5 ms·

When you work out the consequences, "Libertarian socialism" is a terrible name for the concept described by Reginald. It feels more like a Capitalist hypothesis

When you work out the consequences, "Libertarian socialism" is a terrible name for the concept described by Reginald. It feels more like a Capitalist hypothesis: Hypothesis: A group of workers jointly shouldering the risk and rewards of a venture is more efficient than a "traditional" company. This is true at small-scale: startups seem to be structured like collectives, and they regularly outperform large companies within a niche. However, large companies never take this structure. That suggests either there's a point where this becomes impractical, or nobody's been crazy enough to try before.

steveklabnik 16y ago
Are you aware of the history of the term 'libertarian?' It was originally used to describe anarchism, which is socialist. Statist and stateless socialism are very different beasts, and the term 'libertarian socialism' has a pretty long history of use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
- jakevoytko 16y ago
  But despite some of his terms, he's not advocating his views on the level of an entire society. Just at the scale of a single collective or company. He seems fine with the idea of this collective competing and winning within a Capitalist framework, which seems antithetical to much of the article you linked.
  - steveklabnik 16y ago
    It's true. I don't claim to speak for raganwald. And I myself am much closer to he than to the article. Not everyone's beliefs are black and white... there are plenty of people that support, for example, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act yet still call themselves 'capitalists.'
- lzw 16y ago
  Socialism means using violence in the form of the state to deny people the power over their own bodies, or the power to own private property. Having a state, by definition is incompatible with anarchism. The whole "libertarians were orginally socialist" idea is just the latest in the strign of socialists attempting to coopt every movement. That someone thinks you can have anarchism and socialism at the same time boggles the mind. Anarchism means no government while socialism is a form of government incompatible with allowing free will.
  - steveklabnik 16y ago
    > The whole "libertarians were orginally socialist" idea is just the latest Unless you consider 1840 the 'latest,' you're wrong. (EDIT: Sorry, 1840 was 'anarchist,' 1890 was 'libertarian.' The American version of 'libertarian' didn't come into use until 1950: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Etymology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Etymology) You're thinking only of state socialism, stateless socialism is totally different. And the basic definition of socialism says nothing about denying anyone anything: > Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.
    - lzw 16y ago
      The only way to have "common" ownership is for the thugs who decide they represent the people to steal the property, generally at gunpoint. Libertarianism predates the 1840s. I've been hearing this argument for the past 20 years, and it is nonsense. Socialists seem to recognize no property rings even in the terms they use, but that is just dishonesty at some point.
      - steveklabnik 16y ago
        > Libertarianism predates the 1840s. > The use of the word 'libertarian' to describe a set of political positions can be tracked to the French cognate, "Libertaire", which was coined in 1857 by French anarchist communist Joseph Déjacque who used the term to distinguish his libertarian communist approach from the mutualism advocated by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Etymology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Etymology > The only way to have "common" ownership is for the thugs who decide they represent the people to steal the property, generally at gunpoint. What do you think about cooperatives? Who's the man with the gun there?

steveklabnik 16y ago

Are you aware of the history of the term 'libertarian?' It was originally used to describe anarchism, which is socialist. Statist and stateless socialism are very different beasts, and the term 'libertarian socialism' has a pretty long history of use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

jakevoytko 16y ago
But despite some of his terms, he's not advocating his views on the level of an entire society. Just at the scale of a single collective or company. He seems fine with the idea of this collective competing and winning within a Capitalist framework, which seems antithetical to much of the article you linked.
- steveklabnik 16y ago
  It's true. I don't claim to speak for raganwald. And I myself am much closer to he than to the article. Not everyone's beliefs are black and white... there are plenty of people that support, for example, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act yet still call themselves 'capitalists.'
lzw 16y ago
Socialism means using violence in the form of the state to deny people the power over their own bodies, or the power to own private property. Having a state, by definition is incompatible with anarchism. The whole "libertarians were orginally socialist" idea is just the latest in the strign of socialists attempting to coopt every movement. That someone thinks you can have anarchism and socialism at the same time boggles the mind. Anarchism means no government while socialism is a form of government incompatible with allowing free will.
- steveklabnik 16y ago
  > The whole "libertarians were orginally socialist" idea is just the latest Unless you consider 1840 the 'latest,' you're wrong. (EDIT: Sorry, 1840 was 'anarchist,' 1890 was 'libertarian.' The American version of 'libertarian' didn't come into use until 1950: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Etymology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Etymology) You're thinking only of state socialism, stateless socialism is totally different. And the basic definition of socialism says nothing about denying anyone anything: > Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.
  - lzw 16y ago
    The only way to have "common" ownership is for the thugs who decide they represent the people to steal the property, generally at gunpoint. Libertarianism predates the 1840s. I've been hearing this argument for the past 20 years, and it is nonsense. Socialists seem to recognize no property rings even in the terms they use, but that is just dishonesty at some point.
    - steveklabnik 16y ago
      > Libertarianism predates the 1840s. > The use of the word 'libertarian' to describe a set of political positions can be tracked to the French cognate, "Libertaire", which was coined in 1857 by French anarchist communist Joseph Déjacque who used the term to distinguish his libertarian communist approach from the mutualism advocated by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Etymology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Etymology > The only way to have "common" ownership is for the thugs who decide they represent the people to steal the property, generally at gunpoint. What do you think about cooperatives? Who's the man with the gun there?