Have you gone from being a Libertarian to Socialism?

gobsh!te

I used to believe in Socialism very strongly when I was young. I only saw good in it and only saw stupidity and greed in anything that was against "the greater good".

As I got older I read up on things and changed my mind completely. I can never go back to thinking like I had previously. For me, its similar to how I used to be a Catholic and how now I am an atheist.

I am intrigued to know if anyone has ever gone back to being a socialist and if so why?

Brian?

A libertarian is a socialist, in the original sense of the word.

If you're a capitalist "libertarian", you're just an extreme capitalist.

So to answer you're question, I'm a libertarian socialist.

Eric Cartman

that phrase : "If a man is not a socialist by the time he is 20, he has no heart. If he is not a conservative by the time he is 40, he has no brain." comes to mind.

I think its quite common for people in their teens and twenties to get grand ideas of socialism and buy into the karl marx idea of the world.

as people get older and get a career and start making real money they tend to move a lot more right of center. I don't think anyone goes back , but again people are interested in what suits themselves. It would be rather hard to find somebody on a serious income derived from actual work that would believe in marxism , and at the same time its completely understandable for people in their teens and twenties, unsure of the future believing in a system that gives them the most for 'free' and sets up the biggest safety net for them if the life plan doesn't work out.

at the end of the day as much as people want to deny it, we're all selfish, greedy and just looking out for ourselves and others in our close peer group.

Brian?

Eric Cartman wrote: »

that phrase : "If a man is not a socialist by the time he is 20, he has no heart. If he is not a conservative by the time he is 40, he has no brain." comes to mind.

What a load of nonsense.

I think its quite common for people in their teens and twenties to get grand ideas of socialism and buy into the karl marx idea of the world.

as people get older and get a career and start making real money they tend to move a lot more right of center. I don't think anyone goes back , but again people are interested in what suits themselves. It would be rather hard to find somebody on a serious income derived from actual work that would believe in marxism , and at the same time its completely understandable for people in their teens and twenties, unsure of the future believing in a system that gives them the most for 'free' and sets up the biggest safety net for them if the life plan doesn't work out.

Define serious income and actual work.

at the end of the day as much as people want to deny it, we're all selfish, greedy and just looking out for ourselves and others in our close peer group.

That's a very bleak view of humanity.

Eric Cartman

Brian? wrote: »

What a load of nonsense.



Define serious income and actual work.



That's a very bleak view of humanity.

serious income : enough to afford your mortgage, run a car , contribute to a pension and put food on the table , pay for kids etc.. at the moment above 40k a year.

actual work : (earned income) money derived from your continued labour , not trust funds, inheritance, lottery wins, personal injury claims, song royalties etc.

A bleak view of the world, not really. People reap what they sow and some people have done amazing things by working hard and achieving great economic results for themselves and their families. Those people are optimistic about achieving and go out and earn what they deserve. The other side of the coin are the people who sit around in negativity and proclaim "the government owes me this, ill never afford a house unless gov'ment gives free, give me more shekels I don't have a job and its all your fault"

I think a crisis of confidence is the biggest issue. You'd be hard pushed to find a socialist with an optimistic vision of their or the nations future.

Arbiter of Good Taste

Brian? wrote: »

What a load of nonsense.

I would put more stead in the words of Churchill than some randomers on the Internet

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

strandroad

I definitely went more SocDem, starting from a free market worship youth. At some stage, especially when you're starting a family, you realise that your personal money can only take you so far and so properly functioning healthcare, transport, education, policing etc. are to be appreciated if you don't want to end up in a compound fearing the great unwashed but prefer a balanced society where people are not being made desperate and things are run smoothly.

Eric Cartman

mhge wrote: »

I definitely went more SocDem, starting from a free market worship youth. At some stage, especially when you're starting a family, you realise that your personal money can only take you so far and so properly functioning healthcare, transport, education, policing etc. are to be appreciated if you don't want to end up in a compound fearing the great unwashed but prefer a balanced society where people are not being made desperate and things are run smoothly.

Just to ask , would you say you are optimistic that you could reach an income level where you could pay for everything privately , or do you feel overwhelmed by the cost and think that the state providing for you is the only way you could really afford to have your family ?

strandroad

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Just to ask , would you say you are optimistic that you could reach an income level where you could pay for everything privately , or do you feel overwhelmed by the cost and think that the state providing for you is the only way you could really afford to have your family ?

