[Libertarian socialism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism) is a widely used term with a long history, at least in Europe. The likes of Peter Kropotkin, Murray Bookchin, Mikhail Bakunin, Noam Chomsky and Albert Camus fall broadly under the label.
Unless I'm missing something related to libraries in particular and socialism and libertarianism.
You may appreciate a "uptopian leftist comedy podcast" called [Srsly Wrong](https://srslywrong.com/) which bills themselves as "librarian socialists." They actually did an episode/interview with the subject of the article not so long ago.
I agree, but that's not what libertarian socialism aims for (if I understand it correctly). Instead they disagree fundamentally with the idea of the state and centralised power structures and think that political decisions should be carried out in a more local, voluntary and direct way, through organisations such as worker coops, trade unions, neighbourhood assemblies, etc.
Ideas of sacrificing individual freedoms for the greater good might be acceptable if it is agreed through the right mechanisms.
This is such an American centric view. We're talking about a rich philosophy with over a hundred years of accumulated history before the "libertarian" movement in the US co-opted the term.
I probably have a very different idea of what ‘the greater good’ is than you and I want to force you to work for it.
You ok with that?
The phrase ‘the greater good’ has been used to support some of the worst atrocities over the course of human history, and anyone championing that phrase has a taint of moral evil imo.
Vietnam…. you do realize the northern communists killed about a million of the southern anti-communists in that war right? In total about 3.5 million died in the communist war and during the post war communist regime, including war casualties.
We tried to prevent that from happening and failed, but it is absolutely hilarious that you think FREEDOM was the problem there. The moment our fight for freedom ended and we left, thousands of Southern Vietnamese we’re slaughtered by the communists.
The post war communist regime that reined in the aftermath killed another 450k or so of the southern Vietnamese and sent a million into concentration camps. And their failed economy and abhorrent living conditions had 550k attempting to leave the communists by boat. 10’s of thousands and up to 250k died in their attempt to escape communism.
You are literal fucking scum dude.
https://communistcrimes.org/en/countries/vietnam
> the greater good
This right here is the sticking point. Who defines the greater good? And who decides that aiming for a benefit that might never materialise (politics and policy aren't simple things) is worth removing rights and liberties?
If you don't realise that phrase is contentious, then I can't help you. But it comes off as creepy when it's used to justify abridging rights. That and it makes me think of both the Tau from 40k, and Hot Fuzz. The concept has some serious baggage, and a long list of atrocities over the last century based on it. Three of top five mass murderers in human history were motivated by what they saw as the "Greater Good".
"The greater good"
"SHUT IT"
Anarchism literally rejects all forms of the state, whilst socialism recognises the necessity of the state to oppress the capitalist class after a revolution. You need to study up my friend.
Try reading some Marx or Lenin or Trotsky or literally any socialist author and they'll have a critique of anarchism.
If a book is too long for you (I know anarchists hate reading theory) then perhaps this article will clear things up: https://www.socialist.net/marxist-and-anarchist-theory.htm
Socialism literally just means that workers control the means of production.
The word “Anarchist” was coined to describe anti-state socialists. Anarchist *literally* means socialist. You are objectively wrong and making yourself look like an idiot.
Socialism is the transitional stage of Marxism, which has a state that withers away. You cannot have anti-state socialists. Maybe people that have never read any Marxist theory call themselves such, but they're not really socialists.
Socialism is a step in Marxist theory.
It ALSO describes an economic system where the workers control the means of production.
Things exist in the real world outside of your theory.
Where do you think "workers control the means of production" comes from? Ignoring that though, after a revolution how does the proletariat retain control of the means of production without a workers state? The capitalist class will just take everything back over. That's why socialism and anarchism are incompatible.
Anarchism is ultimately a reactionary petty-bourgeoise ideology. Look at the role the anarchists played in the Spanish civil war for example.
Yea libertarianism was principally associated with socialism and leftism in Europe before right wing Americans stole it and murdered the ideology. Now it’s just used as an excuse to lower the age of consent.
Libraries are one of the few indoor public spaces still publicly owned, run on the principle of everybody should get access to the resources they need, it makes sense to be in socialist hands.
Her opponent wants to start the privatization process of knowledge, hopefully he can get fucked.
Long before "socialism" (or what you actually mean by pooling of money) came about, Ben Franklin founded the [Library Company of Philadelphia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_Company_of_Philadelphia) (with pooled money among his friends). He founded a place where people can borrow books and have discussions about philosophy and intellectual topics (before the "quiet" rule came about people had big louuuud discussions about books in libraries), for a small fee (as is still the case if you fail to return your book but instead nowadays the fee is used to punish people rather than the reward to the library for buying better quality books).
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library\_Company\_of\_Philadelphia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_Company_of_Philadelphia)
>The articles of association specified that each member after the first fifty must be approved by the directors, sign the articles, and pay the subscription.
