Hello, this is DinodudeEpic, and this is the Liberal Socialist, a blog that I made to express my political ideas to the public.
So, what does a Liberal Socialist mean? First of all, it doesn't mean the nightmarish society that American conservatives whine about in blogs , nor does it mean Social Liberalism/Social Democracy. Liberal Socialism actually is a political ideology that I admittedly thought of, based of the ideas of Classical Liberalism and Mutualism.
The latter is an anarchist ideology that was founded by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, one of the world's first self-described anarchists. In such a society, workers would control the economy democratically through worker cooperatives, and the state would be destroyed.
The problem with Mutualism is the fact that it not only will not gather much public support, but Proudhon's theories aren't really complete or coherent. And, a stateless society would pretty much be vulnerable to attacks from statist individuals who would recruit armies to gain control. Also, capitalism can easily rearise in such a system.
Classical Liberalism (Market Liberalism) provides such an answer by allowing a state to exist, but limited significantly by constitution and democracy. The only intervention would come to prevent coercion. That isn't to say much about welfare, as long as it is perfectly voluntary.
So, where does socialism come into this? Isn't this just libertarianism?
Capitalism would be abolished due to it's coercion!
But, isn't capitalism the free market?
They are not synonyms, and a more precise way to tell capitalism from socialism is to see the structure of economic organizations.
A Capitalist economy would have corporations, ruled by the wealthiest members, where the dollar is what determines power.
In a socialist economy, the workers, through cooperatives, worker's councils, or unions, would control the economy democratically.
But, wasn't the Soviet Union socialist?
Well, de jure it is, with Soviet meaning worker council in Russian. But de facto, it isn't socialist as the government controls the economy. It is the economic equivalent of bureaucracy.
Semantics aside, the capitalist wage labor arrangement has coercion. How?
When someone agrees to work for someone else for a wage, he/she is signing a social contract with the capitalist that the capitalist will gain the fruits of labor of the worker in return for a part of the value of that labor. Of course, the work required and the wage paid to the worker are changed without his permission, and thus the contract becomes void.
And, that doesn't go into the fact that people tend to become even more poorer then the working class if they don't work for a capitalist. And, the fact that undemocratic institutions are inherently detrimental to the freedom of those without the power.
A great analogy to the abolition of economic plutocracy, and dictatorship in the case of self-proprietorships, is a constitution. The constitution limits the power of government in the political systems. An economic constitution would limit and remove the powers of both government and corporations in the economy. Same concept, different sectors of society.
This is merely the economical aspect of Liberal Socialism. Unlike the socialism of the past, political change is focused upon. After the rise of Liberalism and political representative democracy, ideas about how to continue on political change have pretty went onto a relative standstill, aside from anarchism.
But, we are starting to see that representive democracy needs to be replaced with a even more democratic system.
The Internet and modern transportation has opened up new windows onto a future society of a more direct democratic sort.
A great start would be to make ALL leaders be voted a purely democratic basis and have terms. (Not term limits, as the people should choose how long their leaders would rule.)
This means that the Judicial branch, a relic of appointed government, would be now democratic. The only legislative branch would be democratically elected through the people directly throughout the whole country, no room for gerrymandering nor 'states' having more power then the people.
Another step would be to bring direct democracy to where it would be possible and have the role of elected leaders be limited by the constitution. Have the legislative branch be required to make a certain percentage of the bills be voted on through referendum instead of the normal process, and have a parallel direct democratic legislative branch that the people can start national or federal laws and vote for them democratically.
All local and state governments would be direct democratic in structure, and all other government institutions would be democratic in structure. Welfare will be administrated by the workers who actually provide the welfare directly democratically. The military would be a mix of representive democracy and direct democracy where the strategic decisions are voted direct democratically while tactics are made on the fly by representatives that voted upon by the soldiers. The president would still be commander-in-chief, but along with a representative council that can veto what the soldiers voted on direct democratically. But, the soldiers can vote once again, and if they get a 2/3 vote, the veto would be overturned.
So, Liberal Socialism is an ideology that is for a democratic free market controlled by worker cooperatives and a government that is completely democratic in structure. Sorry if you find this to be too much of a ramble or too lengthy for an introduction, but I just wanted to elaborate on what I think about government and politics.
