New Labours next leader?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Louis, Goverments took massive stakes in the banks. The net result was the exiting shareholders lost c. 90% of their money - it's over 80% owned by the government and dividends have been stopped. IMO the governments did exactly what they should do - they bought at the bottom of the market, propped up the banks and charged for services that the banks had to accept. It's one of the few things Labour has done well (compare to selling gold at a market low)

The government can soon sell their share for a profit. That's ignoring the cost of providing a safety net, and interest on lending.

You make it sound that the banks were given free money to go on as before.

The only ones that truly gained were the senior employees who made vast profits in the good times are merely great profits now.

I don't disagree with most of the bailouts.

I do think the tax money that was used for it (rather, the money that has been borrowed for it) should be collected where it has been used: banks and their shareholders. Rather than collecting it from the poor, by maintaining tax levels at the same level while dismantling the welfare state. That amounts to a regressive tax system, to stealing from the poor (rather, the honest tax-paying midlle class) to give it to rich crooks.

[al Roumi]

Well I'm fine with charity itself. But if I want to hand out my hard-earned money, I'd rather give the money myself as charity than being forced to do so through taxes used for social engineering.

I see. The uncharitable (ha) could accuse you of wishing to either make smaller donations to preserve the status quo of your interests (i.e. have some charity my good man. ah -now that you are flush again good man, perhaps you can pay me your debts?), or that you'd rather carry out your own social engineering in accordance to a peicemeal, privately organised personal agenda.

[rory_20_uk]

I don't disagree with most of the bailouts.

I do think the tax money that was used for it (rather, the money that has been borrowed for it) should be collected where it has been used: banks and their shareholders. Rather than collecting it from the poor, by maintaining tax levels at the same level while dismantling the welfare state. That amounts to a regressive tax system, to stealing from the poor (rather, the honest tax-paying midlle class) to give it to rich crooks.

Shareholders lost all their money, or as I say over 80% and no dividends. Bad people saving for retirement or having private pensions - they deserved to loose it all. Public sector workers are of course not affected.

Sadly the costs are merely passed on in charges / reduced interest in bank accounts. I don't have any solutions to this.

[Beskar]

Not this bollocks again.

You don't have to make bets and shout and jump around in the grandstand to be interested in horse racing.

You don't have to buy newspapers or subscribe to Sky in order to be interested/concerned about the quality of the media.

You can't complain when you don't read any news at all, may it be on TV or in Newspaper. (afterall, how would you even know of the quality even if you read none at all?)

Also, you don't have a right to complain about politics if you take no part at all, not even via voting. If you voted and your candidate didn't get in, you can easily say your candidate should have got in, or comment on the candidate you elected is not representing the voters. If you took no active part, then you can't really complain, because if you did, your candidate could have been elected, if all those others just like you, bothered to get off the sofa and vote. You forfieted your obligation rights in not voting, in otherwords, you actively demonstrated you don't give a monkey about the elections or the politics or the governance of the country, thus complaining about it demonstrates hypocrisy as your vote could have been used to change the system or make it better in the first place.

[Beskar]

We already have a Libertarian party, and a Liberal party. However, a Libertarian Socialist party is an oxymoron.

No it isn't.

a fairly contradictory and hopeless ideology in my opinion:

How so?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Of course it isn't. That kind of comment is made by those who really don't understand or cannot grasp the whole idea of ideology, especially the historical strands of the left. Maybe before making such ignorant statements people should try and educate themselves first. Makes certain people look a little foolish.

I'm not talking about ideology, I'm talking about goernment. A Socialist government socialises responsibility, places social functions in the hands of the state and increases governmental responsibility. A Libertarian government individualises responsibility (even social responsibility), places social functions in the hands of the individual and reduces government responsibility.

So the two are incompatable.

HOWEVER, if you are talking about upholding certain "liberties" such as free speecj, freedom of religion, etc. that is a different issue. Such a political philosophy might be possible to construct, but it would likely try to preserve liberties by defining them and legislating for them; at which point they cease to be liberties and become state-granted privilages.

Or, to put it another way, don't call me ignorant, uneducated and foolish instead of responding to my point. Lack of engagement usually comes from reluctance to face one's opponent.

Oh, and I see Rhy, studying history and politics right now I believe, agrees with me.

[Beskar]

Oh, and I see Rhy, studying history and politics right now I believe, agrees with me.

He calls himself a "born again communist" which implies a communist convert, when he clearly isn't.