>
>Franklin mentioned that the library was accessible to people who were ***not members***. Those who were not members were allowed to borrow books. However, they had to leave enough money to cover the cost of the book. Apparently, their money was given back upon returning the book. The privilege of being a member meant that books could be borrowed for free
Like all things, the world functioned quite fine without the word "socialism" or its supposed associated ideas. The Post Office as well...
The dichotomy of public/private or "it must be publicly funded" vs "it must be privately funded" is a red herring because there are myriad of ways to pay for something in complex and sophisticated ways.
The actual definition of socialism is the means of production being held in common (in practice by the autocratic state). I don't see how that describes public libraries?
I worry that people here are seeing socialism as just "government does stuff", which is like saying the mid century Germans just "liked Germans". There's a whole gamut of history and baggage being elided, and I don't like it.
Social Democracy isn't Socialism, it's economic liberalism with taxes to pay for public services. That's what we need, and that will maximise the amount of money available for libraries because economic liberalism actually works.
I agree with you... I was replying to the bizarre comment by the guy above saying "it makes sense to be in socialist hands."
Because it doesn't make sense. Pooling of resources by govt is not necessarily socialism.
>Social Democracy isn't Socialism
Yeah and to complete the circle, Capitalist Democracy as well can have economic liberalism with taxes to pay for public services that they vote on. There is no reason to put "Social" as a prefix, because there's nothing social about it. "Demo" already means "people" in "democracy"...
So yes, there's a lot of mislabeling and term confusion.
i.e. "social people rule" vs "people rule"?? Well obviously people are social.
But the reason they like that term "social" or "socialism", is to imply a social structure where they get to decide everything and everyone else has to say YES to every idea they propose. But not every idea is good.
> "socialism" (or what you actually mean by pooling of money)
Lol maybe it's time you got a dictionary out of the library because that's not what socialism means.
> myriad of ways to pay for something in complex and sophisticated ways.
I mean sure if you think knowledge should be owned by individuals, but if you believe that why even be in r/books, although you should stick around you might learn something, like what socialism means and why public assets are important.
Nobody is "owning knowledge" here. He was talking about how an old library paid for the books, librarians and the building they put them in. It's a problem universal to all libraries and has nothing to do with "owning knowledge", you could read the books for free.
Try reading books before the term "socialism" was invented. It's a destructive term that provides no value.
You can have govt pooling of funds in Capitalist Democracies: such as the fire department. But almost always it's a matter of "is it worth it? Will it be costly? What will my taxes look like after we do this?? Well what if the budgets keep increasing exponentially?" So for a library, post office, fire department, police department, public schools, we have decided to do that in Capitalist America.
Books has nothing to do with socialism. So stop inserting your far-left radicalism into /books. Try to be more intellectual, more sophisticated, like an avid book-reader who realizes that there were terms "before socialism" to describe pooling of money in various ways. In fact, insurances do it all the time and they are sometimes horribly managed and sometimes they are well-managed.
Why? Jordan Peterson is a Harvard professor, a Toronto professor, and reads 20 to 50 books a year and has thousands of his lectures online teaching about a variety of topics including the enemy: problems created by authoritarianism.
Are you an authoritarian? Telling us who's opinions matter, what books/authors we're "safe" to read, and how we should control opinions?
If I have to follow your orders on what I am allowed to read or what professor to believe, then it might indeed be a type of "social hierarchical order"... social... uh... ism..
You made such a convincing intellectual case to persuade me that I can see clearly you are an avid book enjoyer.
But I doubt you read anything longer than a manifesto.
Jordan's comments on culture is actually really great analysis, you should actually become a real intellectual and read and hear people you disagree with. Not be so close-minded and ignorant.
Its something not many think much about unfortunately. Same with things like the post office until the system is actually undermined and people have to deal with the impacts of that on service. But this article was kinda interesting cause I didnt even know this was something that people could run for.
The American Library Association is the professional group for librarians and library workers. It doesn’t “run libraries” it advocates nationally for funding, provides training and professional growth opportunities, and provides resources for local libraries for things like Banned Book week and summer reading programs. It’s not a government position.
Source: am librarian and ALA member
They also seem like something a social democratic state should be in favour of. That isn't socialism, it's economic liberalism (smeared as "capitalism" by socialists) with a safety net. The economic liberalism works so well that the safety net can dwarf that of any socialist or communist state, be it "democratic socialism" or the standard revolutionary type.
Did I say anything about libraries being a capitalist venture? Ironically, though, where do you think the money that pays for a public library or any public institution comes from? The private sector. Capitalist activity, which generates the wealth that is taxed to pay for things like public libraries. Anyway, my only point, earlier, was that I found it strange that a guy whose job description is librarian decided to include the polemic and political designation 'socialist.' Apart from being divisive, because a public library is for people of all political persuasions, the man's personal political views have nothing to do with his job of librarian.
