3 ms·

According to wikipedia, ALMC founder Lysander Spooner "considered government monopoly to be an immoral restriction". Also according to wikipedia, he was a soci

According to wikipedia, ALMC founder Lysander Spooner "considered government monopoly to be an immoral restriction". Also according to wikipedia, he was a socialist and a member of First International. Can anyone more familiar with US history and/or political science explain this to me? How can you be both a socialist and against government regulation of business?

klodolph 7y ago
First of all, government monopoly is not the same thing as government regulation. Secondly, Lysander Spooner was a libertarian socialist. Libertarian socialism rejects economic control by the state. You’re probably thinking of social democracy when you think of socialism, because social democracy is what you see on the news. Social democracy is only one branch of the socialist movement (or movements). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
lkramer 7y ago
Socialism does not equal government regulation. It's true that many practical implementations have resulted in a big government, most famously communism relies on centralised control. But to take the opposite site of the spectrum, anarchism rejects the idea of government. In the same vein, conservatism is not automatically pro small government. For instance in recent years the British tories seems to be in favour of heavy government control/regulation.
InvaderFizz 7y ago
There is a long history of anti-government socialist movements. Spooner was of the opinion that governments themselves are illegitimate in how they come to be and that in particular the US Constitution was a charade. I had to look up the First International, I found this bit of trivia interesting: "In 1872, it split in two over conflicts between statist and anarchist factions and dissolved in 1876." I don't know when Spooner joined, but he was 68 when it dissolved. If you want to read about him, his works, and read his works. Punch his name into google with the word Mises tacked on the end. You will find that Libertarians(the Anarcho-Capitalist ones) tend to hold him in high regard for his actions and his writings.
syshum 7y ago
Lysander was a Libertarian, and Anarchist, and a Socialist. His polital opinions were (and are today) very rare in that he was Left libertarian, where most people that label themselves libertarian are Right Libertarians. Also most people that label themselves Socialist, are Authoritarians Socialists (meaning socialism via government violence) Lysander Spooner is one of my favorite philosophers, his work No Treason the constitution of no authority was one of the first things of his I read, and still find it fascinating
- int_19h 7y ago
  It should be noted that the word "libertarian" was originally invented by left libertarians of the most extreme variety (anarcho-communists, who deny private property altogether) to describe themselves. From there, it quickly became a catch-all self-identification for pretty much everybody on the anarchist and minarchist left, covering anarcho-socialists, mutualists etc. There was no "right libertarian" as a commonly understood term until the 1950s.
- mikojan 7y ago
  His opinions were not that rare. The socialist mainstream of his time was libertarian and "Anarchism" was just the name of this current. In fact, leading up to his coup d'etat Lenin himself published quasi-anarchist pamphlets. The Bolshevik's rallying cry was "All power to the soviets!" - "soviets" were (libertarian, socialist) workers' councils.
sitharus 7y ago
You can also be an anarcho-socialist. It’s just authoritarian socialism that’s most often described as socialism. Socialism just describes the idea that the means of production is owned in common (by the government for authoritarian socialism, or by the workers themselves for libertarian socialism) rather than capital investors, and distributing the profits of labour among the workers who produced it rather than to the capital owners.
- dnautics 7y ago
  I don't think that early american socialists like spooner and tucker held that the means of production is owned in common by the laborers, that, in particular is an outcome of marxist theory, which is a late 19th century socialist development.
  - claudiawerner 7y ago
    The idea of MoP in common is not an originally Marxist idea; both socialsits who predated Marx and his contemporaries held the idea in various forms - some forms which Marx opposed (such as in his criticism of the Gotha program). When Marx came into contact with secret Prussian communist groups, they already had this idea, but it was Marx who gave it a proper basis. In general, socialism is, if nothing else, about the distribution of productive capacity in society, and the results that flow from that. SEP has a good article[0] on it. Tucker et al. fit much more neatly into the individualist anarchist spectrum than they do into socialism, in a similar way to both Proudhon and Stirner. But in contrast to Stirner, market socialism was proposed[1]. Thus, it has more in common with Proudhon than Stirner. However, Marx's criticism of the ideas which prefigured Tucker in Proudhon laid the groundwork for the socialists who reject both the legitimacy of the state and markets - in general, modern left-anarchists and "libertarian Marxists". [0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/socialism/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/socialism/ [1] https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/gary-elkin-benjamin-tucker-anarchist-or-capitalist https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/gary-elkin-benjamin-...
    - dnautics 7y ago
int_19h 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_market_anarchism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_market_anarchism
dnautics 7y ago
socialism used to be opposed to state intervention into social affairs. The US especially had a tradition of anti-state socialists, largely on the grounds that the exploitation of workers in capitalism was believed by them to occur predominantly when Government intervenes on behalf of businesses in favor of the capitalist. The other major american socialist was benjamin tucker (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Tucker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Tucker) who wrote about the schism between state socialism and traditional socialism, predicting, in effect, that Stalinism, Maoism, and Chavezism would be the natural consequence of Marxism, a good half century before they happened: https://panarchy.org/tucker/state.socialism.html https://panarchy.org/tucker/state.socialism.html Interestingly Spooner and Tucker fought tooth and nail over the issue of IP (Spooner pro- and Tucker anti-) in a series of letters which presage conversations we're still having today.
scarejunba 7y ago
In very broad strokes, socialism is towards no private property (gained either through use, improvement, or profit-making), and libertarianism is against powerful governments. The two aren't inherently incompatible.

