I think it's more constructive to interpret what someone means, rather than with our own definitions that occasionally go against the common vernacular.
That's why pointing out that today's authoritarian dictatorships aren't communism - while correct - is always interpreted as a True Scotsman. They're differentiating "crony" capitalism because they haven't been convinced that capitalism inevitably leads to the rich buying laws. They think we just need the right people in charge.
But the same applies the other way. Libertarians argue that centralizing power (redistribution, workers owning production, etc) in any manner inevitably leads to oppression.
How are redistribution and workers owning production centralization? I mean from a "libertarian perspective".
When I say redistribution, I mean someone taking from one person and distributing what they took to others. In practical terms that means taxes and government programs. That centralizes power to the government to make decisions how redistribution happens and who benefits. Or so is the Libertarian argument.
The workers owning production is a bit more complex. I think most libertarians would point to the like of Soviet Communism where state power organized labor. Again, centralization. But private co-ops and such exist so I don’t think they can mark it across the the board.
libertarians believe wholeheartedly in freedom of association and the right to voluntary exchange. As soon as you start talking forced anything, you've lost us.
I think if a Libertarian considered workers owning production in good faith but using their own terms, they'd see that a bunch of people owning production is more decentralized than one dude owning the whole factory. And then become a left libertarian.
Are you advocating for co-ops or am I missing the point?
I was incorrectly assuming that's what you meant by workers owning production, but I see in your reply to the other post that you also include state power organized labor.
So I guess my point is that a Libertarian would use the meme above with a punchline of "we just say communism" instead of Soviet Communism, when most here would not agree that's the inevitable result of all communism.
Yeah, I get that. That’s actually what I was saying in my first post. A libertarian would see any form of communism as the path to tyranny, much like the meme does toward capitalism.
I’m just asking what form of collectivization best argues against that point? You mentioned left libertarianism.
Libertarians tend to say things like democracy, a well informed populace, and a strong constitution would reduce government growth and therefore abuse (cronyism). How can that same problem of abuse be avoided in a real collective society?
I'm not going to pretend like I have all the answers there. Personally I don't think goverments are helpful; the vanguard state has failed repeatedly. Those weren't "crony" vanguard state. But unions and co-ops have worked out much better. If everybody is voting, then elites would need to coerce everyone instead of just whoever is in charge. One Stalin can't ruin everything.
This can cause its own problems (like voter fatigue), but those can be mitigated in various ways (like with liquid democracy). And if/when it becomes corrupt and your voice goes unheard, then creating or joining a new union is much easier than doing so with a new government.
is always interpreted as a True Scotsman
Only by people who don't understand that NTS is about moving goalposts when a generalization is challenged and think it means "anyone who claims to be part of a group is part of that group".
Capitalism! How fun!!
Progressive liberals like Bernie Sanders aren’t much different and only marginally better, critiquing “crony capitalism” / “neoliberal capitalism” / “uber-capitalism”, without directly challenging capitalism itself.
Political efficacy, in my opinion, is a better strategy than fruitless idealism.
Reformism keeps not working, as evidenced by the last 45 years of ever-worsening neoliberalism, but liberals will keep trying anyway.
Marxists are not idealists; they are materialists, specifically, dialectical materialists.
Revolution doesn't exactly have a good history either. If anything, it's shown to be a significantly worse option. It's a pipe dream to believe that a revolutionary party would relinquish political power after gaining it.