We go private on a lot of things right now so it's more about the idea of not having to live by the "dog eat dog" mantra, or "there but for the grace of God go I".
I do not support lifelong welfare or indeed cash payments in place of state services i.e. the way Ireland is run now. But a well serviced state would be worth paying my taxes for.

MRnotlob606

I am a 20 year old student, but used to like socialism.But realised how inefficient socialism can be.It isn't a great alternative.I used to think capitalism is wrong, but it's the best system of rewarding hard work and individual merit. Socialism often leads to freeloading and welfare abuse. I think we have too many socialists in opposition in this country with no cogent or rational policies. I feel very agrevated by people like Paul Murphy who life to surf off the the publics disapproval of the government in order to bolster his own popularity. He is a fraud, and a wolf in sheep's clothing,as are all other far left lunatics who thinks that socialism is the ultimate panacea to societal ills.

strandroad

Eric Cartman wrote: »

that phrase : "If a man is not a socialist by the time he is 20, he has no heart. If he is not a conservative by the time he is 40, he has no brain." comes to mind.

I think its quite common for people in their teens and twenties to get grand ideas of socialism and buy into the karl marx idea of the world.

as people get older and get a career and start making real money they tend to move a lot more right of center. I don't think anyone goes back , but again people are interested in what suits themselves. It would be rather hard to find somebody on a serious income derived from actual work that would believe in marxism , and at the same time its completely understandable for people in their teens and twenties, unsure of the future believing in a system that gives them the most for 'free' and sets up the biggest safety net for them if the life plan doesn't work out.

at the end of the day as much as people want to deny it, we're all selfish, greedy and just looking out for ourselves and others in our close peer group.

Libertarianism vs marxism is a bit extreme as a range to be honest, I don't really know anyone who would wholeheartedly subscribe to any of them at any age.

But I can take a stab at explaining my free market to SocDem evolution on a timescale... When you're in college you think you're fantastic and - important - invincible. Hence the "I'll get my share by talent and hard work and everyone else is a sponger" attitude and leanings towards libertarianism. You will sort yourself out after all, and you kind of do for a while.

Then life happens and you see things happening to people close or know to you. Illness, cancer, someone has triplets, bad divorce, someone is in a car accident and they'll never be able to do their old job again (or drive)... And you realise that should something like this happen to you or your family, you'll feel much better if the country was run like Germany or Sweden and not United States or South Africa.

You also realise how much time it takes to sort everything out privately. It's not even the money but the time, the effort and the complexity. We've had health insurance since forever and it's still not clear what we're entitled to (try debugging it on the phone with your provider and you'll be pulling your hair out). Try figuring it out when it's time to renew and they change something just slightly. Try figuring it out when you're sick, or your family member is. And that's just one little thing in the barrage of policies and choices one needs to sort out to function. Childcare, schools, transport...

So yeah you start seeing that there is plenty to be said for a range of well run state services when you don't need to chase all these things but they simply happen and you get your quality of life back.

Brian?

Arbiter of Good Taste wrote: »

I would put more stead in the words of Churchill than some randomers on the Internet

I don't care who said it, saying anyone who's over 40 and not conservative doesn't have a brain is idiocy.

Brian?

Eric Cartman wrote: »

serious income : enough to afford your mortgage, run a car , contribute to a pension and put food on the table , pay for kids etc.. at the moment above 40k a year.

40k a year is a hilariously low bar. But ok, I know several socialists who earn more than that.

actual work : (earned income) money derived from your continued labour , not trust funds, inheritance, lottery wins, personal injury claims, song royalties etc.

Again, your frame of reference leaves a fairly deep well of people.

A bleak view of the world, not really. People reap what they sow and some people have done amazing things by working hard and achieving great economic results for themselves and their families. Those people are optimistic about achieving and go out and earn what they deserve. The other side of the coin are the people who sit around in negativity and proclaim "the government owes me this, ill never afford a house unless gov'ment gives free, give me more shekels I don't have a job and its all your fault"

I think a crisis of confidence is the biggest issue. You'd be hard pushed to find a socialist with an optimistic vision of their or the nations future.

As I said, a very bleak view of humanity. Again this view of socialists you have is completely removed from my experience.

gobsh!te

Brian? wrote: »

A libertarian is a socialist, in the original sense of the word.

If you're a capitalist "libertarian", you're just an extreme capitalist.

So to answer you're question, I'm a libertarian socialist.

A libertarian socialist is an oxymoron.

Thanks for hijacking the thread.



