The Oxymoronic Nature of Libertarian Socialism

Libertarianism is defined as the freedom "to do as you choose with your own life and property, as long as you don't harm the person and property of others." - libertarianism.com

The Cato Institute defines the three core principles of Libertarian thought:

Individualism: "Only individuals make choices and are responsible for their actions. Libertarian thought emphasizes the dignity of each individual, which entails both rights and responsibility."

Individual Rights: "Because individuals are moral agents, they have a right to be secure in their life, liberty, and property."

Spontaneous Order: "The great insight of libertarian social analysis is that order in society arises spontaneously, out of the actions of thousands or millions of individuals who coordinate their actions with those of others in order to achieve their purposes."

This is in direct opposition to socialism: the eventual abolition of private property, income redistribution, and emphasis on the collective good.

"Socialists complain that capitalism necessarily leads to unfair and exploitative concentrations of wealth and power in the hands of the relative few who emerge victorious from free-market competition—people who then use their wealth and power to reinforce their dominance in society. Because such people are rich, they may choose where and how to live, and their choices in turn limit the options of the poor." - Encyclopedia Britannica

Socialism also entails arbitrarily defining what is "fair", how much wealth is "too much", who is "poor", and why the "poor" "deserve" the now-shared wealth of the "rich".

Private property and individual ownership is a cornerstone of Libertarian philosophy, which socialism seeks to destroy. The abolition of individual ownership is a way of denying individuals their "right" to life, liberty, and property. The Objectivist strain of Libertarians (which I somewhat identify with) see the institutions of State and Law as guarantors of such privileges, and not as a burden to them.

Socialism also places restrictions on how productive one may be, with whom one contracts for business decisions, and the amount of wealth one may have. Socialism rejects the concept of individualism, assuming that decisions affecting the collective are automatically and equally beneficial to all individuals.

Libertarian Socialism:

"Libertarian Socialism is a term essentially synonymous with the word "Anarchism". Anarchy, strictly meaning "without rulers", leads one to wonder what sort of system would exist in place of one without state or capitalist masters... the answer being a radically democratic society while preserving the maximal amount of individual liberty and freedom possible."

"Libertarian Socialism recognizes that the concept of "property" (specifically, the means of production, factories, land used for profit, rented space) is theft and that in a truly libertarian society, the individual would be free of exploitation caused by the concentration of all means of wealth-making into the hands of an elite minority of capitalists." - flag.blackened.net

Does it not strike you as odd that the abolition of private property and "egalitarianism" must be enforced by a central authority? The concept that "everything belongs to everyone" is utter tripe. "You can't have this, it belongs to everyone" is a denial of my individual right to utilize property for beneficial purposes. Who is going to define how activities benefit only oneself or society? How does libertarian socialism plan to eliminate the "gap between rich and poor"? It will have to be done through laws (implying more state power) or through violence, two things that libertarian socialism rejects.

And what happens after the redistribution? I am better at a lot of things than other people, so it is likely that I would be more successful than many other people if we all started from the same place. Bill Gates never completed college, yet he has made more of an impact on the world as we know it than 99% of all college graduates. Ability is what divides people, not class, race, or gender. In most cases, people are where they are because of skill, not because of some conspiracy that seeks to keep a perpetual massive lower class. In a constitutional republican society, such a thing is political suicide. I want people to be successful, but tearing down society and remaking it in the image and likeness of messianic egalitarian egoists is not the way to do it. People should be successful in their endeavors because they are proficient, not because it gets handed to them because they are better at making a fuss about "inequality" more than others.

Have you ever watched the 100-meter dash at the Olympics? Everyone starts from the same place, but inevitably someone wins. That means the winner was a better runner, and thus more deserving of praise than the others. Should those who come in last place be equally praised? Noam Chomsky acknowledges the imbalance of ability, but rationalizes rewarding the less-able by stating those who cannot proficiently perform tasks are valuable just because they can "appreciate" the work of others. Huh, I'd like to get paid for complimenting others' achievements. Noam Chomsky also sells millions of books, gives speeches and presentations, and has a cushy university job, so I don't think he has any right or even the proper perspective to complain about what is "unfair" or what worth certain things in society have. I highly doubt a white male who has lived in the utopia of New England academia for most of his life knows anything about working, failure, or difficulty. He is a linguist who has become a saint among the left for his political ideas - though I'm not quite sure how a linguist can have more credibility than a political scientist or an economist in discussing political or economic matters.

Libertarian socialism desires egalitarianism, collective responsibility, and "non-coercive" institutions, but it will have to coerce people like me through either law or raw force in order to enter a world not unlike that which Harrison Bergeron lived in. It must first suspend individual liberty and the ability of self-determination in order to erect the framework. Libertarian socialism claims to uphold self-determination, but it only does so in a more limited scope that is both arbitrarily imposed and must come about from statist institutions.

The Failure of Capitalism in Russia

After the fall of the Berlin Wall, soon followed by the Soviet regime itself, Russians were clearly sick and tired of Communism. Under perestroika, Western influence was allowed into Russia. This influence came in the form of pop culture - fashion, music, cinema, and food, among others. This was all fine and dandy in and of itself, but the commodities did not bring with them the Western concepts and values that allowed aviator glasses, Converse sneakers, Levi jeans, and Paramount films to be created the way that they are in the West.

The national mindset of Russia may forever be locked in a binary. Iu Lotman and Boris Uspenskii wrote an excellent article explaining the origins of the Russian binary model. It is largely based in the heaven/hell dichotomy of the Eastern Orthodox church, which has no concept of purgatory that the Catholic church adopted. The opposite of heaven is hell, and vice versa, so when Russian society seems to be in "hell", its opposite - "heaven" - will be implemented by force. The October revolution was a "revolution from above" - party elites implemented the mechanisms of communism and kept them in place. The same was done for "capitalism". It was shoddily implemented by people who are still caught in a binary, elite as they are.

In the West, the rise of capitalism and industrialism did not come from government mandates and elites governing the situation. It was a direct result of the endeavors of common people, engaging the in the free flow of goods and services. A lack of state ownership preceding the concretization of the concept of free market principles was the framework (or lack thereof) that allowed capitalism to flourish and benefit Western societies. Like democracy in the majority of the Middle East, capitalism cannot expect itself to change anything in Russia unless the mentality of the Russian people changes. Only binaries exist: leading and following, complaining and making jokes (which is manifested in the differences between women and men in Nancy Ries' Russian Talk), among others. There is no concept of the 'individual' undivorced from some sort of collective, and thus Russian individuals are more subject to a herd mentality. That mentality is absolutely incompatible with real capitalism, which requires individual effort and sacrifice, the decision to take risks and accept the consequences, and to go out on a limb and make something different and unique.

Alien concepts, no matter how much they have benefitted others, cannot be forced upon a population by mandate. Give democracy to the Palestinians, and they'll elect Hamas again. Give copies of An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations to Russia, and they will commission all sorts of committees and ask party officials to implement the ideas that sound good, defeating the whole purpose. The 'invisible hand' becomes visible, and continues to manifest itself in incompatible ways as long as the state and the fundamentals of a free market are intertwined.

Now playing: Duobetic Homunkulus - 'Části a mechanismy strojů'