Libertarian Socialism vs State Capitalism

Libertarian Socialism

21 (80.8%)

State Capitalism

5 (19.2%)

Total Members Voted: 10

[freeAgent]

If the premise is true that they are both viable and I was forced to choose, I'd probably go with Libertarian Socialism *cough*.  The way I see it, it's at least a voluntary organization.  State Capitalism, is basically fascism and they won't hesitate to throw you in jail or take your property, which at least I can somewhat imagine Libertarian Socialism not doing...maybe.  I wouldn't actually want to live in either system, but that's fine because neither will ever happen.

[blackshard]

If the premise is true that they are both viable and I was forced to choose, I'd probably go with Libertarian Socialism *cough*.  The way I see it, it's at least a voluntary organization.  State Capitalism, is basically fascism and they won't hesitate to throw you in jail or take your property, which at least I can somewhat imagine Libertarian Socialism not doing...maybe.  I wouldn't actually want to live in either system, but that's fine because neither will ever happen.

i think the latter already has.

[freeAgent]

If the premise is true that they are both viable and I was forced to choose, I'd probably go with Libertarian Socialism *cough*.  The way I see it, it's at least a voluntary organization.  State Capitalism, is basically fascism and they won't hesitate to throw you in jail or take your property, which at least I can somewhat imagine Libertarian Socialism not doing...maybe.  I wouldn't actually want to live in either system, but that's fine because neither will ever happen.

i think the latter already has.

Yeah, but it usually collapses in a few years.  Anarchy has already occurred, it just doesn't last long.

[ladyattis]

Can I has a cheezbrgr instead?

-- Brede

[gibson042]

QFT!

You're just a veritable fount of interesting initialisms.  Thanks for again expanding my vocabulary.

"QFT", internet slang meaning "quoted for truth".

[lapafrax]

Assume that both of them are possible and will work. You can flip a switch and the whole world will instantly begin operating under one system or the other. This is not a poll asking what you advocate, but what you think is less bad between these two options only. Anyone saying "give me a third option" will be ignored. Anyone saying that "State Capitalism" or "Libertarian Socialism" are contradictions will be ignored. Do not say "Libertarian Capitalism". That is not an option.

Libertarian Socialism: 100% voluntary, but full of evils like people sharing and forming cooperatives and communes rather than being selfish and forming corporations and businesses. Nobody will ever rob you at gunpoint or take something that they see you using, but if you are too selfish you'll be ostracized like a pedo.

State Capitalism: 50% voluntary, more or less what we have now in the US. Heavy taxation, heavy regulation, corporate-favoritist welfare-warfare state. You'll pay taxes, have property confiscated for stupid reasons, get kicked off your land, and told at gunpoint to throw down anything dangerous you may be carrying.

Which is better in your eyes? Or maybe, which is the "lesser of two evils"?

Hmm.  I'd take the former.  So at least there IS no state, and human interaction is more voluntary, to a degree.

[Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)]

Most libertarian socialists don't believe in property rights.

[lapafrax]

Well as far as the means of production go, maybe. 

No libertarian socialist I've ever heard of has said your clothes, TV, or toothbrush should be common property!  So there is a distinction between means of production and personal property.

[Zhwazi]

Well as far as the means of production go, maybe. 

No libertarian socialist I've ever heard of has said your clothes, TV, or toothbrush should be common property!  So there is a distinction between means of production and personal property.

There's also their possession and use policy. If something is in your possession and you are using it, nobody will take it from you. If there's something you're not using (don't need) like an unplowed field or something, don't be surprised if someone else brings a plow in and starts planting seeds without intending to give you any of the crop, necessarily. It's an act of land theft under the right conditions, but it's nonviolent and minimally invasive. IMO much better than a state, which is why I voted for LS.

It's not like it'll just become a clusterfuck of people stealing whatever whenever.

[Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)]

Well as far as the means of production go, maybe. 

No libertarian socialist I've ever heard of has said your clothes, TV, or toothbrush should be common property!  So there is a distinction between means of production and personal property.

You mean like, stealing factories from their owners because they went on vacation for a week...

[Zhwazi]

You mean like, stealing factories from their owners because they went on vacation for a week...

I really think it unlikely that this would be necessary, and when it happened, the practical loss of control involved in such theft is very small. One of the notable things about capitalism as we have it today is that the power of labor to negotiate with the employer is nowhere near the negotiating power of the employer (due to government). In an anarchic socialist system you wouldn't have that, the employer (where those even exist) would have so much less influence over his employees that the employees have defacto control over it anyways. Workers will probably go for the additional income of a profit-sharing business than the comparatively reduced income of wage labor, so there would be very little profit for the owner in the first place. He wouldn't be losing much, and in all likelyhood the former employees-made-co-owners would let the "owner" come back and keep doing whatever decisionmaking task he was doing before if he was remarkably good at it (and if not, he could just become a worker).

Where factories were even owned by anyone but the workers in the first place, the owner wouldn't lose much income or much control over the factory. And it wouldn't be a violent takeover anyways.

[wtfk]

You mean like, stealing factories from their owners because they went on vacation for a week...

One of the notable things about capitalism as we have it today is that the power of labor to negotiate with the employer is nowhere near the negotiating power of the employer (due to government).

I'd say you can't tell this except by studying in detail on a case-by-case basis.  The government also gives unions ridiculous monopoly powers.  Let's just say that the fascism screws it all up.

[Zhwazi]

I'd say you can't tell this except by studying in detail on a case-by-case basis.  The government also gives unions ridiculous monopoly powers.  Let's just say that the fascism screws it all up.

It also puts restrictions on unions and limits them to forms of protest least damaging to the employer. The government wants unions to be as non-disruptive as possible.

[wtfk]

I'd say you can't tell this except by studying in detail on a case-by-case basis.  The government also gives unions ridiculous monopoly powers.  Let's just say that the fascism screws it all up.

It also puts restrictions on unions and limits them to forms of protest least damaging to the employer. The government wants unions to be as non-disruptive as possible.

The government isn't a hive-mind.  Various elements of government want to pick different winners.  That's what makes fascism so downright nutty.  it's enough to say it's screwed up.  It's not necessary to give it false attributes.

[Zhwazi]

I'd say you can't tell this except by studying in detail on a case-by-case basis.  The government also gives unions ridiculous monopoly powers.  Let's just say that the fascism screws it all up.

It also puts restrictions on unions and limits them to forms of protest least damaging to the employer. The government wants unions to be as non-disruptive as possible.

The government isn't a hive-mind.  Various elements of government want to pick different winners.  That's what makes fascism so downright nutty.  it's enough to say it's screwed up.  It's not necessary to give it false attributes.

This statement contradicts your own statement which I was responding to as much as it contradicts what I said. Are you recanting on that second-previous response of yours then?