Noam Chomsky on Libertarian Socialism

As we see, the problem with establishing ANY form of socialism is that the reactionaries will kill, kill, kill sooner than allow anyone free of their obscene system. We therefore need the Revolutionary Party to co-ordinate the class-was against this vicious minority. I wish we didn't - the dangers are obvious - but the alternative is the early destruction of the human race for pigfood.

 

You realize that for socialism to work, you have to take away people's things and many people don't want their stuff taken.

 

People's sexual equipment is safe with us! As to stolen property, we shall naturally take it back from the 1%. Everyone else will gain. Sorry about your millions, but that's justice.

 

When you beg the question, obviously the answer is obvious. However, that sort of thinking obviously needs to be problematized. First of all, it contains normative assumptions that liberty is the ultimate goal of society. While it may be to you, it is inherently no more legitimate a goal, than say equity/equality is for socialists. More importantly, it assumes that by removing government intervention, that would lead to the optimal level of liberty. Is that true? I don't imagine it is. I imagine that there is a level of government control that increases liberty. The laws which protect life and property probably do. The laws which make harmful pollution illegal probably do. There are other examples as well. There are obviously roles for government to play, but the question becomes how do you strike a balance between extreme liberty(which allows the freedom to do harm to others liberty) and control.


After that, there is no realistic plan for this transition. You want it, so you are willing to overlook the obvious flaws. If you depend on the global capitalist structure collapsing, and then for a non-violent movement to seize power in that situation of chaos and upheaval, that is entirely unrealistic. First of all, global capitalism is FAR more resilient than you are giving it credit for(similarly it is far more resilient than Marx gave it credit for). The other thing it assumes, is that even if by some miracle libertarians did come to rule, they would be successful. Capitalism by its nature leads to the concentration of wealth. When competition happens, the better competitors get the wealth. That may be a morally acceptable outcome depending on your normative assumptions, but whether that is the case or not is irrelevant to the question I have. Which is, how do you support the people who lose out in the competition in a libertarian utopia? Those people tend to cause a great number of problems in a society. They turn to crime, violence, radical political solutions, etc. If you do not have contingencies to support the losers of the competition, those losers are almost certain to bring the system down. If you do, how do you have that system without creating something similar to what you hate so much now?

No, in fact I am pretty convinced that libertarianism has no practical solutions to the problems we face, if the goal is the destruction of the current system, and to rebuild using a questionable model in a period of extreme upheaval. It sounds extraordinarily unrealistic if you ask me.

 

Sooner or later, socialists would put the libertarians into re-education camps. They cannot tolerate serious dissent.

_

 

I dont care if its vegetarian socialism...

Socialism is failure.

 

Of course, because you don't respect our natural right to private ownership.

Well, when you initiate violence against others don't be surprised when people fight back.

 

Unlike the reactionary craphounds with their girmos? Sancta simplicitas! Hei Holy McCarthy of Blessed Memory and NO THOUGHT!

 

Deaf and blind, you KNOW you don't have to listen, because your masters will shoot those who tell the truth? Happy days!

 

You've killed hundreds of millions, we scarcely any. Sieg Heil and Heil to thieving! Stick to beer.

 

We have? You might want to look in the mirror comrade.

Human liberty is the natural state of man, we shall prevail over the left. It's inevitable.

 

Unless it works. Sorry that reality doesn't fit with your narrow ideology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee-owned_corporation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_democracy

 

Well, you nutters always mix up socialists with your own sort having quarrels. You have as much liberty as a parrot: you can make the noise you are taught to make by your masters - and it does get rather boring.

 

psst... It doesnt work...

Ask Greece, Ask Russia, Ask anyone....

Ya'all are gonna have to get a job, and become part of the solution.

 

PPFFFTTT... AHAHAHHAHAAHA

I am my own Master, I dont wanna be a socialist slave....

 

Socialism =/= Marxism or Social democracy.

There are LOTS of different types of socialism. I posted links to 4 successful examples. Sorry if that doesn't fit you false worldview.

 

Libertarian socialism has no slaves. It's all based on voluntary exchange and contracts.

You are attacking a strawman.

 

The far-Left is a very tyrannical group; once they gain power, they limit liberty for everyone else who does not agree with them!

"Socialists cry "Power to the people", and raise the clenched fist as they say it. We all know what they really mean — power over people, power to the State."

-- Margaret Thatcher

Socialism is great if you are willing to accept a much reduced standard of living and an oppressive central government who is always telling you what to do and how to live your life to the benefit of the state!

Cuba, North Korea and the old Soviet Union and East Germany are four perfect examples!

 

Again, Socialism =/= Marxism.

Your masters in Israel are socialist. Are you saying they are failures?

