Vs. Libertarian Socialist Rants thread

Off-topic talk on music, art, literature, games and forum games.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 9399
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Re: Vs. Libertarian Socialist Rants thread

Post by brimstoneSalad » Wed Jun 05, 2019 7:45 pm

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:07 pm
I'm not sure why you'd come to the conclusion that "libertarian socialist" would mean somebody between the two extremes on the spectrum rather than somebody who supports both libertarianism and socialism.
I was joking, because that's the only way it really makes sense.

Libertarianism is do whatever you want and suffer the consequences: no restrictions, few if any taxes, no regulation, no safety net. Minimal government.
Socialism is based on a massive safety net, and all of the restrictions, taxes, and regulations entailed to make that happen. Nearly maximial government, although that doesn't necessarily entail socially conservative rules.

The combination doesn't provide any obvious interpretation that makes sense.

Like "Do whatever you want, don't pay any taxes, AND be free from the consequences of failing."

If you just mean socially liberal, that's not libertarianism and most socialists are already socially liberal. Libertarianism is fiscally conservative, and it's an inseparable part of the system today.

I think what LSR tries to do is cite fringe/uncommon or possibly outdated definitions, but using that those today is only going to generate confusion.

User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2943
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Toluca Lake

Post by Red » Wed Jun 05, 2019 7:50 pm

brimstoneSalad wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 7:45 pm
Socialism is based on a massive safety net, and all of the restrictions, taxes, and regulations entailed to make that happen. Nearly maximial government, although that doesn't necessarily entail socially conservative rules.
I think @Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz is using the term socialist to refer to workers controlling the means of production. I think it's an interesting idea, but it should be tested first.
brimstoneSalad wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 7:45 pm
I think what LSR tries to do is cite fringe/uncommon or possibly outdated definitions, but using that those today is only going to generate confusion.
It varies depending on geography. Like in the USA liberal is synonymous with Progressive, while in the UK and other European countries it generally means centrist (I think it refers to John Locke liberalism). This has caused much confusion between Z and I.
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci

User avatar
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1206
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:57 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Ostrovegan
Location: The Matrix

Post by Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz » Wed Jun 05, 2019 8:18 pm

brimstoneSalad wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 7:45 pm
I think what LSR tries to do is cite fringe/uncommon or possibly outdated definitions, but using that one today is only going to generate confusion.
This confusion could actually have both positive and negative outcomes. The negative, of course, would be that people might be turned away by virtue of viewing his ideology as oxymoronic. The positive is that people might be intrigued by it for the same reason. I think that this is similar to tactics used by a lot of fringe political ideologies. For instance, the CPGB-ML will often go around parading pictures of Stalin, which is of course going to alienate a lot amount of people, however, some are intrigued due to how it is obviously out-of-the-ordinary to praise an oppressive dictator.

I wouldn't know how much confusion is actually caused by "libertarian socialism". I think the ideology is moving a bit more to the political mainstream, and it could be argued that when libertarian capitalists talk about it as an ideology, make memes about it being an oxymoron, etc., this actually giving more attention to it and leading to less confusion about the term.
I think @Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz is using the term socialist to refer to workers controlling the means of production. I think it's an interesting idea, but it should be tested first.
Agreed, however, socialism is still largely viewed as referring to having a large social safety net, etc. Although the traditional definition of worker ownership of the means of production is moving more into public discourse, it could still potentially be quite confusing when somebody calls themselves a "libertarian socialist" for these reasons.

Now when I call myself a "democratic socialist", I've got less reason to worry. The reason being that I do indeed support things which are associated in the public mindset with democratic socialism, such as an increased social safety net and more social programs. There will be little confusion about what I believe if I say that I'm a democratic socialist, other than from extreme right-wingers who may think I'm a communist, but they'll probably think that anyway.
It varies depending on geography. Like in the USA liberal is synonymous with Progressive, while in the UK and other European countries it generally means centrist (I think it refers to John Locke liberalism). This has caused much confusion between Z and I.
In Japan and Australia, it's even crazier, with the Australian Liberal Party and the Japanese Liberal Democratic Party both being right-wing political parties.

I would consider liberalism to be a form of progressivism. However, I would not consider it to be left-wing, at least not on a European spectrum. I think that the term "liberal", even when used by Americans, is only tending to refer to people who would be on the centre of European politics, with the obvious exception of American conservatives who will use the words "liberal", "progressive", "socialist" and "communist" interchangeably. However, I've yet to see any significant examples of Americans who would willingly refer to themselves as "liberal" that would be considered left-wing by European standards.

User avatar
PsYcHo
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1165
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:24 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Pescetarian

Post by PsYcHo » Wed Jun 05, 2019 8:29 pm

To answer zzzzzzz (time restraints and lack of keyboard necessitate simplicity)

Libertarian definition- individual rights outweigh the group.