Also, he is incorrect in his post, Libertarian in practise is the minimised of authority, namely being government authority, which has opinions ranging from minisation or even abolition of the state. However, this is fundamentally flawed, as they leaves you being governed by Walmart, Microsoft and McDonalds, as they have the economical power and influence to control you. Libertarian Socialist on the otherhand has the aims to minimise all aspects of authority, if it is 'government', economics or social.

He also defined Libertarian wrong, it is "Libertarianism is a political theory that advocates the maximization of individual liberty in thought and action", in a Libertarian Socialist environment, you would have greater individual liberty in thought and action than under just a minimised state, as people would be almost equal economically, one can not use his economical might to exploit another person who remove others liberties.

What is also interesting that you (PVC) just commented that a Bill of Rights is the removal of liberties and "repackaged" as state-granted privilages. That is just simply nonsense, as they are actually "state-protected liberties" not "state-granted privilages". Your comment is just pure political rhetoric where you are trying to make a point where it doesn't actually exist.

[Subotan]

So what's the difference between Liberal Socialism and Libertarian Socialism?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Ugh, I wrote a big reply, then the internet decided to close itself.

Anyway, Beskar, I think you are contradicting yourself even in your own post.

Libertarian in practise is the minimised of authority, namely being government authority, which has opinions ranging from minisation or even abolition of the state.

in a Libertarian Socialist environment, you would have greater individual liberty in thought and action than under just a minimised state, as people would be almost equal economically, one can not use his economical might to exploit another person who remove others liberties.

So in the first quote above, you are saying libertarianism promises as minimised state as the means of achieving individual liberty. Then in the second quote, you go on to say that a minimised state will not allow for individual liberty, yet still calling yourself a libertarian!

And that is the fundamental problem with libertarian socialism. Libertarianism is based on the idea that without political authority to oppress people, the economy itselfs allows for economic freedom. Of course, with the socialist belief in the oppression of class structures, some other sort of authority is needed to abolish/reduce the extent of these class divides. In practise, this actor has always been 'big government', although even with your other theoretical ideas such as more grassroots collectives or whatever, you are still ultimately submitting the independence of the individual to power structures. You could even argue this allows more freedom than the capitalistic alternative, but it's still not the libertarian view of individual liberty.

Also, he is incorrect in his post, Libertarian in practise is the minimised of authority, namely being government authority, which has opinions ranging from minisation or even abolition of the state. However, this is fundamentally flawed, as they leaves you being governed by Walmart, Microsoft and McDonalds, as they have the economical power and influence to control you. Libertarian Socialist on the otherhand has the aims to minimise all aspects of authority, if it is 'government', economics or social.

Hmm, you just said what I said about libertarianism was incorrect, then in the first line there, gave the same definition I did! What you then on to do though, in the next sentence, is attack the assumptions that lie behind this idea of libertarianism (that the absence of a powerful state brings economic freedom), which is a whole different matter to disputing over definitions. So are you disagreeing with what I believe libertarianism to mean, or just whether this idea of libertarianism is a realistic way of viewing things?

[Beskar]

So in the first quote above, you are saying libertarianism promises as minimised state as the means of achieving individual liberty. Then in the second quote, you go on to say that a minimised state will not allow for individual liberty, yet still calling yourself a libertarian!

No, that is called "not reading correctly". There is no contradiction. I said "Not just a minimised state" therefore, there is more to be done.

And that is the fundamental problem with libertarian socialism. Libertarianism is based on the idea that without political authority to oppress people, the economy itselfs allows for economic freedom. Of course, with the socialist belief in the oppression of class structures, some other sort of authority is needed to abolish/reduce the extent of these class divides. In practise, this actor has always been 'big government', although even with your other theoretical ideas such as more grassroots collectives or whatever, you are still ultimately submitting the independence of the individual to power structures. You could even argue this allows more freedom than the capitalistic alternative, but it's still not the libertarian view of individual liberty.

No, because you would have more individual liberty then under a free market, so it isn't a contradiction as it opposes hierarchical structures which exist in a free-market environment. Also the term is actually correct, because Libertarian refers to the government, not the economics, which is where the "socialist" part comes from, as it is addressing the economics. You can just read the wikipedia page and it goes into it all in details.

Hmm, you just said what I said about libertarianism was incorrect, then in the first line there, gave the same definition I did! What you then on to do though, in the next sentence, is attack the assumptions that lie behind this idea of libertarianism (that the absence of a powerful state brings economic freedom), which is a whole different matter to disputing over definitions. So are you disagreeing with what I believe libertarianism to mean, or just whether this idea of libertarianism is a realistic way of viewing things?

