american libertarianism vs. libertarian socialism...

I WROTE THIS in response to some conversations i recently had about political theory and practice: socialism does not necessarily imply a centrally controlled economy, although bolshevism and other strands of marxist-leninist ideology may. there are various "left socialist" proposals for decentralized systems of social and economic organization, beyond "free"-market capitalism. furthermore, most socialists insist that the soviet union did not represent the core principles of socialism and, in fact, shared many similarities with state capitalist countries. while addressing some of the problems with state power, american libertarians fail to adequately recognize/justify the risks and repercussions associated with the concentration of private power (i.e. environmental destruction and social domination, coersion and exploitation by corporate tyrannies) and the sociocultural impact of market forces (i.e. the intensification of greed and self-interest through competition and the endless pursuit of happiness through conspicuous consumption). libertarian socialism provides a more comprehensive and realistic explanation of power politics, including the insidious relationship between big business and big government. both state and commercial institutions seek to centralize power and resources by expanding their control over citizens and workers, and ensuring their own personal security and privilege over others. this overriding imperative tends to produce oppressive social relations and vastly inequitable living conditions. the only noticeably difference between the two is that most "democratic" states maintain at least some pretense of accountability and concern for their citizens, whereas transnational corporations have no immediate allegiance to anyone other than their owners and shareholders. many opponents of socialism are simply bounded by their own pessimistic view of human nature. although there are more than enough speculative arguments to be made on both sides, i believe we possess the biological and cultural constitution to build a more free, just and peaceful world. to be sure, there is no natural law preventing humans from creating a more egalitarian and inclusive society. in the end, we can only be certain of our potential through a process of trial and error. one example of an anti-statist model of democratic planning is participatory economics, or PARECON for short. in his book capitalism 3.0, peter barnes offers a less radical proposal for reform that protects the commons while preserving the many strengths of capitalism as we know it. his major innovation is the commons trust—a market-based entity with the power to limit use of scarce commons, charge rent, and pay dividends to everyone. of course, this proposal requires a political system that is truly democratic and responsive to its people//