Libertarianism

[Chris]

I fully support what right wing economists demeaningly call a "command economy" in the sense that I favor economies to be locally-based and broadly planned democratically by their constituents as a whole. But then I also support no-growth economics.

Communities that operate on the basis of these principles already exist in the world right now in a number of different countries.

Heilbroner is a socialist, Polly, not a right-wing economist.

I favor economies to be locally-based and broadly planned democratically

We agree on locally=based. We differ on broadly planned, which is just another way of say central planning.


What communities? I know of Marinaleda, Spain, a communist community, run dictatorially by the mayor.

[IMPress Polly]

Heilbroner is a socialist, Polly, not a right-wing economist.

Oh. Well I'm used to seeing the term in economics textbooks that are obviously hawking capitalistic economic philosophies and deriding alternatives.

We agree on locally=based. We differ on broadly planned, which is just another way of say central planning.


What communities? I know of Marinaleda, Spain, a communist community, run dictatorially by the mayor.

There are also many such communes run along the lines of anarchist principles in Northern Syria, in Chiapas, Mexico, and, as memory serves, there is also a notable one in Israel. There are also examples in Venezuela that exist largely separate from the main, oil-driven national economy that's in a state of crisis at present. And there are also less democratic examples run by old-school Maoists in China that work pretty well in terms of their economic practicality and guarantees of economic security to local citizens. And there are others too.

[Chris]

Oh. Well I'm used to seeing the term in economics textbooks that are obviously hawking capitalistic economic philosophies and deriding alternatives.



There are also many such communes run along the lines of anarchist principles in Northern Syria, in Chiapas, Mexico, and, as memory serves, there is also a notable one in Israel. There are also examples in Venezuela that exist largely separate from the main, oil-driven national economy that's in a state of crisis at present. And there are also less democratic examples run by old-school Maoists in China that work pretty well in terms of their economic practicality and guarantees of economic security to local citizens. And there are others too.

Perhaps textbooks adopt language others use. Personally I've never seen it called a command economy before I read that social economist. From Hayek on in the 1940 the more common term is central planning.


For Northern Syria I see in searching it out something called liberatrian socialism, something of an oxymoron. Abdullah Öcalan drew on Murray Bookchin's democratic confederalism which is opposed to central planning. What I've read of Rojava I find more libertarian than socialist. I think weve discussed that agreeably before.

The rest is somehwat too vague to find information on.

As I said earlier, one of Nozick's ideas, from Anarchy, State, and Utopia, was a pluralistic organiztion of different groups each with their own local form of government. That seems to me to be what Rojava is like, given different nationalities and ethnicities all working together.

[IMPress Polly]

Chris wrote:
For Northern Syria I see in searching it out something called liberatrian socialism, something of an oxymoron. Abdullah Öcalan drew on Murray Bookchin's democratic confederalism which is opposed to central planning. What I've read of Rojava I find more libertarian than socialist. I think weve discussed that agreeably before.

Northern Syria is currently a mixed economy that is in the process of gradually transitioning to a socialist form of organization based loosely on Bookchin's communalist principles, from whence Ocalan's concept of democratic confederalism is derived, much as they are similarly in a process of gradually transitioning out of traditional courts and police forces and other hierarchical legal structures. There are a number of communes within Northern Syria that are at an advanced stage of this transition and more are coming about over time. Eventually all of Northern Syria will be reorganized in that sort of way should the current trajectory be allowed to continue as planned.

[Chris]

Northern Syria is currently a mixed economy that is in the process of gradually transitioning to a socialist form of organization based loosely on Bookchin's communalist principles, from whence Ocalan's concept of democratic confederalism is derived, much as they are similarly in a process of gradually transitioning out of traditional courts and police forces and other hierarchical legal structures. There are a number of communes within Northern Syria that are at an advanced stage of this transition and more are coming about over time. Eventually all of Northern Syria will be reorganized in that sort of way should the current trajectory be allowed to continue as planned.

What I've read about Rojava is it's not in transition to a socialist economy.

