Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

My Tweets for Today

  • 09:57 >@BrianLynch: Heidi Klum is taking Seal's last name. Seal doesn't even take Seal's last name. #
  • 11:50 Libertarian Socialism has been making more and more sense lately... #
  • 16:00 I don't know why, but all of a sudden I'm in the mood for a burrito #
  • 16:01 What? Seriously, I mention "burrito" and Matt Lisk: Diet Guru starts following me.. WTF? #
  • 16:03 Now all I can think about is a Chapala Burrito with shredded beef, a warm tostada with sour cream, a flauta, and rice and beans... #
  • 23:19 Nooooooo you're being ignorant! That's ignorant! #


( 5 comments — Leave a comment )
Oct. 8th, 2009 02:03 pm (UTC)
What the hell is Libertarian Socialism?
Oct. 8th, 2009 03:39 pm (UTC)
Libertarian Socialism is synonymous with anarchy in some circles (sometimes called Socialist-Anarchy). It's quite interesting. It involves the notion that you don't have to lower personal liberty in order to raise societal equality, which is counter-intuitive to most people. The idea is that there is positive liberty and negative liberty, and you can raise positive liberty and equality without lowering negative liberty. The goal is a communism (Socialism) that is achieved through the will of the people (Libertarian) rather than imposed by the state (which would be Fascist Socialism).
Oct. 8th, 2009 03:50 pm (UTC)
The flaw in that dichotomy, in my opinion, is this: I don't believe there is a clear cut divide between the will of the people and the state, in a representative government. Governments are, of course, flawed - often grossly flawed. However, I believe any large organization is similarly flawed, to various degrees. Since change on a large social scale is virtually impossible to induce without *some* sort of organization then, eventually, these flaws will come into play, will they not?

We can discuss the difference between communism created completely without threat of force versus what threat of force is acceptable. I find that more useful. I do know however, believe the involvement of the state is necessarily equivalent to use of force.

ETA: I happily concede that we are maybe working under different definitions. Am currently reading about anti-statism, and wondering if we are, in fact, talking about the same things.

Edited at 2009-10-08 04:12 pm (UTC)
Oct. 8th, 2009 04:31 pm (UTC)
I think we may be talking about the same thing, sort of. Libertarian Socialists would say that socialism being imposed by the state is the use of force (and they are against it), but not necessarily purely the involvement of the state, because, like you said, at the lowest levels, we ARE the state.

The stateless idealism desired by anarchists necessitates that it come from below, from the people, through cooperatives and such. But I'm honestly not sure if that means that lower levels of government should not be utilized to facilitate it. I am rather new to it (like I said in my tweet, it's just starting to make some sense to me), and I don't necessarily label myself as such (or really as anything at this point), but I just think the ideas are useful. I've been talking to a guy in Greece who champions LS; I'll ask him to try and get some clarity on some of these questions, though.

Edited at 2009-10-08 04:32 pm (UTC)
Feb. 17th, 2013 09:43 am (UTC)
Find friends with benefits and Be Naughty! Go Here welcomemyhomecat.blogspot.com
( 5 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

December 2010


Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Naoto Kishi