Well this is interesting....

The Democratic Socialists of America, a traditionally progressive socialist organization founded in 1982, has seen it's membership increase multiply from roughly 5,000 to 25,000 members in the past year following the Bernie Sanders campaign and the subsequent election of Trump. Now, many on the left are looking at the organization as a barometer of sorts for the fate of the larger left. In addition, many are viewing the DSA convention this week in Chicago as a key turning point within the organization. Coming out of the DSA is a new caucus called the Libertarian Socialist Caucus. The LSC promotes a vision of "libertarian socialism" -- a traditional name for anarchism -- that goes beyond the confines of traditional social democratic politics. I asked John Michael Colόn, a member of the group's provisional organizing committee, to talk about its vision and goals.

www.truth-out.org...

Hmmm .... from an organizing member of the Libertarian Left Caucus of the Democratic Socialists of America party....

Speaking for myself here, I believe that the LSC has an especially important role not just in promoting its own ideas, but also in setting an example for others for how to do caucuses right in being internally democratic, in co-existing, cooperating with and having cross-membership with other caucuses. Caucuses can be hubs of organizing activity, hubs of political education, hosting reading groups, etc. There's a dimension of caucuses that are akin to being political parties within the larger DSA.

This is truly fascinating - the national convention of the DSA is going on this weekend.

dsaconvention.org...

It is 'at capacity' - which is a good thing.

Their 4 day schedule but I can't find that they are webcasting the plenaries which would have be informative on this and other subjects ....

perhaps after the fact on y-tube.

On potential sectarian divides in the new Libertarian Socialist Caucus:

I can't say anything on our official position on them. Speaking only for myself, I think that Momentum and Praxis both have some pros and they both have some cons. They are all good organizers and comrades that have done good work. But I personally disagree very strongly with what I would see as the centralizing tendencies in Momentum's positions. But I'm only speaking for myself, and I know for a fact that other LSC members have different opinions.

I will be fascinated to see how they settle into the somewhat anarchistic 'herding cats' Democratic Socialists of American Party. This could be a wonderful - hmmm - organizational move, especially with the huge rise in membership.

Haven't been a card carrying member for a while, may have to go back.....

Thoughts?

originally posted by: FyreByrd

Thoughts?

Yes.

Fascinating and very interesting.

How can a party be Liberterian and socialism at the same time?

I think we have propagandist out there trying to sew seeds of confusion. No one wants to be a republican anymore.

originally posted by: MOMof3
How can a party be Liberterian and socialism at the same time?

I think we have propagandist out there trying to sew seeds of confusion. No one wants to be a republican anymore.

Libertarianism grew out of Classic Anarchism, but was co-opted by 'monied' interests on the right into what we know of today as 'American Libertarianism'.

What the Buchanan Committee discovered was that in 1946, Milton Friedman and his U Chicago cohort George Stigler arranged an under-the-table deal with a Washington lobbying executive to pump out covert propaganda for the national real estate lobby in exchange for a hefty payout, the terms of which were never meant to be released to the public. They also discovered that a lobbying outfit which is today credited by libertarians as the movement’s first think-tank — the Foundation for Economic Education — was itself a big business PR project backed by the largest corporations and lobbying fronts in the country.

www.alternet.org...

I'll see if I can find more on this...

Left 'Libertarianism' tends more to decentralization of power and decision making.

Here is a simplified graphic and one I don't particularly like... but it shows the general point



They both support capitalism - which to my mind is an error. However, I will be interested in what comes out of this particular platform and believe it will be much less capital-positive then the libertarianism of the past ... we'll just have to see.

originally posted by: MOMof3
How can a party be Liberterian and socialism at the same time?

I think we have propagandist out there trying to sew seeds of confusion. No one wants to be a republican anymore.

I've had this conversation before with the same amount of confusion. Apparently a French anarchist guy in the 1800s called himself a libertarian because anarchism was frowned upon.

With that said, libertarianism 100+ years ago does not reflect modern libertarian ideals. Most modern libertarians are free market capitalists (not crony Keynsian types) who want government limited to infrastructure and military.

But yes, there does seem to be a lot of propaganda and purposely planted confusion going on. I personally noticed it around 2012.