I am talking about a real Libertarian as in the below definition:

Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association, and the primacy of individual judgment.

gobsh!te

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This is my experience too and I find myself in debates a lot with people who are basically socialists.

If what you are saying and what I believe is mostly true then what is the best way in your opinion to change their ideas on Socialism?

I don't recall someone else changing my mind so I guess it is about exposing oneself to stuff one can read in their own time on their own.

What I am thinking is that a lot of the debate maybe wasted time or do you think you can bring people around to your way of thinking?

johnnyskeleton

gobsh!te wrote: »

A libertarian socialist is an oxymoron....
I am talking about a real Libertarian as in the below definition:

Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association, and the primacy of individual judgment.

None of these things can be absolutes. In an industrial revolution type society, socialism can bring more freedom to more people who would otherwise be born into poverty with limited routes out. By contrast, in our social democratic model socialism reduces economic freedom.

You are only ever a socialist/liberatarian conservative/liberal etc by reference to the current government and how you would like to see it changed.

I dont consider myself either a socialist or a libertarian and i find the premise to be something of a false dichotomy. I find that a big problem in political discussion is people dont look at each issue neutrally but instead say "I am a socialist therefore I am in favour of more spending" or vice versa.

gobsh!te

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

You are only ever a socialist/liberatarian conservative/liberal etc by reference to the current government and how you would like to see it changed.

You are not a libertarian? Then I guess this is not directed towards you.

I disagree with you on your above statement.

I would never go back to being a Catholic depending on the Pope for example.

Brian?

gobsh!te wrote: »

A libertarian socialist is an oxymoron.

Thanks for hijacking the thread.



I am talking about a real Libertarian as in the below definition:

Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association, and the primacy of individual judgment.

If you even did cursory research you'd find that the term libertarian was first coined by early socialists, dedicated to the ideas of the enlightenment. A simple Wikipedia search would do the job.

What you believe to be the "real" definition of a libertarian is a relatively new construct.

Brian?

Here you go:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

gobsh!te

Brian? wrote: »

If you even did cursory research you'd find that the term libertarian was first coined by early socialists, dedicated to the ideas of the enlightenment. A simple Wikipedia search would do the job.

What you believe to be the "real" definition of a libertarian is a relatively new construct.

Let's just agree to disagree. Everyone else bar yourself seems to understand what I am getting at.

Brian?

gobsh!te wrote: »

Let's just agree to disagree. Everyone else bar yourself seems to understand what I am getting at.

Let's agree to disagree on what exactly?

gobsh!te

Brian? wrote: »

Let's agree to disagree on what exactly?

We can agree that you have hijacked the thread and disagree on what I mean by Libertarianism

As I said, everyone else gets what I meant

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Brian?

gobsh!te wrote: »

We can agree that you have hijacked the thread and disagree on what I mean by Libertarianism

As I said, everyone else gets what I meant

I know exactly what you mean by it. There's no disagreement there. I was trying to explain that your definition isn't inclusive enough.

If you want the thread to be a capitalist libertarian love in, just say so. There's a discussion to be had about the definition of libertarianism though.

jank

How about being a classic liberal and not a modern SJW type liberal?

Akrasia

One of the biggest challenges facing the 21st century economy is the consolidation of wealth and how to ensure an efficient flow of capital. As technology allows the automation of more tasks, we're going to see more wealth accumulating in the hands of the owners of capital and less redistribution to the workforce.

There is a serious question about what will happen to the labour force that is no longer required due to advanced technology automating tasks.

Technology can lead to an era of abundance, but not if the profits are squandered by a tiny percentage of the population while the majority are left redundant.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vivek-wadhwa/yes-a-computer-will-take-your-job_b_7743914.html

gobsh!te

So minus the left wing people this thread has confirmed that anyone who is a Libertarian(as per the definition I provided) has never gone back to being left wing?

Brian?

gobsh!te wrote: »

So minus the left wing people this thread has confirmed that anyone who is a Libertarian(as per the definition I provided) has never gone back to being left wing?

So it's left wing v libertarian now, instead of socialist v libertarian?

Why is it so hard to admit there are socialist libertarians and capitalist libertarians? its my firm belief that the term libertarian was only used by extreme capitalists in the beginning to draw people in as the term "anarcho-capitalist" isn't very palatable.

gobsh!te

Brian? wrote: »

So it's left wing v libertarian now, instead of socialist v libertarian?

Why is it so hard to admit there are socialist libertarians and capitalist libertarians? its my firm belief that the term libertarian was only used by extreme capitalists in the beginning to draw people in as the term "anarcho-capitalist" isn't very palatable.