klodolph 7y ago

First of all, government monopoly is not the same thing as government regulation. Secondly, Lysander Spooner was a libertarian socialist. Libertarian socialism rejects economic control by the state. You’re probably thinking of social democracy when you think of socialism, because social democracy is what you see on the news. Social democracy is only one branch of the socialist movement (or movements). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

lkramer 7y ago

Socialism does not equal government regulation. It's true that many practical implementations have resulted in a big government, most famously communism relies on centralised control. But to take the opposite site of the spectrum, anarchism rejects the idea of government. In the same vein, conservatism is not automatically pro small government. For instance in recent years the British tories seems to be in favour of heavy government control/regulation.

InvaderFizz 7y ago

There is a long history of anti-government socialist movements. Spooner was of the opinion that governments themselves are illegitimate in how they come to be and that in particular the US Constitution was a charade. I had to look up the First International, I found this bit of trivia interesting: "In 1872, it split in two over conflicts between statist and anarchist factions and dissolved in 1876." I don't know when Spooner joined, but he was 68 when it dissolved. If you want to read about him, his works, and read his works. Punch his name into google with the word Mises tacked on the end. You will find that Libertarians(the Anarcho-Capitalist ones) tend to hold him in high regard for his actions and his writings.

syshum 7y ago

Lysander was a Libertarian, and Anarchist, and a Socialist. His polital opinions were (and are today) very rare in that he was Left libertarian, where most people that label themselves libertarian are Right Libertarians. Also most people that label themselves Socialist, are Authoritarians Socialists (meaning socialism via government violence) Lysander Spooner is one of my favorite philosophers, his work No Treason the constitution of no authority was one of the first things of his I read, and still find it fascinating

int_19h 7y ago
It should be noted that the word "libertarian" was originally invented by left libertarians of the most extreme variety (anarcho-communists, who deny private property altogether) to describe themselves. From there, it quickly became a catch-all self-identification for pretty much everybody on the anarchist and minarchist left, covering anarcho-socialists, mutualists etc. There was no "right libertarian" as a commonly understood term until the 1950s.
mikojan 7y ago
His opinions were not that rare. The socialist mainstream of his time was libertarian and "Anarchism" was just the name of this current. In fact, leading up to his coup d'etat Lenin himself published quasi-anarchist pamphlets. The Bolshevik's rallying cry was "All power to the soviets!" - "soviets" were (libertarian, socialist) workers' councils.

sitharus 7y ago

You can also be an anarcho-socialist. It’s just authoritarian socialism that’s most often described as socialism. Socialism just describes the idea that the means of production is owned in common (by the government for authoritarian socialism, or by the workers themselves for libertarian socialism) rather than capital investors, and distributing the profits of labour among the workers who produced it rather than to the capital owners.

dnautics 7y ago
I don't think that early american socialists like spooner and tucker held that the means of production is owned in common by the laborers, that, in particular is an outcome of marxist theory, which is a late 19th century socialist development.
- claudiawerner 7y ago
  The idea of MoP in common is not an originally Marxist idea; both socialsits who predated Marx and his contemporaries held the idea in various forms - some forms which Marx opposed (such as in his criticism of the Gotha program). When Marx came into contact with secret Prussian communist groups, they already had this idea, but it was Marx who gave it a proper basis. In general, socialism is, if nothing else, about the distribution of productive capacity in society, and the results that flow from that. SEP has a good article[0] on it. Tucker et al. fit much more neatly into the individualist anarchist spectrum than they do into socialism, in a similar way to both Proudhon and Stirner. But in contrast to Stirner, market socialism was proposed[1]. Thus, it has more in common with Proudhon than Stirner. However, Marx's criticism of the ideas which prefigured Tucker in Proudhon laid the groundwork for the socialists who reject both the legitimacy of the state and markets - in general, modern left-anarchists and "libertarian Marxists". [0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/socialism/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/socialism/ [1] https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/gary-elkin-benjamin-tucker-anarchist-or-capitalist https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/gary-elkin-benjamin-...
  - dnautics 7y ago

int_19h 7y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_market_anarchism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_market_anarchism

dnautics 7y ago

socialism used to be opposed to state intervention into social affairs. The US especially had a tradition of anti-state socialists, largely on the grounds that the exploitation of workers in capitalism was believed by them to occur predominantly when Government intervenes on behalf of businesses in favor of the capitalist. The other major american socialist was benjamin tucker (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Tucker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Tucker) who wrote about the schism between state socialism and traditional socialism, predicting, in effect, that Stalinism, Maoism, and Chavezism would be the natural consequence of Marxism, a good half century before they happened: https://panarchy.org/tucker/state.socialism.html https://panarchy.org/tucker/state.socialism.html Interestingly Spooner and Tucker fought tooth and nail over the issue of IP (Spooner pro- and Tucker anti-) in a series of letters which presage conversations we're still having today.

scarejunba 7y ago

In very broad strokes, socialism is towards no private property (gained either through use, improvement, or profit-making), and libertarianism is against powerful governments. The two aren't inherently incompatible.