As someone who used to support Sanders and is now much more of a Socialist libertarian, what do you think of this? — Albero

What is the difference between a social democrat and a socialist libertarian (SL)? What policies would a SL work for? Does socialist libertarianism call for revolution?

libertarian socialism is an umbrella term for a lot of ideologies like anarchism, anarchist communism, communalism, council communism, etc. A social democrat still believes in maintaining the state apparatus and capitalism, but a libertarian socialist would want to abolish the state entirely. But unlike right wing libertarians which simply want a "small state" and private property, Libertarian socialists want both of these things gone. In terms of policy, libertarians don't really advocate for anything since most are pretty much against authority (hence the name Libertarian, which in Europe always meant the "anti authority" or anti-Bolshevik socialists but has basically been adopted by right wingers) I'd go into more detail but there's a quite a lot to go over. If you're interested in some reading, I'd check out this out: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq
A lot of good stuff on here that's all free of charge

Is taxing the rich just as bad as not taxing them when we could just be removing the billionaires all together? — Albero

If the options are: 1) Not tax billionaires, 2) Tax them and use the money for harm reduction, or 3) Not have billionaires or people in need of harm reduction in the first place, obviously 3 is preferable. The question is, if we are denied 3, but have a chance at 2, is taking that next-best thing somehow worse than taking the worst thing, 1? Obviously not. 1 is the worst. 2 is better. 3 would be better still. If we can get 2 but not 3 now, we should take 2 now... and then keep pushing for 3. Preferring 1 over 2 is "heighten the contradictions" unpragmatic ideologue bullshit.

libertarian socialism is an umbrella term for a lot of ideologies like anarchism, anarchist communism, communalism, council communism, etc. — Albero

Thanks for the well thought out reply.

Do you have any inkling that a political/cultural/social system based on those principles could work at any level in the world we have? I don't think it's possible. It's utopia, and utopia never works. Maybe it could work for a small group of hunter/gatherers. I took a quick look at the document you linked. The proposed society described seems like fantasy pie in the sky.

My father worked for a large, well-known, chemical industrial company for 45 years. For the last 25 of those years, he worked to develop programs for worker participation in decision making. I understand that this is not what you are proposing. What you are after is much more radical. There was fierce resistance to the programs my father tried to set up from management and I don't think he felt he had made any lasting difference.

If we voted in someone like Sanders, not only would this be advocating for Imperialism and colonialism, but it would also pacify the working class the same way FDR's New Deal was a compromise that stamped out any spark of radical leftism left in the USA." — Albero

:100: Sanders pacifies the masses.

Is taxing the rich just as bad as not taxing them when we could just be removing the billionaires all together? — Albero

We must remove billionaires and I'm talking about total wealth confiscation of course. Society would probably have to beat out their superiority complex as well; I mean think about it - billionaires have a God-like status under capitalism and I don't think anything else besides a beating is going to humble them. After starting with the billionaires we work our way down to those with 9 figures, then 8, then 7 figures. Perhaps beating should get proportionally more humane depending on net worth e.g. those with 8 figures get a weaker beating than those with 10 figures.

the Fascist promises social programs, and thats all the Social Democrat is interested in. He wants a share in the exploitation and the plunder. The Social Democrat wants higher wages and wants to tax billionaires to fund those programs, but this keeps these billionaires in place. — Albero

That's exactly why Britain's Fabian Socialist leaders described socialism as a "business proposition".

The Fabians presented themselves as a compromise between communism and capitalism. As leaders of the British Left, they led the masses in a non-revolutionary direction on condition that the big bankers and industrialists contributed to higher living standards for the masses and nice incomes for the Fabians themselves, who not only controlled the Labour Party but also the education system as well as dominating the intellectual classes from which any rebellion against money interests could have emerged.

The Fabian model was then reproduced in America in the early 1900's.

I’m not going to lie to you, it’s true that what I believe would be a better world certainly does sound like a fantasy. Heck, anarchists or libertarian socialists have always been the the butt end of jokes in authoritarian socialist circles (think Marxist Leninists, Maoists, or Dengists) for being too “idealist” or hippy. In some sense, I agree that our ideas could sometimes be less grounded in reality than others, not every writer out there is good. But libertarian socialism has a rich tradition that does do its best to answer your concerns. For example, David Graeber is a contemporary anarchist writer and anthropologist and he actually addresses arguments like “aren’t humans too competitive for this” or “how would we live without money it’s impossible!” in some his books. Maybe some people will never be convinced but that’s okay, at least we tried!

All in all, do I think such a world is achievable in my lifetime? Definitely not. Do I think it could be achievable at some unknown point of time? Certainly. The reason is because if socialism as it once worked in Russia was to be repeated in let’s say the USA, that would be doomed to fail, and social democracy wouldn’t work either. So what are our options? A big part of what interests me in these anarchist writers is that a lot of their writings were devoted to highlighting how decentralized societies did survive and thrive in the not even so distant past, and it could be replicated again

Who's working 80 hours a week in a mine for Elon Musk or a sweatshop for Nike? Third Worlders — Albero

I think this is the more important thing to focus on. While there is no general answer to how one ought act in a particular election -- the questions you pose, I believe, are answered reasonably in multiple, contradictory ways -- I think it's important to focus on what is required of our current mode of life.