Looks like a bunch of commies reorganizing to disrupt the Democratic Republic of the United States. That's what commies do.

Libertarian socialist...hmm
I'll play

hot water heater
liquid gas
open secret
larger half
clearly confused
act naturally
alone together
hell's angels
found missing
deafening silence
seriously funny
jumbo shrimp
tragic comedy
unbiased opinion
virtual reality
definite maybe
original copies
pretty ugly
same difference
plastic glasses
almost exactly
constant variable
even odds
minor crisis
extinct life
genuine imitation
exact estimate
only choice
freezer burn
working holiday

-Chris

a reply to: Christosterone

Lol.

originally posted by: MOMof3
How can a party be Liberterian and socialism at the same time?

I think we have propagandist out there trying to sew seeds of confusion. No one wants to be a republican anymore.

I'm a socialist. Take that for what you will.

That being said, I think you can incorporate socialist ideals, including healthcare, food, housing, etc, with a libertarian philosophy that focuses on individual liberties and responsible government.

There has to be a balance.

You cannot have pure socialism. AKA communism. That's a bad thing. You have to have a system in place that protects the freedoms of people as well. You cannot have pure capitalism. That is a bad thing. You have to have a system in place that prevents monopolies and pure capitalism only serves to create poverty and upward mobilization of wealth and resources.

The problem is our priorities are mixed up at this time. If we get our priorities straight, we could create a balance between the two.

There isn't much individual freedom one can have when one has no personal property to have it with.

a reply to: introvert

Thank you for pointing out the difference between an 'absolute' ideal and actual pragmatic reality. Even though I believe that socialism is watered already, there is much to be gained in this alliance - a lot of overlap and room for a lot more.

In a way, rather like Ralph Nader has talked about, a collaboration between left and right to reach common goals.

I find much of our problems in civil society are caused by blind adherence to an ideology without this understanding that the 'ideal' cannot exist in pure form in physical reality - the ideal or archetype is a 'pole star' or guiding light to be sought and followed but can never be implemented this side of the grave/enlightenment. There always have to be trade offs and compromises in relationship with others and the world at large. Through this process, we uncover new truths and ideals and our ideals grow to encompass more of reality.

I'm an idealist by nature but not a static one... hence my interest in this development.

a reply to: FyreByrd

I hope this is all YouTube, I'd love to see how this goes. We LibSocs are so individualistic I'm having a hard time imagining a consensus on a platform.

And for those of you that think Libertarian Socialism is an oxymoron, this vid was the first comment in the article, conveniently enough. Seven minutes and a pretty good explanation.

i remember how the republicans hijacked the libertarian tea party to gain a bunch of seats in congress in the name of "change" when they were looking bad... so it wouldn't surprise me if democrats copied the same tactic.

a reply to: FyreByrd

We have to be willing to flow as needed. There are very few absolutes when it comes to economics and governments, except that we have to protect the freedoms and well-being of it's people.

Socialism and libertarianism can do this.

Compromise is the problem we face.

a reply to: ketsuko

While there are collectivist socialists, they stick to their own communities and don't make rules for other communities or individuals. LibSocs believe in little to no state so who is to tell you that you can't own personal property? I believe in personal property, minimal cooperative state... for medicine, infrastructure and common defense and worker run economy.

a reply to: introvert

If you think socialism can protect "liberty," your idea of liberty is limited.

a reply to: Kali74

Yes, you want to basically take away my economic freedom, and if I cannot have that, then I don't have my personal liberty protected. I have no liberty in personal property for example because you will need to make massive confiscations in the fruits of my labor in order to provide all those socialized things to everyone else.

And what if the products you provide prove to be sub-standard and I see that if I were allowed to keep the fruits of my labor, that I could provide better for myself?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: introvert

If you think socialism can protect "liberty," your idea of liberty is limited.

Socialism is an economic ideology. Liberty is protected by constitutional principles that limits the reach of others.

We can protect liberty and still achieve goals that benefit the collective economic good.

The constitution actually demands we contribute to the collective good.

Freedom-hating people, meh.
I don't really care what they call themselves.

a reply to: introvert

Read what I wrote above.

I am not free unless I also have economic freedom.

You might as well call yourselves libertines, not libertarians.