Libertarian Socialism is the one that provides the most individual liberty in both political, economical and social freedom. The ideas which have economical heirarchy are bad as they trying to replace one evil with another evil, then get rid of the evil altogether.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What is also interesting that you (PVC) just commented that a Bill of Rights is the removal of liberties and "repackaged" as state-granted privilages. That is just simply nonsense, as they are actually "state-protected liberties" not "state-granted privilages". Your comment is just pure political rhetoric where you are trying to make a point where it doesn't actually exist.

There's a famous quote we use in EB's loading screens, from Plutarch irrc. When faced with captivity or death at the hands of Julius Caesar one Gallic Chieften, after the utter political and military subjugation of his people declared, "I am a free man in a free state".

The point?

It is for you to say you are free, not for someone to tell you it is so.

If the state protects some freedoms then, in practicality, it restricts others. So those freedoms you have under a Bill of Rights are those that the state grants, not those you choose for yourself. That makes them privilages granted by the state, not freedoms.

A true freedom can never be legitimately restricted.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Well you are now talking mostly semantics (if not interpretation). For instance you are free to go wherever you want to (that's one of the most basic liberties most western societies seem to uphold). Except of course that you aren't because countless restrictions impede truly free movement:

“Maar doodslaan deed hij niet, want tussen droom en daad
staan wetten in den weg en praktische bezwaren
en ook weemoedigheid, die niemand kan verklaren,
en die des avonds komt, wanneer men slapen gaat”

And the quote you cited probably meant something rather different (“I do not recognize you as my overlord[s]”) anyway.

[Beskar]

If the state protects some freedoms then, in practicality, it restricts others. So those freedoms you have under a Bill of Rights are those that the state grants, not those you choose for yourself. That makes them privilages granted by the state, not freedoms.

Freedom is a double-edged sword. It largely depends on what is freedom, especially, as lets say a state will protect others from not allowing you the freedom to remove anyone elses freedom away from them, In the terms of exploition, slavery, etc.

So unless you want to argue you want to freedom to possess slaves, there isn't anything restrictive about it.

Also, since the people are the state in a modern democracy, there isn't any difference between citizen and state, it would be the respective freedoms and rights the citizens have agreed upon for themselves.

[Rhyfelwyr]

No, that is called "not reading correctly". There is no contradiction. I said "Not just a minimised state" therefore, there is more to be done.

But the libertarian would believe that limiting the state is what brings indiivdual freedom, they see is as the only source of oppression. You admitted as much when you said "Libertarian in practise is the minimised of authority, namely being government authority". The belief that the state is the only source of authority/oppression of the individual is what libertarianism is all about, it is implied in the very definition which you gave above.

However, you then go on to advocate the use of other forms of authority beside the state, which are a result of your socialist belief in the oppressiveness of the free-market economy, and so "just a minimised state" is not sufficient to bring individual liberty. This belief in the need for authority contradicts the whole idea of libertarianism, where the individual is free from any power to constrain them. You need to introduce a new source of authority which is greater than the individual.

No, because you would have more individual liberty then under a free market, so it isn't a contradiction as it opposes hierarchical structures which exist in a free-market environment. Also the term is actually correct, because Libertarian refers to the government, not the economics, which is where the "socialist" part comes from, as it is addressing the economics. You can just read the wikipedia page and it goes into it all in details.

The bolded bit is an assumption for our purposes here. It is because libertarians do not share your beliefs in this respect that they believe minimising the role of the government will bring economic freedom with the free-market. As to whoever is right, that's a whole other debate, but libertarianism is based on certain assumptions about the economy, which are very different from yours.

Also, both libertarianism and socialism are concerned with the relationship of the economy with the state, you can't say the libertarian bit is purely political, and the socialist bit purely economic. From Marxism to socialism to the welfare state, the traditional left has always believed in using the state to regulate the economy.

Libertarian Socialism is the one that provides the most individual liberty in both political, economical and social freedom. The ideas which have economical heirarchy are bad as they trying to replace one evil with another evil, then get rid of the evil altogether.

That's fair enough, I respect the socialist view of things. But just call a spade a spade, a socialist a socialist etc...

While you believe that some form of regulation (state or otherwise) brings more economic freedom, the fact you believe in some form of authority/power which constrains the economic pursuits of the individual clearly differs from the idea of libertarianism, where the average joe should in theory be able to do whatever it takes, all by himself, to make it to the big time.