I see criticism of capitalism but no explanation what economic system would replace it. Bookchin's communalism is synonymous with libertarian socialism and for it I find this confusing mishmash:

Left-wing market anarchism

Left-wing market anarchism, a form of left-libertarianism, individualist anarchism[286] and libertarian socialism[35][287] is associated with scholars such as Kevin Carson,[288][289] Roderick T. Long,[290][291] Charles Johnson,[292] Brad Spangler,[293] Samuel Edward Konkin III,[294] Sheldon Richman,[295][296][297] Chris Matthew Sciabarra[298] and Gary Chartier,[299] who stress the value of radically free markets, termed "freed markets" to distinguish them from the common conception which these libertarians believe to be riddled with statist and capitalist privileges.[300] Referred to as left-wing market anarchists[301] or market-oriented left-libertarians,[297] proponents of this approach strongly affirm the classical liberal ideas of self-ownership and free markets while maintaining that taken to their logical conclusions, these ideas support anti-capitalist,[302][303] anti-corporatist, anti-hierarchical, pro-labor positions in economics; anti-imperialism in foreign policy; and thoroughly liberal or radical views regarding such cultural issues as gender, sexuality and race.

The genealogy of contemporary market-oriented left-libertarianism—sometimes labeled "left-wing market anarchism"[304]—overlaps to a significant degree with that of Steiner–Vallentyne left-libertarianism as the roots of that tradition are sketched in the book The Origins of Left-Libertarianism.[305] Carson–Long-style left-libertarianism is rooted in 19th century mutualism and in the work of figures such as Thomas Hodgskin and the individualist anarchists Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner. While with notable exceptions market-oriented libertarians after Tucker tended to ally with the political right, relationships between such libertarians and the New Left thrived in the 1960s, laying the groundwork for modern left-wing market anarchism.[306] Left-wing market anarchism identifies with left libertarianism (or left-wing libertarianism)[307] which names several related yet distinct approaches to politics, society, culture and political and social theory, which stress both individual freedom and social justice. Unlike right-libertarians, they believe that neither claiming nor mixing one's labor with natural resources is enough to generate full private property rights[308][309] and maintain that natural resources (land, oil, gold and trees) ought to be held in some egalitarian manner, either unowned or owned collectively.[309] Those left-libertarians who support private property do so under the condition that recompense is offered to the local community.

I agree with "the classical liberal ideas of self-ownership and free markets while maintaining that taken to their logical conclusions, these ideas support anti-capitalist,[302][303] anti-corporatist, anti-hierarchical, pro-labor positions in economics; anti-imperialism in foreign policy...." That's libertarianism.

I suppose the socialist or communal aspect is found in "Unlike right-libertarians, they believe that neither claiming nor mixing one's labor with natural resources is enough to generate full private property rights[308][309] and maintain that natural resources (land, oil, gold and trees) ought to be held in some egalitarian manner, either unowned or owned collectively."

The two seem contradictory. Self-ownership and free markets is one thing. Collective ownership another, and is what leads to the need for command-driven central planning.


We don't need to argue which system is better in a thread dedicated to defining libertarianism, just establish what is libertarianism as opposed to what is socialism.

[Captdon]

I don't necessarily agree that socialism can't work, it works on some level in Europe, it would probably work a lot better in a global economic market where bankers weren't manipulating currency and setting interest on paper money. Communism is completely unworkable though.

Socialism that "works" in any fashion has a captalistic base. Socialism isn't going to produce much new. It isn't going to expand the economy.

[Captdon]

But wasn't that manipulation made possible by governments abandoning the gold standard and adopting fiat money? The Fed works for the federal government manipulating interest rates to try and flatten the natural business cycle, only making the highs and lows more extreme.

There isn't enough money in the world to support the world economy. It wouldn't support our economy.

[Common Sense]

Socialism that "works" in any fashion has a captalistic base. Socialism isn't going to produce much new. It isn't going to expand the economy.

Most successful capitalist countries have socialist elements. Public education, subsidized healthcare systems, parks, libraries, public infrastructure like highways and bridges, social safety net, etc...

[Chris]

Most successful capitalist countries have socialist elements. Public education, subsidized healthcare systems, parks, libraries, public infrastructure like highways and bridges, social safety net, etc...

Those aren't socialist. None of them are.

[kilgram]

Communism simply can't work because everyone can't be equal. The enforcing body of the system will always call the shots and always oppress. No system of communism has ever worked as brainstormed by the intellectuals that supported it on paper.

It is misunderstanding of communism. Not everybody is equal. Basically communism removes the hierarchy, in that sense, everybody has the same opportunities.

Free market can't work because it is based in two opposites, it is based in the competition, and in any competition only one can win. An old representation of what is capitalism is the Monopoly, and you know how it works the game.