Socialist definition- the group's rights outweigh the right of the individual
Alcohol may have been a factor.

Taxation is theft.

User avatar
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1206
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:57 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Ostrovegan
Location: The Matrix

Post by Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz » Wed Jun 05, 2019 8:32 pm

PsYcHo wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 8:29 pm
To answer zzzzzzz (time restraints and lack of keyboard necessitate simplicity)

Libertarian definition- individual rights outweigh the group.

Socialist definition- the group's rights outweigh the right of the individual
Would you consider libertarianism to be synonymous with individualism, and socialism to be synonymous with collectivism?

User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2943
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Toluca Lake

Post by Red » Wed Jun 05, 2019 8:37 pm

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 8:32 pm
Would you consider libertarianism to be synonymous with individualism, and socialism to be synonymous with collectivism?
I don't fully agree with his politics (or his ethics, he adheres to Objectivism, and those vibes are pretty strong in this video), but I think Penn Jillette explained (his idea of) libertarianism quite eloquently in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGAO100hYcQ

The part I'm referring to is mostly in the first 10 minutes or so.

I think it's depressing how all the libertarians in the comments are berating Penn for saying positive things about Hillary and negative things about Trump but that's neither here nor there.
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci

User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2943
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Toluca Lake

Post by Red » Wed Jun 05, 2019 8:50 pm

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 8:18 pm
I think that the term "liberal", even when used by Americans, is only tending to refer to people who would be on the centre of European politics,
What makes you say that?

Aside from the crazies who label everyone on the left as a communist, people like Sanders, Gore, Yang, Miliband etc. (you would call them progressive) being called liberal is just as accurate as being called progressive.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 8:18 pm
However, I've yet to see any significant examples of Americans who would willingly refer to themselves as "liberal" that would be considered left-wing by European standards.
John F. Kennedy wrote:If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people-their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties-someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal", then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
Those all sound like something people would refer to as progressive.

More liberals are starting to call themselves progressives in America nowadays, I think the term liberal is being associated too much with SJWs.
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci

User avatar
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1206
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:57 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Ostrovegan
Location: The Matrix

Post by Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz » Wed Jun 05, 2019 9:17 pm

You seem to think that I've contrasted being a liberal with being a progressive, which I didn't do:
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 8:18 pm
I would consider liberalism to be a form of progressivism.
Red wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 8:50 pm
Aside from the crazies who label everyone on the left as a communist, people like Sanders, Gore, Yang, Miliband etc. (you would call them progressive) being called liberal is just as accurate as being called progressive.
Bernie Sanders hasn't really gone out of his way (to my knowledge) to promote a viewpoint of himself as a liberal. It's mostly been American liberals and conservatives who have described him that way. Al Gore would be considered a centrist by European standards. I'd need to learn more about Andrew Yang. Ed Miliband is definitely not a liberal as he is well to the left of the American spectrum, and American people with views similar to his, let alone with views similar to Jeremy Corbyn's as to mine, have either not gone out of their way to use the term "liberal" or outright rejected the term "liberal".
Those all sound like something people would refer to as progressive.
Sure, but there's nothing especially left-wing about them, at least not by European standards. I could certainly see somebody in the Liberal Democrats, Change UK, and even the Conservative Party at the very least paying lip service to those things.
More liberals are starting to call themselves progressives in America nowadays, I think the term liberal is being associated too much with SJWs.
I think the inverse is true. The term "progressive" has become associated with so-called "SJWs", hence these videos from PragerU:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiVQ8vrGA_8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlIjMJBSnRE

If the term "liberal" had been associated with so-called "SJWs" more than the term "progressive" had, then progressivism would be largely seen as to the right of liberalism in the United States, which doesn't appear to be the case.

User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2943
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Toluca Lake

Post by Red » Wed Jun 05, 2019 9:37 pm

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 9:17 pm
You seem to think that I've contrasted being a liberal with being a progressive, which I didn't do:
You contrasted it in the sense that one is more progressive than the other, so I responded with that contrast in mind.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 9:17 pm
Bernie Sanders hasn't really gone out of his way (to my knowledge) to promote a viewpoint of himself as a liberal.
He himself may have not described himself that way (I never said he did, just being called such), but people would describe him as a liberal (again, the not insane ones).
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 9:17 pm
Al Gore would be considered a centrist by European standards.
OK he probably was not the best example
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 9:17 pm
I'd need to learn more about Andrew Yang.
His politics may be libertarian motivated (not necessarily a bad thing), but his policies such as UBI, Universal Healthcare, Gay Rights, human centered capitalism are all considered to be liberal policies.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 9:17 pm
Ed Miliband is definitely not a liberal as he is well to the left of the American spectrum,
But he's not anti capitalist either, and he's still on the left. By the definition of Americans, he's just more liberal than most liberals (some would lump him as a socialist with Sanders).
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 9:17 pm
Sure, but there's nothing especially left-wing about them, at least not by European standards.
What would you consider 'especially left wing?' Democratic socialism?