The libertarian would say that without the government taxing and oppressing people, anybody could become an entrepreneur, and live the whole rags to riches American dream idea. You on the other hand believe that it is impossible/very difficult to espace from poverty, hence regulation is needed to curb the excesses of the free-market, and prevent an economic power (the bourgeoisie) oppressing all those below them.

Now, I think your view is more realistic, but you are admitting that some sort of authority is needed. Saying you are a libertarian socialist, in that you believe that regulation brings more individual freedom than a lack of it, is kind of like calling yourself a pro-government anarchist*, in that you believe political regulations would give you more freedom than you would have in the state of nature. Both the libertarian socialist and the pro-government anarchist would achieve the goal of individual liberty that libertarianism/anarchism desires, but through the means of a completely different ideology.

* a broad term I know, I mean the more individualistic, anarcho-capitalist idea, rather than the left-wing strains

[Beskar]

The bolded bit is an assumption for our purposes here. It is because libertarians do not share your beliefs in this respect that they believe minimising the role of the government will bring economic freedom with the free-market. As to whoever is right, that's a whole other debate, but libertarianism is based on certain assumptions about the economy, which are very different from yours.

Also, both libertarianism and socialism are concerned with the relationship of the economy with the state, you can't say the libertarian bit is purely political, and the socialist bit purely economic. From Marxism to socialism to the welfare state, the traditional left has always believed in using the state to regulate the economy.

There are different strains of Libertarianism, just like there are different strains of anarchism, communism, conservatism, etc. Then there other ideologies which are similar but different such as Anarcho-syndicatism, Isocracy and Autarchism. Some of your comments would fall under such other definitions.

However, I would hate to have hypercapitalist society as defined by Anarcho-capitalism, as their owns goals is a contradictio in terminis as I said earlier, they simply replace one form of authority with another. So we end up with a world ruled by unbridled for-profit greed with no consequence to human life or morality.

[InsaneApache]

Not wanting to de-rail the thread.

To me Libertarianism is about personal freedom, personal responsibility, as small a govenment as is practicable and fewer oppressive laws.

To paraphrase Old Holborn.

I'm not an anarchist, a rabid "right winger", a nationalist or a Marxist. I choose to live my life with as little forced intereference from others as possible. That means I will make the choices that affect my life and I will take the responsibility for those decisions. I am not a victim or a subject. I am a sentient being with the reasoning to know what is best for me. I do not possess the arrogance to impose my beliefs on others nor do I aspire a position of power over others. Just my own life.

[Furunculus]

Not wanting to de-rail the thread.

To me Libertarianism is about personal freedom, personal responsibility, as small a govenment as is practicable and fewer oppressive laws.

To paraphrase Old Holborn.

I'm not an anarchist, a rabid "right winger", a nationalist or a Marxist. I choose to live my life with as little forced intereference from others as possible. That means I will make the choices that affect my life and I will take the responsibility for those decisions. I am not a victim or a subject. I am a sentient being with the reasoning to know what is best for me. I do not possess the arrogance to impose my beliefs on others nor do I aspire a position of power over others. Just my own life.

while all the political philosphy above is very interesting, the deifinition you provide is the one that is actually important as far as the average Brit is concerned, and it should be a serious concern to aspiring labour leaders too.

[InsaneApache]

OMG, it's the one with the brain melting eyes wot won it!

We're Labour's doomed.

[tibilicus]

A victory for Red Ed with the trade unions delivering victory for him. Red Ed has already said he's in favour of higher taxis and the "death tax" so when you knock off, your children can't look forward to the money as the state can claim a significant amount.

Due to the fact D-Milli won both the membership and parliamentary votes, but Ed was handed victory by Unite and co, he is essentially forced into joining the unions during their new winter of discontent this winter. The government aren't going to forget who gave him the victory and neither should the British people. Perhaps we can use this opportunity to confine socialism to the true fringes of British politics for good.

Pretty desperate stuff. Labour rejected the sensible choice and put in place a trade union stooge. Let's just hope the middle-class don't suddenly gain a hunger for left wing policies..

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

OMG, it's the one with the brain melting eyes wot won it!

We're Labour's doomed.

No doubt this will please the Liberals.

[bobbin]

A victory for Red Ed with the trade unions delivering victory for him. Red Ed has already said he's in favour of higher taxis and the "death tax" so when you knock off, your children can't look forward to the money as the state can claim a significant amount.