 

I've never witnesses a People { especially in this Country } turn so
quick against the biggest aspect of This Country or the Freedom
Capitalism allows and even promotes to acheive the once honorable
mission of the American Dream.Which equates to basically having
ones ship come in.Becoming Rich.Used to be a cherished,GRAND notion.
it still is,don't get me wrong.Just because some stinkin' megalomaniac
like George Soros can exploit a situation as in Europe to his benefit.
There are still a heck of lot of Citizens in America who Live to Hit
the Lotto {Powerball}.That right there flies inn the face of the Occupy Wall
Street crowd.I guess those anarchists want free Lotto tickers care of
the government and taxing those who work for a living.

 

That's what Hitler did.In Munich.Got his start in the many beer Halls
in Munich.Give the depressed,out of work German Men boatloads
of Beer and nice buxom Gals with 2 litre steins topped to th' brim
with suds and voila.A New leader.Hitler could get up to his podium
and talk for an hour abour daffodils for all those men cared.

 

You are indeed correct, Foolardi.

People today are confused. "Capitalism" is not what is practiced by Obama and the big investment banks on Wall Street these days. If anything, this highly perverted form of capitalism is actually "corporate socialism".

"True" capitalism is practiced every day by the small business owners who own the shops you visit every day to purchase the remarkable things that help make your life so much more enjoyable!

By the way, if you give a man a fish (socialism), you feed him for a day. It you teach a man to fish (capitalism), you feed him and the people he employs for a lifetime.

 

Liberalism IS a logical fallacy. It is warm, compassionate, beautiful, but illogical and unsustainable and unaffordable.

 

Except that I don't make assumptions about "goals of society". How can society have a goal? It is not a thing that exists in reality. It does not have goals or own things or create things. Individuals do things. Individuals pursue individual goals.

Now, it may be that the majority of individuals who make up what you call society do not make liberty a priority over, say, being directed by bureaucrats under the threat of harm if they do not obey, but I think that would be extremely difficult to prove. Therefore, as a libertarian, I seek to show individuals the benefits of liberty, and the wrongness of using violence against your fellows who have done nothing to harm you, and that society is not government and government is not society.

That may be. What I show is that socialists, who often claim to be peaceful and want peace, are not peaceful and that the goal of equity and equality cannot be achieved by peaceful means. Hiding behind terms like "society" is an attempt to mask the violence of individuals who force their morals onto others through government force.

"What" assumes? Because now you are creating a strawman.

That assumes that laws exist because of government.

There are roles for the mafia to play, and drug cartels and big corporations that rain pollution on your head.

It is not logical that "extreme liberty" entails the liberty to do harm to others. If others can be harmed, then they are not free. You imply that they don't have the right to defense or the use of law to resist and punish the harm that you cause. It's your limited imagination that places government as the sole functionary in the role of justice.

How do you know that there is no realistic plan for "this" transition, whatever "this" is? Your argument that there "is no plan" because you have not had one shared with you is weak. I wouldn't even say that there isn't a realistic plan for a move to socialism. I haven't seen one, but that doesn't mean one doesn't exist.

Seize power? I have no desire to seize power, nor do any libertarians that I know of. If they did, they wouldn't be libertarian. I would only encourage others to resist those who do attempt to seize power and instead organize with their fellows and cooperate without attempting to dominate each other through force and elimination of the means of self defense.

You are creating a strawman again. I have said nothing about "global capitalism." People will always trade. Business will survive, though there will be a great deal of suffering.

I have no problem with this, and I, unlike you, do not assume that concentration of wealth and competition to create wealth is a problem. I don't agree with the assertion that the "better competitors get the wealth." What is the wealth? Is there some pie of limited wealth that people who create things and provide services get? No, there is no limit to wealth that can be created, and all but those who are thoroughly disabled can create wealth. It's hard to see in a society like ours, where wealth creation is off limits in many cases by virtue of government regulations, but what stops you from starting a business and competing from people if there are no rules other than you must not use force or fraud?

What is a "libertarian utopia"? No such thing could exist, as a utopia implies perfection, which is not something that any libertarian argues. People who create strawman argue it all the time, but I discount it as a fallacy of the unimaginative.

So your contention that people who cannot compete and who cannot otherwise secure help from anyone are criminally minded? I don't have any evidence for that. Obviously there will be crime because some people resort to crime regardless of any "societal" reason. The answers to that aren't unavailable.

I will also point out that many of the "crimes" for which people are punished today would not exist in a free system. If there is no victim, there is no crime. There would be no black markets, so no black market profits to fuel gang (and mafia) activity. Murder, theft, and fraud have always existed. You won't be able to show, however, that the system of justice that we have today is in the hands of government because of those things.

Why anyone would ask you, I don't know. If you don't have the answers, then posing the question to you will be fruitless.

 

And saved German capitalism by thieving and murdering. Heil Gingrich!