How can "libertarian socialism" exist?

I do not understand it. Socialism is forcing people to produce for the public good, is it not? As far as I understand it, people are not allowed to freely trade and produce to benefit themselves, but are forced to work for the betterment of everyone else. So what exactly is libertarian about this?

Is my understanding of socialism wrong?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=R7qT-C-0ajI
reddit.com/r/communism101/comments/7alje8/comment/dpb8n3e?st=JAH7NHCO&sh=3b8c308f
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>Is my understanding of socialism wrong?
yes.

The entire political compass system is fucked and has no basis in reality. I honestly have no idea why people even use it.

freedoms for society but not for the conomy

I find it crazy just how much libertarians have forgotten that civil liberties has been the focus of libertarianism.

Op, a left libertarian society would be leftist economically with little restriction on personal freedom or political freedom.

Then please explain how, how do you get people to produce for the public good, without forcing them too?

It’s basically anarchism. It’s the opposite of authoritarian socialism such as the USSR. Anarchism advocates that as long as the state exists, the people are or will be oppressed. In the workplace, there would be no bosses and each person gets paid or compensated based on thhe amount of work put in. There are some worker cooperatives that even have the workers rotating jobs.

The way I think about it, is that libertarian-socialism is collectivism on the local level. Like say, a town where the factory is collectively owned by the citizens of the town. But state or federal governments taking the towns money to fund other collectives/settlements. With anarchists not believing in any overlord government existing at all.

youtube.com/watch?v=R7qT-C-0ajI

>So, what is the incentive to work in a society without currency?

1. Necessity (did someone pay you to wash your dishes? No? Yet you still did it anyway)

2. Passion (already exists as motivation to do work in capitalism)

3. Curiosity (already exists as motivation to do work in capitalism)

4. Cultural reasons/Being trendy (already exists as motivation to do work in capitalism)

5. Self-actualization/Cure to boredom (already exists as motivation to do work in capitalism)

And many others I'm sure

Credit: reddit.com/r/communism101/comments/7alje8/comment/dpb8n3e?st=JAH7NHCO&sh=3b8c308f

you see, many anarchists thinkers were socialists/communists or, according to that compass 'left libertarians'
I will give you 3 examples of the most famous ones: Piotr Kropotkin, Mikhail Bakunin and Errico Malatesta

>But state or federal governments taking the towns money to fund other collectives/settlements.

*but WITHOUT the state or federal governments taking the towns money to fund other collectives/settlements without the collectives consent' - I meant to say.

Except perhaps with a minimal state or national tax, in the same way regular libertarians may believe in some taxes too. Roads n' shit.

I would wash my own dishes. Wouldn't want to wash anyone else's.

>each person gets paid or compensated based on thhe amount of work put in

And who exactly determines this? Sounds like it requires some higher authority.

Democratically between the people who work there.

The point is necessity. People will create, invent, innovate, and build out of necessity AND to make their lives easier.

"Libertarian" in libertarian socialism means anti-authoritarian. In theory socialism is supposed to be inherently anti-authoritarian at least in the long run - egalitarianism and authoritarianism are inherently contradictory - however in practice socialist movements have used authoritarian methods to achieve their ends. The vanguard party is supposed to lead and educate the workers for their own good at first (however as we know there never seems to be any end to this and communist parties end up being de facto extremely authoritarian). Libertarian socialism supposedly would skip this phase, as far as I understand.

Now you might wonder how would you prevent capitalism without limiting freedom, i.e. without resorting to authoritarianism. To some extent in any society, including a libertarian socialist one, there will always be restrictions on individual freedom because many freedoms contradict each other. But a "free market capitalist" society would be no different. Enforcing property rights ultimately requires authoritarianism. Some fatass capitalist owning 99% everything and effectively being able to force everyone to work for him (because the options are either to work for him or starve) is definitely an authoritarian tyrant, and remind you that a state apparatus or something similar kind of violent enforcer ("Private Defense Agencies" as anacho-capitalists would call them) is required for him to do this. There is nothing natural or non-authoritarian about this power, as property rights are ultimately subjective constructs enforced by society. It's an extreme cartoonish example but applies to a smaller extent in real world capitalism. In a Libertarian socialist society there would likewise be some kind of enforced of communally owned property but this would arguably be less authoritarian than the enforcement of highly unequal ownership.

An just to be clear I'm not a libertarian socialist - I think markets are generally speaking very good from an utilitarian standpoint and creating prosperity for all. But I think socialists are right in that there's nothing inherently libertarian about capitalism and private property rights and that "private" entities like corporations can be oppressive as well.

Agreed. I think an anarcho-syndicalist system with markets could work really well.

>people will produce to be trendy
>communist economics

>/r/communism
mfw

>Socialism is forcing people to produce for the public good, is it not?
Fuck no. Sieze the means of production

Anarchism is opposed to all hierarchy. To them, both the state and capitalism (due to hierarchy/exploitation) are authoritarian.

But washing someone else's dishes doesn't make my life any easier, it makes their life easier. Unless I'm trading my services as a dish washer for some of his goods or services, but at that point we just have a barter economy. We might as well add in some sort of medium like money to simplify the whole process. But if we have money, then obviously capital can be accumulated and we're in capitalism.

No, your understanding of anarchism is wrong.

Anarchism doesn't mean opposition to rules, it means opposition to hierarchy. Left anarchism doesn't work because anarchy doesn't work, but there is nothing contradictory about it. You can be forced to do things in an anarchist system by the collective so long as it doesn't create any social or economic hierarchy.

Anarcho-capitalism is contradictory, however. It inherently creates hierarchy, as capitalism does.

>ultimate freedom!
>oh, but you can't start a business, or buy things, or sell you labour, or...
Left 'libertarians' have got to be the dumbest cunts on the planet.
A contradiction.

>literally citing reddit
The absolute fucking STATE of commietards.
Is that the board that banned catgirls?

Ancap isn't against hierarchy, numbnuts, just against monopoly of state. Basically, all it wants to freedom of secession.

>Anarcho-capitalism is contradictory, however. It inherently creates hierarchy, as capitalism does.
No, it refers to no hierarchy among capitalist entities. The state is, according to anarcho-capitalists, nothing more than an organization which has monopolized violence. It uses this monopoly to create an artificial hierarchy of capitalist interests by limiting competition through coercion. By removing the state and the monopoly on violence, and by instituting the NAP as a guiding principle for society, you remove coercion and thus the main pillar upon which the artificial hierarchy between interests rests and create a "flat" society where businesses and individuals can compete more or less equally. In theory.

Your implying from the way I read your post, that Libertarianism is only confined to the American model. There is American "Libertarianism" then there is original Libertarianism from Europe.