Libertarian Socialism

Okay, sorry about that last thread, I should've been more elaborate. I hope you guys don't mind me reposting it with more detail.

Anyway, I recently discovered Libertarian Socialism, and thought that it was an interesting ideology, and something I'd like to see implemented in the US.

I want there to be a state, but one that is essentially decentralized and completely democratic. There needs to be a state to ensure that things are organized, but the leader would only be a figurehead that organizes and is obliged to the people's will, while keeping rights in mind.

There should also be many more defined rights than the US constitution defines. There should be things in place such as rights for LGBT people, and legalizing drugs. They should also be guaranteed the right to not be subject to police brutality.

What do you guys think of this?

GingerPickle said:

I want there to be a state, but one that is essentially decentralized and completely democratic. There needs to be a state to ensure that things are organized, but the leader would only be a figurehead that organizes and is obliged to the people's will, while keeping rights in mind.

And what happens when someone puts it to a vote that the government "end" poverty by printing and giving 1 million dollars to every person?

There should also be many more defined rights than the US constitution defines. There should be things in place such as rights for LGBT people, and legalizing drugs. They should also be guaranteed the right to not be subject to police brutality.

It could be argued that these things are already in the constitution and very much ignored.

AndrewB said:

And what happens when someone puts it to a vote that the government "end" poverty by printing and giving 1 million dollars to every person?

I would imagine that such a thing would be very controversial, and many would vote against it, since pointless inflation is a bad idea, and many people know it.

AndrewB said:

It could be argued that these things are already in the constitution and very much ignored.

I think what he's trying to say is that they should be explicitly spelled out instead of vaguely implied, so that there is no excuse for ignoring it.

I've been a fan of anarcho-syndicalism (a form of libertarian socialism, just with some anarchism thrown in) for a while now. Even joined the Wobblies, though they're technically non-political. But I also know that it's a utopian pipe dream, so I just sort of keep it in mind as I make decisions.

Also, have you ever watched anything from Noam Chomsky? If you're interested in libertarian socialism, you may want to check out Manufacturing Consent sometime. Full movie here.

Politics?

Sir Belfin for SENATORS 2012

AndrewB said:

And what happens when someone puts it to a vote that the government "end" poverty by printing and giving 1 million dollars to every person?

Or what happens when someone put in a vote that birth control should be criminalized, and that LGBT deviants should be sent to reeducation camps? Looking at the zeitgeist of American Conservatism currently, these would have a dangerously high chance of getting into law.

I interpreted this as deregulating the free market while providing a baseline standard of living for all citizens... which I agree with. Necessities should not be left to the private sector.

So, in other words, you want to turn the US into Europe. Try and see how well that will go down with Red Blooded Americans, especially now ;-)

And the proper term is "Social Democracy", FYI. Of course, YMMV depending on which particular implementation you pick. They can range from a dysfunctional kleptocracy like in Greece, to a Swiss almost-direct democracy, to well known examples like Germany, Sweden etc.

TBQH, almost every one of them is preferable to the US system, they way it has been presented through the media.

Sodaholic said:

I think what he's trying to say is that they should be explicitly spelled out instead of vaguely implied, so that there is no excuse for ignoring it.

Just because there's no excuse for it doesn't mean people won't do it. There's already an explicitly-stated wall between the church and the state in the constitution, but that doesn't prevent every redneck in America from wanting Christian law enforced in on other people.

I think America's system is fine and there's no need for switching to something radically different. The reason we've had so many problems is warmongering neocons (perhaps better patched up by making war profiteering illegal) and financial deregulation that allowed stock traders, bankers and politicians to commit the dirty tricks that caused the 2008 financial collapse.

Bucket said:

I interpreted this as deregulating the free market while providing a baseline standard of living for all citizens... which I agree with. Necessities should not be left to the private sector.

But it's SOCIALISM! I don't see that getting past the conservatives without some trade-offs, like a lower baseline than you might feel comfortable living with.

You mean, like, below the poverty line? That's what we have now. They want to get rid of minimum wage, which is effectively below minimum as it is. Another volley in their war on the poor - what with their pushing to kill Medicaid, birth control, public schools, welfare, sex education, NPR, abortion...

What I'm saying, basically, is fuck Republicans.

Bucket said:

What I'm saying, basically, is fuck Republicans.

Bad idea, you're bound to create more of them. I favour compulsory sterilization and laryngectomies. :)

And how would this state handle religion?

GingerPickle said:
I want there to be a state, but one that is essentially decentralized and completely democratic. There needs to be a state to ensure that things are organized, but the leader would only be a figurehead that organizes and is obliged to the people's will, while keeping rights in mind.

Who guarantees this State has the power to do anything? How does it defend national sovereignty from outside interference?

The closest thing you can get to "libertarian socialism" in the actual context, in the West, is a representative democracy with a high level of civilian mobilization, which increases popular pressure on the State so that it will act in the people's interest instead of a more passive society where concentrated wealth trumps. Without a relatively autonomous government that can respond quickly and has the strength to sustain itself, a nation will get splintered into a vulnerable mass of disconnected groups and individuals.