As I said it is an oxy moron as per the definition that most people in this thread understood....

Let's just close this thread someone....You have done your job in hijacking....I got my answer...nothing else to discuss here really

Lockstep

I've taken a much more libertarian view on social issues as I got older. Economically, I'm still fairly left of centre.

Personally, I see around as many teenage libertarians as I do teenage socialists. Adhering to a dogmatic ideology gets a lot harder as you get older and realise the world is much less black and white than you might have previously though.

strelok

Brian? wrote: »

its my firm belief that the term libertarian was only used by extreme capitalists in the beginning to draw people in as the term "anarcho-capitalist" isn't very palatable.

the term libertarian was adopted in america as the term liberal was coopted by the american left and just wasn't working any more for anyone with more of a 'small government' outlook.

but by all means carry on with your weird conspiracy theory of the evil anarcho capitalists trying to sucker the feeble minded into their nefarious trap.

Brian?

strelok wrote: »

the term libertarian was adopted in america as the term liberal was coopted by the american left and just wasn't working any more for anyone with more of a 'small government' outlook.

but by all means carry on with your weird conspiracy theory of the evil anarcho capitalists trying to sucker the feeble minded into their nefarious trap.

It's not a conspiracy theory. I'm not saying there's a secret plan behind it all. There's a quite public plan, I don't happen to agree with.

Brian?

gobsh!te wrote: »

As I said it is an oxy moron as per the definition that most people in this thread understood....

Let's just close this thread someone....You have done your job in hijacking....I got my answer...nothing else to discuss here really

I was actually hoping to have a decent discussion about it, not hijack anything. If opposing views are not welcome maybe you should find a libertarian forum to post the question on.

gobsh!te

Brian? wrote: »

I was actually hoping to have a decent discussion about it, not hijack anything. If opposing views are not welcome maybe you should find a libertarian forum to post the question on.

Mission accomplished Well done

johnnyskeleton

gobsh!te wrote: »

You are not a libertarian? Then I guess this is not directed towards you.

I disagree with you on your above statement.

I would never go back to being a Catholic depending on the Pope for example.

Being a "Catholic" refers to a specific organisation or sect of Christianity. The descriptor "catholic" is very different, meaning universal.

If there were only two political parties in Ireland, the socialist and libertarian parties, then your point may have some substance. But they are both generic descriptors of general positions, and more specifically positions relatove to the status quo. A socialist wants more redistribution amongst society. In a perfectly equal society one would expect very few people to be called socialists - they would just be normal.

More importantly, libertarian is a general descriptor of a more extreme form of liberalism.

By the way, when I was in college the term libertarian was virtually unheard of, at least in its modern form, and that wasnt terribly long ago. So even if you could demonstrate that no one has gone from being a self described libertarian to a socialist, this would not prove the superiority of libertarianism; it would at best show how relatively new the term is and how ill defined its core principles are. Sure who doesnt like freedom and liberty?

Akrasia

gobsh!te wrote: »

As I said it is an oxy moron as per the definition that most people in this thread understood....

Let's just close this thread someone....You have done your job in hijacking....I got my answer...nothing else to discuss here really

Actually anarcho capitalism or right wing libertarianism is the oxymoron

It's not true freedom when it's one dollar one vote

Akrasia

strelok wrote: »

the term libertarian was adopted in america as the term liberal was coopted by the american left and just wasn't working any more for anyone with more of a 'small government' outlook.

but by all means carry on with your weird conspiracy theory of the evil anarcho capitalists trying to sucker the feeble minded into their nefarious trap.

It's not a conspiracy, it's just a natural evolution of language. Libertarianism now means right wing laissez faire capitalism. It barely even refers to socially liberal attitudes anymore because it has been corrupted by the influence the conservative religious right in America. Ron Paul for example was the darling of the American libertarian movement, but he opposed gay rights and abortion and secularism

ancapailldorcha

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

By the way, when I was in college the term libertarian was virtually unheard of, at least in its modern form, and that wasnt terribly long ago. So even if you could demonstrate that no one has gone from being a self described libertarian to a socialist, this would not prove the superiority of libertarianism; it would at best show how relatively new the term is and how ill defined its core principles are. Sure who doesnt like freedom and liberty?