How are you defining progressivism?
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 9:17 pm
I think the inverse is true. The term "progressive" has become associated with so-called "SJWs", hence these videos from PragerU:
I wouldn't take any information about left-wing politics from PragerU seriously.

But as for that second video, I'm not sure how that helps your point (it actually seems to support my point more).
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 9:17 pm
If the term "liberal" had been associated with so-called "SJWs" more than the term "progressive" had, then progressivism would be largely seen as to the right of liberalism in the United States, which doesn't appear to be the case.
Not necessarily. As I said, the term 'Progressive' is a term used to distance oneself from SJWs who are considered 'Liberal'. They have different connotations in that respect, since people are wrong conflating liberalism and SJWism, so there has to be some other term to use. Since Progressive is synonymous with Liberal, that's why it's used.

Look I'm not saying that one definition is right, I'm just saying that this is how Americans would refer to certain politics.
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci

User avatar
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1206
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:57 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Ostrovegan
Location: The Matrix

Post by Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz » Thu Jun 06, 2019 3:39 am

Red wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 9:37 pm
You contrasted it in the sense that one is more progressive than the other, so I responded with that contrast in mind.
When did I say that?
He himself may have not described himself that way (I never said he did, just being called such), but people would describe him as a liberal (again, the not insane ones).
Maybe, but the point that I was making wasn't that most Americans didn't define "liberal" and "left" interchangeably. The point I was making was that since any Americans who would be considered left on European spectrum would either not define themselves as liberal or actively reject the term, it shows that even in the United States, it is only really people who would be on the centre of a European spectrum who should be considered "liberal".
His politics may be libertarian motivated (not necessarily a bad thing), but his policies such as UBI, Universal Healthcare, Gay Rights, human centered capitalism are all considered to be liberal policies.
Right, and they'd still be considered liberal policies in Europe. They would not, however, be considered "left-wing". Most major European parties (even the conservative ones) support universal healthcare and gay rights. UBI is generally finds support from the left, but there are still some prominent centrists and conservatives who support it. "Human centred capitalism" is fairly similar to a social market economy, which in Europe is generally considered centrist.
But he's not anti capitalist either, and he's still on the left. By the definition of Americans, he's just more liberal than most liberals (some would lump him as a socialist with Sanders).
Yes, but most Americans who have views similar to his are still unlikely to describe themselves as liberal, if they don't actively reject the term. I think the confusion comes from the fact that people with social democratic viewpoints have only surfaced as a mainstream group recently, and since the people who have considered themselves "liberal" were seen on the left of an American spectrum, and social democrats were on the left, people just started calling social democrats "liberals".
What would you consider 'especially left wing?' Democratic socialism?
On a European spectrum, social democracy and anything further left.
How are you defining progressivism?
Advocacy of social change. As I've already said, I consider liberalism to be a form of progressivism, as it is advocating for social change, albeit on a limited scale.
I wouldn't take any information about left-wing politics from PragerU seriously.
My point in linking these videos is that they indicate that people aren't calling themselves "progressive" in order to distance themselves from "SJWs", as if that were the case, Dave Rubin and other "anti-SJWs" would be calling themselves "progressive" rather than "liberal".
But as for that second video, I'm not sure how that helps your point (it actually seems to support my point more).
Why?
Not necessarily. As I said, the term 'Progressive' is a term used to distance oneself from SJWs who are considered 'Liberal'. They have different connotations in that respect, since people are wrong conflating liberalism and SJWism, so there has to be some other term to use. Since Progressive is synonymous with Liberal, that's why it's used.
Given the fact that the people who would willingly call themselves "liberal" in the United States are generally on the centre of a European spectrum, and given the fact that there isn't any evidence for people calling themselves "progressive" rather than "liberal" in order to distance themselves from "SJWs" (and that the people who we can confirm do want to distance themselves from "SJWs" tend to refer to themselves as "liberal" anyway), I think it far more likely that people in the United States who hold politics that would be considered left-wing by European standards aren't referring to themselves as "liberal" due to the fact that the term isn't accurate for them.
Look I'm not saying that one definition is right, I'm just saying that this is how Americans would refer to certain politics.
Some Americans may refer to certain viewpoints in that way, but it doesn't change the fact that the people who hold these viewpoints won't refer to themselves as "liberal".

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests