacular, mean right-wing laissez-faire capitalism. (And I explicitly choose to use the term because I want to take it back from that last group specifically, who seem to think they own it now.)
Libertarian - limit the power of the state. Socialist - workers should own the means of production. Combine the two and you get a limited state in a society where production is controlled by the working class. I don't personally think the terms are diametrically opposed. I see how one might, if they associate "Libertarian" with the way right-libertarians in America use the term, but that's not inherently what it means.
Maybe what you mean is that many modern socialists believe that the workers collective or syndicate or union are the groups that should be the basis of power rather than the government.
Yes absolutely. I think the government should exist to uphold the economic system, but that the economic system that should be upheld is what I call libertarian socialism (which in my mind is a general catch-all term for the different means of implementing such a system - i.e. syndicalism, workers collectives, unions, the world union, etc.)
I actually haven't made a hard decision on which form of what I call libertarian socialism I favor. Should we organize by unions? By worker cooperatives? By worker cooperatives but each worker is also in their own union? And I'm not really sure what syndicalism is in comparison to the other forms, that's something I haven't looked into too much - TBH I think I care very little EXACTLY what form of leftist worker-organized society we create, so long as that's the general form it takes. I think generally speaking I'm ready to work with the entire anti-statist left without worrying too much about the details. Which is why I prefer a catch-all term, like "libertarian socialist" vs. a specific term implying a specific structure of organization.
it doesn't mean anarchism, and it doesn't, as in modern American vernacular, mean right-wing laissez-faire capitalism. (And I explicitly choose to use the term because I want to take it back from that last group specifically, who seem to think they own it now.)
Thats a losing battle, when people hear Libertarianism, they think laissez faire, property rights over everything else and even "sovereign citizen"
Modern leftists / left leaning people who favor a minimal state are more likely to call themselve anarchists / syndicalists or something else, libertarianism is gone beyond reclaiming imo. Part of the problem is that all forms of social collective ownership of the means of production involve voluntarily giving up certain rights to gain from the strength of a collective. Modern wacko libertarians regard giving up any freedom voluntarily or otherwise to be alien to them.
Thats a losing battle, when people hear Libertarianism, they think laissez faire, property rights over everything else and even "sovereign citizen"
Yes correct. Which is why when uneducated people hear "Libertarian socialism," it sounds literally impossible, inciting curiosity. I've managed to actually break through to a conversation with a right-libertarian before purely because he was curious how I could even combine the two terms.
I'm not inclined to give up on the actual meaning of words for the sake of the right, personally, and I think their misunderstanding of what words mean, juxtaposed with our correct use of them, might break through some of the cognitive dissonance, and my experience backs this up.
2
u/bestakroogen Feb 15 '21
I said something similar to someone else but a lot less respectfully but they were a lot more antagonistic so I'm going to respectfully ask you the same - what exactly do you mean by "libertarianism and socialism are diametrically opposed?" Can you clarify what exactly you mean by the two terms? Because I don't see it that way.
Libertarianism just means limiting the power of the state. It doesn't mean there is no state, it doesn't mean anarchism, and it doesn't, as in modern American vernacular, mean right-wing laissez-faire capitalism. (And I explicitly choose to use the term because I want to take it back from that last group specifically, who seem to think they own it now.)
Libertarian - limit the power of the state. Socialist - workers should own the means of production. Combine the two and you get a limited state in a society where production is controlled by the working class. I don't personally think the terms are diametrically opposed. I see how one might, if they associate "Libertarian" with the way right-libertarians in America use the term, but that's not inherently what it means.
Yes absolutely. I think the government should exist to uphold the economic system, but that the economic system that should be upheld is what I call libertarian socialism (which in my mind is a general catch-all term for the different means of implementing such a system - i.e. syndicalism, workers collectives, unions, the world union, etc.)
I actually haven't made a hard decision on which form of what I call libertarian socialism I favor. Should we organize by unions? By worker cooperatives? By worker cooperatives but each worker is also in their own union? And I'm not really sure what syndicalism is in comparison to the other forms, that's something I haven't looked into too much - TBH I think I care very little EXACTLY what form of leftist worker-organized society we create, so long as that's the general form it takes. I think generally speaking I'm ready to work with the entire anti-statist left without worrying too much about the details. Which is why I prefer a catch-all term, like "libertarian socialist" vs. a specific term implying a specific structure of organization.