Same here. I've never heard it in real life myself. I first became aware of the term via the sitcom Parks and Recreation. I watched the Guardian journalist Owen Jones, who identifies as a Marxist all but accuse Douglas Carswell, UKIP's sole MP of being a libertarian:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pa-e_kzg2s

ancapailldorcha

Lockstep wrote: »

I've taken a much more libertarian view on social issues as I got older. Economically, I'm still fairly left of centre.

Personally, I see around as many teenage libertarians as I do teenage socialists. Adhering to a dogmatic ideology gets a lot harder as you get older and realise the world is much less black and white than you might have previously though.

I try to keep an open mind about things and concepts like socialism and libertarianism are too pure and simple to be enacted in their purest forms IMO.

coolemon

Approaching 30 now and for the last 4-5 years have defined my political views as a libertarian socialist and anarchist. For the preceding 8-9 years before that I was a libertarian Marxist. I am still mainly a libertarian Marxist in that my perspective is most informed by Marxist theories such as historical materialism. However I think due to the predominance of authoritarian 'Marxism' (Leninism and all of its derivatives) a certain counterbalance and shift needs to occur. For this I think the promotion of anarchist forms of socialism to be a good starting point.

To a certain extent as you get older you become more pragmatic and less inquisitive, but not necessarily more objective. Without a cohesive and consistent ideological framework I think it would be very easy to drift in a more conservative direction. I have a good grasp of the theoretical underpinnings of my ideological perspective, and without it I would have no marker point and my views could easily drift over time.

In the 15-16 years involved in activism I have seen people come and go. Some of the most enthusiastic Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Anarchists disappear off the face of the earth and into the workforce. I often find however that these peoples knowledge of the subject at hand to be rather superficial and is often a transient identity politics they gravitate towards in their college years.

More broadly I think socialists are of all ages. Paul Murphy is the youngest of the socialist TD's in the Dail, and he is hardly some spot faced college student. You will find that most socialists in organisations in Ireland are not college students either. In fact in many places on earth the Communist Party's are made up of old men radicalised at another historical juncture.

So I think the stereotype is wrong and most often repeated by people who most probably know very few socialists in real life.

coolemon

gobsh!te wrote: »

I am talking about a real Libertarian as in the below definition:

Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association, and the primacy of individual judgment.

You must have never heard of Anarchism then.

PopePalpatine

gobsh!te wrote: »

A libertarian socialist is an oxymoron.

Thanks for hijacking the thread.



I am talking about a real Libertarian as in the below definition:

Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association, and the primacy of individual judgment.

Good luck trying to form a trade union in a libertarian society, you'd see how quickly your "freedom" doesn't apply in that case.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Eric Cartman

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Good luck trying to form a trade union in a libertarian society, you'd see how quickly your "freedom" doesn't apply in that case.

you could form one, just nobody would listen to them. They would be as irrelevant as they are now, only with the last shred of power they have over the public service removed.

PopePalpatine

Eric Cartman wrote: »

you could form one, just nobody would listen to them. They would be as irrelevant as they are now, only with the last shred of power they have over the public service removed.

Oh, they would be listened to...by a Pinochet-wannabe's secret police.

Eric Cartman

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Oh, they would be listened to...by a Pinochet-wannabe's secret police.

I see you managed to wade through the hundreds of socialist dictators and murderers to find the one dictator who had free market ideals. Not saying he was in any way a good individual but with a 30,000 death toll under his regime he is by far one of the most benign dictators by comparison. He was also a US installation which doesn't help.

a libertarian society doesn't need enforcement and government would not be large enough to even fund a 'secret police' body as you so describe.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Absolutely. His economic advisors were Friedmanite economists fresh from the Chicago School though. Isn't Milton Friedman someone you often recommend on the libertarian reading list?

Brian?

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I see you managed to wade through the hundreds of socialist dictators and murderers to find the one dictator who had free market ideals. Not saying he was in any way a good individual but with a 30,000 death toll under his regime he is by far one of the most benign dictators by comparison. He was also a US installation which doesn't help.

a libertarian society doesn't need enforcement and government would not be large enough to even fund a 'secret police' body as you so describe.

Suharto?

Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and their ilk were as much socialist as Pinochet was libertarian. Their actions were an anathema to socialism, which is an inherently democratic philosophy. These people were megalomaniacs pure and simple, right or left.

ancapailldorcha

Brian? wrote: »

Absolutely. His economic advisors were Friedmanite economists fresh from the Chicago School though. Isn't Milton Friedman someone you often recommend on the libertarian reading list?

It took quite a bit of lobbying along with a financial crash to persuade him to attempt a free market solution to Chile's economic problem.