If by "death tax" you mean Inheritance Tax then we already have it and have had it for over 200 years, it also doesn't apply to the overwelming majority of the population (94%) as they fall below the threshold (currently £325000), I also have no problem with higher taxes as it is preferable to the wrecking of public sevices the current government is doing.

Due to the fact D-Milli won both the membership and parliamentary votes, but Ed was handed victory by Unite and co, he is essentially forced into joining the unions during their new winter of discontent this winter. The government aren't going to forget who gave him the victory and neither should the British people. Perhaps we can use this opportunity to confine socialism to the true fringes of British politics for good.

So whats wrong with union votes? They are still people who vote out of their own free will, which gives them just as much worth as any of the others.

If anything I hope it brings socialism more into mainstream politics, this is what the Labour party is supposed to be for. I don't get why people think socialism is a bad thing, it's no secret that most of the countries rated as having the best quality of life for their citizens have strong traditions of socialist and centre-left politics.

[Beskar]

it's no secret that most of the countries rated as having the best quality of life for their citizens have strong traditions of socialist and centre-left politics.

It is because of American influence and America uses Socialism as a swear word.

[bobbin]

It is because of American influence and America uses Socialism as a swear word.

What? So the reason that countries the like of Norway have such a great quality of life is because of American influence? Me thinks you overestimate the US' reach.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So whats wrong with union votes? They are still people who vote out of their own free will, which gives them just as much worth as any

Most of the unionists are Labour voters, so if you win by the Union vote it is effectively because your supporters are allowed to vote twice.

Ergo Labour is corrupt and Ed won because of a reprehensible voting system.

[Beskar]

What? So the reason that countries the like of Norway have such a great quality of life is because of American influence? Me thinks you overestimate the US' reach.

You completely misread my statement. I was saying people dislike Socialism because of American influence.

[bobbin]

Most of the unionists are Labour voters, so if you win by the Union vote it is effectively because your supporters are allowed to vote twice.

Ergo Labour is corrupt and Ed won because of a reprehensible voting system.

If you want to point out flaws with the voting system I think the more obvious one would be that a MP's vote is worth nearly 800 times that of a affiliate voter, besides David's supporters could do exactly the same thing.

It's no where near a perfect system (the Conservative party's is pretty dire too) but I do believe it represents the choice of the majority of Labour supporters, many of whom have been rather disheartened by the drive towards the right that Blair started.

You completely misread my statement. I was saying people dislike Socialism because of American influence.

Sorry I got confused, I think it was because you quoted the wrong part of my post.

This makes sense with what you were saying.

I don't get why people think socialism is a bad thing

This doesn't.

it's no secret that most of the countries rated as having the best quality of life for their citizens have strong traditions of socialist and centre-left politics.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Don't mind Beskar, he's a bit of a wingnut, in his mind there's no problem that unregulated capitalism can't solve. I try to reason with him but what can you do?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Don't mind Beskar, he's a bit of a wingnut, in his mind there's no problem that unregulated capitalism can't solve. I try to reason with him but what can you do?

It's almost as disturbing as his religious fundamentalism, isn't it?

[tibilicus]

So whats wrong with union votes? They are still people who vote out of their own free will, which gives them just as much worth as any of the others.

If anything I hope it brings socialism more into mainstream politics, this is what the Labour party is supposed to be for. I don't get why people think socialism is a bad thing, it's no secret that most of the countries rated as having the best quality of life for their citizens have strong traditions of socialist and centre-left politics.

I wouldn't have a problem with Union votes if they weren't run by thugs in flat caps. For all this talk of "modernised unions", Charlie Whelan, Unite and co still represent an organisation which wields a disproportionate amount of power and is heavily partisan in nearly all political matters. The unions also seem to have this view that the public services are somehow untouchable and that any forum of cuts (yes, the unions effectively oppose ANY cut in public sector spending) should be met with hostility. Why should the people in the public sector get preferential treatment over those in the private sector just because their pay check comes from the tax payer? If a private business went bust, we wouldn't expect to invest public money in to that business. We can't afford the public sector in its current state (which is regrettable) so why should the British tax payer continuing paying? The unions seem to think we should, that's my problem.

[Brenus]

“If a private business went bust, we wouldn't expect to invest public money in to that business”
Are we living in the same UK than me or are you from a Parallel World? The Banks, all of them Private, were bailed out by Public Money… The Railways in UK are saved every year by Public Money which made them more expensive to run than if they were National…
In fact Businesses expect Public Money to recover from loses but are against taxes when profits and even taxes evade as much as possible. That is their “support the Troops” for you.