And thus far, at least, the exportation of low wages and economic imperialism are par for the course.

By all means, if voting for Sanders will work to eliminate *these* conditions, then I have no problem with voting for Sanders. But he didn't campaign on that, so what reason would there to be to believe that he would have? I have none.

If exploitation of human beings in the bonds of work is the ill we wish to cure, then it is the social democrat who must demonstrate how maintaining national divisions will help the exploited outside of his nation, or to accept that this was never his goal in the first place, but to simply improve the lives of the working people within the nation.

I'd ask what it is the social democrat really wants. Perhaps the main disagreement is simply on who is counted.

As someone who used to support Sanders and is now much more of a Socialist libertarian, what do you think of this? Tons of leftists advocated for guys like Sanders to fix the deep-seated issues and wealth inequality in the United States as a form of "harm reduction" but would this really mean anything? Is taxing the rich just as bad as not taxing them when we could just be removing the billionaires all together? — Albero

I don't think you have to cancel the (hypothetical) trade off between societal volatility and welfare of its workers. It can still be the case that social reforms would be good even if they, in the long run, make it more difficult to affect systemic changes.

Don't have to allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good (enough). It's hard enough to know what's good (enough), never mind what's perfect.

We must remove billionaires and I'm talking about total wealth confiscation of course. Society would probably have to beat out their superiority complex as well; I mean think about it - billionaires have a God-like status under capitalism and I don't think anything else besides a beating is going to humble them. — K Turner

Billionaires are not the problem. Taking all their money won't solve anything. It just makes people feel good to resent them. Also - some of those billionaires got their billions by changing society dramatically - Gates, Jobs, Musk, Bezos, Zuckerberg. Of course, you could say that the changes are bad I guess.

The real problem is corporations. When the Constitution was written, there were two powerful institutions that we needed to be protected from - the church and government. Now, there is a third, corporations, and there are no built-in legal protections.

socialism as it once worked in Russia — Albero

I not aware that socialism ever worked in Russia. What are you referring to?

The one thing I can think of that might make changes in a direction that you and I both might consider progress is severely limiting the power of corporations. That even strikes me as possible, if not likely.

Billionaires are not the problem. Taking all their money won't solve anything. It just makes people feel good to resent them. Also - some of those billionaires got their billions by changing society dramatically - Gates, Jobs, Musk, Bezos, Zuckerberg. Of course, you could say that the changes are bad I guess.

The real problem is corporations. When the Constitution was written, there were two powerful institutions that we needed to be protected from - the church and government. Now, there is a third, corporations, and there are no built-in legal protections. — T Clark

Corporations and billionaires are both the problem. Confiscating billionaires' wealth would certainly make a difference - we're talking billions of dollars. I understand that some of them earned billions by changing society, but these American Gods cannot be allowed to keep flying; their wings must be clipped unceremoniously. No more billionaires imposing their will on the rest of the world with their undue influence and power due to their wealth. No more wage slavery, no more polluting either.

Instead of removing billionaires, which would necessarily involve tyranny and exploitation, one might serve the cause better by becoming a billionaire. This way he can abolish himself, redistribute his own wealth and property, negate the very problems and inequalities billionaires are routinely blamed for, and all without getting blood on his hands. Until his abolition he can provide employment, livable wages, health care, and all the goodies without having to beg for it from politicians. Win-win.

You could be a shining example of humanity without becoming a tyrant, murderer and thief.

:up:

This kind of all-or-nothing thinking is quite delusional and serves to only further fragment the left. I suspect that some leftists hold such puritanical views because it gives them an excuse to not do anything but complain as a pastime.

I will speak in defense of the radical position, minus the assertion :

... but it would also pacify the working class . . . — Albero

Only on the basis that the working class is already pacified, with respect to the radical's position.


Pragmatism is political value. One must be able to make compromise, see things along a gradient from better to worse, and so on. In the interest of our better selves let's say that there's a common mistake made in discussing political values where we equivocate between "pragmatic" and whatever goal it is we seek to fulfill.

Here the social democrat thinks that because the Marxist is in favor of the proletariat -- or whatever brand of radical politics you wish to insert, with the attending designations -- that the Marxist should be in favor of Bernie Sanders as the best chance at alleviating some suffering in the world, especially the suffering of the working poor within the United States.



But the goal isn't to alleviate some suffering for some people. The goal is liberation. And if the social democrat wants capitalism tamed by a republican government so that rewards aren't quite as top-heavy then the goals really are at odds with one another.

They are in teleological contradiction, is what I'd call it.

What is pragmatic depends on what we're wanting to accomplish, after all. That's not a fragmentation of the left or pie-in-the-sky dreams. That's simply an assertion that we want different things.

I say all this as someone who did, in fact, vote for Bernie Sanders in the primaries.

I think democracy is very SLOW and INEFFICIENT!

@praxis is quite leftist, actually. Thank you for vocalizing that.

The real problem is corporations. When the Constitution was written, there were two powerful institutions that we needed to be protected from - the church and government. Now, there is a third, corporations, and there are no built-in legal protections. — T Clark

:100:

Democratic socialism is all about the working class, and if you help them get a fair deal they will indeed be more pacified. :up: