less government = socialism?

[zasterguava]

I have been wandering what effect a Libertarian Party (albeit a capitalist/free market advocatory and thus right wing one) could have on socialist advancement in America, despite the apparent contradiction. I'm not familiar with the present US Libertarian Party, but, for sake of argument I'll assume they would not be indebted to private power, not fall foul to the crimes of authoritarian governments, not be akin to the mock-libertarianism of Reagan (merely shifting public control to private power claiming welfare cuts, privatisation of health care etc. is the foremost examples of Liberty whilst being in the pocket of the business elite with no regard for democratic opinion or freedoms) and has a chance at being elected, despite the US being a one-party state dictated to by the business elite- a stretch I know..
... I refer to a right wing capitalist Libertarian government, one that maintains that free markets and capitalism is akin to liberty, because there is no point philosophising over a socialist slanted Libertarian Party being elected.
... by socialist advancement I mean (1) the advancement of voluntary workers' cooperatives, strike committees, labour unions etc. to challenge private power into meeting basic human rights and adequate conditions (2) a growing widespread conscious against private power, and more far out(3) an emergence of worker controlled (collective) means of production ("free workers, freely associating for the benefit of all“) within communities and later on, on a national level through federations, whilst, coinciding with capitalist production. I assume the above to be possible from the following assertions;

- In the absence of authoritarian governments which actively obstruct any socialist (/democratic) advancement that would challenge the business elite (e.g. Thatcher's war against unions and the propaganda and state intervention of every post-war US president against the agrarian threat of democracy), worker organisations would flourish, stemming not from the detrimental manipulative and controlling hands of government, but from (direct) democratic bottom-up organisations of workers, whose influence, free of government restrictions, would prove a powerful force for private power to reckon with, thus securing real change- namely the advancements of workers rights and other demands that are squashed through the business elites' manipulation of government (e.g. The Taft Hartley Laws).

- for the same reasons efforts to achieve worker-owned production (a socialist mode of production) /"voluntary cooperation’s of work freely organized, and in communes federated, by productive associations" in spite of capitalist production would be tried and tested without infiltration and coercion from the state: only attempts of ruin from private power, but, private power alone- without its menacing hands on government to suppress change and progress. (e.g.) Burrowing from the words of James Madison (after the implementation of the constitution);
"the business class are the tools and tyrants of government"
"tools= because they overwhelm it with their powers and combinations"
"tyrants= because they benefit from the governments largess"
...."business classes used government power for their own ends not for the benefit of the population"

- Peoples distrust of government upon its diminishment would be replaced and directed towards private power. As such private power (namely corporations etc.) would be forced, through popular demand and struggle, to integrate/advance some democratic elements or face outcry and rejection from a new conscious amongst a less subjugated populous (free of government), and forced to compete with the spread of free associations of labour: not just the demands of the free-market if you tread that line. (e.g) in the past under authoritarian governments insane amounts of propaganda is pumped out to maintain a subordinate capitalist populous through methods not limited to; anti-federal government propaganda (due to their “defect” of being able to affect unaccountable corporations/tyrannies not due to the romanticized myth propogated ironically by the worse lot of power-mongers) and immediately after ww2; 3rd of textbooks “business propaganda”, movie, church, sports (leagues) industries mobilized by government to coerce and propagate, Wilson’s “Red Scare” to crush any agrarian/socialist thought and similar attempts, and for example, Gingrich’s increase of the Federal budget to feed the pentagon system, prison system etc. whilst public subsidies decreased to feed the business elite whilst starving the public further evident in the present tax system.



Basically, to summarise my disjointed ramblings; could a right-wing capitalist Libertarian government through its advancements of liberty and freedom (providing it maintains less government interference in ALL sectors of life; not just economic) result in major-scale (free/voluntary) socialist progress in America to the extent described above; more power to the labour force, attempts at socialist modes of production and a less subordinate population with concentrated efforts against tyrannical and (previously) unnacountable private power?

[tomdemaine]

Many people on this board have hypothesized that an AC society would include a great deal of small scale socialistic communes which is fine and dandy as long as they don't impose their socialism on others.

[AlexM]

If you believe that socialism is the natural result of the zero aggression principle, then yes, the LP is going to further your goals.

[zasterguava]

[ QUOTE ]
Many people on this board have hypothesized that an AC society would include a great deal of small scale socialistic communes which is fine and dandy as long as they don't impose their socialism on others.

[/ QUOTE ]
As a reaction against capitalism being imposed on people by governments and in ACism unaccountable tyrannies?

Primarily, I am referring to a Libertarian government (not ACim) and socialism on a far grander scale than in "communes" which have been free to exist under the most authoratrian governments.

[AlexM]

Ok, now I'm just confused. From your OP, I thought you supported socialism and a lack of authoritarian government, but this...

[ QUOTE ]
capitalism being imposed on people ... in ACism unaccountable tyrannies

[/ QUOTE ]

makes no sense.

[lehighguy]

He doesn't agree in the zero aggression principle though. Or, rather, he believes that one person having more stuff then another is an act of aggression, and it is ok for the other party to use force to take that stuff (I mean, it is only self defense).

By his definition, everything is an act of aggression, making non aggression a moot point.

[zasterguava]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, now I'm just confused. From your OP, I thought you supported socialism and a lack of authoritarian government, but this...

[ QUOTE ]
capitalism being imposed on people ... in ACism unaccountable tyrannies

[/ QUOTE ]

makes no sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

After WW2 Studies show that the government went on a major propoganda campaign to promote capitalism.

In anarcho-capitalism unaccountable private tyrannies would impose on people. ACism is IMO a completely different doctrinal system to a Libertarian government.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, now I'm just confused. From your OP, I thought you supported socialism and a lack of authoritarian government, but this...

[ QUOTE ]
capitalism being imposed on people ... in ACism unaccountable tyrannies

[/ QUOTE ]

makes no sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

After WW2 Studies show that the government went on a major propoganda campaign to promote capitalism.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they went on a propaganda campaign to promote corporatism. What our government calls "capitalism" is no more capitalism than the German National Socialist German Workers' Party's version of socialism was socialism.

[ QUOTE ]

In anarcho-capitalism unaccountable private tyrannies would impose on people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhm, no. WTF are you talking about? What tyrannies? If you're talking about companies, they would actually be accountable. The only reason they're not accountable now is because the government protects them from accountability.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
In anarcho-capitalism unaccountable private tyrannies would impose on people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, cheesebugers would fall from the sky. Because I said so.

By "unaccountable private tyrannies" I assume you mean "big corporations" right?

Why do big corporations want more government, not less? Shouldnt' they be working to dismantle the beast that is keeping them from imposing upon you?

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
Basically, to summarise my disjointed ramblings; could a right-wing capitalist Libertarian government through its advancements of liberty and freedom (providing it maintains less government interference in ALL sectors of life; not just economic) result in major-scale (free/voluntary) socialist progress in America to the extent described above; more power to the labour force, attempts at socialist modes of production and a less subordinate population with concentrated efforts against tyrannical and (previously) unnacountable private power?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and there are many in the anarcho-libertarian movement who would hope for such a development!