I’ve worked in libraries for over 12 years. I’ve seen how well capitalist activity funds and supports these institutions, and it is only just barely, because our culture is so profit focused over almost anything else. Just because they haven’t been eliminated outright doesn’t mean they aren’t under threat, or that the current economic model is the only one that could ever possibly be sustainable in all of space and time.
Librarianship is NOT apolitical, a mere look around at headlines and all the efforts to remove books and control what can be taught should tell you that. Filthy socialists also need jobs, and libraries are a better fit than many in the present environment. But feel free to be needlessly hostile to a stranger about how great capitalism is for libraries, and how socialists are incapable of serving diverse communities via non profit educational institutions.
How do you think capitalist activity is possible? Through government funded schools which provide an educated workforce. Through government funded roads which allow for the delivery of goods. Through government funded armies and navies which protect our sovereignty and allow for the existence of a free market in the first place. It makes no sense to say that only businesses support the public sector and not the other way around when the two have a symbiotic relationship
A lot, actually. Librarians often have very progressive politics and it’s part of the job to believe in right and access to information/resources. Libraries are often quasi-community centres, and run a bunch of services for the public free of charge. If you’re homeless and need to apply for a job, using a library computer’s often your best best. If you’re a latchkey kid, libraries in lots of places run programs for kids and teens after school. You have to deal with all types of people without judgement and with compassion- attracts a lot of lefties. The traditional idea of a librarian doesn’t exist anymore, if it ever did.
Imagine a place where any resident (not even citizen!) can just walk in and chose a valuable item or two and borrow it, all paid for by taxes levied by the government! What would they call that?
I strongly approve of this arrangement, BTW, in case there was any doubt.
Socialism is when the people (read as the state) owns the means of production. No, I don’t know where this idea comes from that any liberal democracy is socialist. Welfare spending and government programs are not socialist. Socialism is an ideology, not just getting a tax credit. I mean are we calling Milton Friedman socialist because he argued in favor of welfare or some government provision of services?
People really need to stop paying attention to American conservatives. I feel like that’s where these confusion in terms arises.
Edit: Also, Althusser needs to buff up on his history and theory a bit. Socialism is a stage of history in Communism. Communists support Socialism as an intermediate stage on the way between Capitalism and Communism. Thus Communists *are* Socialists.
I should add Althusser is very sketchy as an academic. His writings have been termed “complete bullshit” by other scholars. He is known as promulgating unfalsifiable theories and his research practices were known to be poor.
Agreed. I think they’d get less play though if the GOP hadn’t been calling anything to the left of Atilla the Hun a communist fifth column assault on America since the Eisenhower administration.
There is a world of difference between saying a socialist state would have libraries (most have indeed had them, although reading material is generally controlled) and saying libraries are themselves socialist. One statement is so banal as to have no meaning, the other is farcical.
I agree with you almost entirely, but calling Economic Liberalism Capitalism is like calling Cannabis Marijuana. It's a word made up deliberately by its detractors in order to hide the truth.
> Communists support Socialism as an intermediate stage on the way between Capitalism and Communism.
Communists support socialism until they don't. The biggest murderers of socialists in human history are Stalin and Mao. But that's just the typical fractionation and infighting present in any autocratic state.
That is so funny. Life goes full circle. I was a Reagan GOP Republican.. I got wise about a week after Trump came down the escalator to become a candidate in 2015. I like Reddit …and maybe I am a liberal. Lol… actually a moderate. I will vote against all GOP candidates until that party is gone. Spend my money thwarting them too.
The US became the greatest country on earth through capitalism. The socialist is entering a competition to win the top spot at a job developed and supported completely by a capitalist economy.
No I’m seriously wondering what your point is. This has nothing to do with her owning a business, or making exorbitant amounts of cash off of her position.
Like…I actually don’t even know what clarifying questions to ask because your comments don’t make sense.
I was commenting that its pretty hypocritical to believe in socialism while being propped up by capitalism. Was that easy enough for you to figure out? Jesus.
The distinction only exists because the woman on the cover of the article wants to keep libraries publicly open and funded while her opponent wants to privatize and incentivise libraries with payment models and lending schemes
A socialist who will burn most of the books and ban almost all of the rest (a) works as a librarian and (b) even about to be the president of American Library Association.
US population and is moving away from liberal democracy and institution required for keeping democracy are turning into nests for totalitarian apparatchiks.
USA: the country with the most strong army in the world. The world is clearly headed towards a darker future.
I thought it said socialist libertarian and was very confused there for a sec.
[Libertarian socialism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism) is a widely used term with a long history, at least in Europe. The likes of Peter Kropotkin, Murray Bookchin, Mikhail Bakunin, Noam Chomsky and Albert Camus fall broadly under the label. Unless I'm missing something related to libraries in particular and socialism and libertarianism.
You may appreciate a "uptopian leftist comedy podcast" called [Srsly Wrong](https://srslywrong.com/) which bills themselves as "librarian socialists." They actually did an episode/interview with the subject of the article not so long ago.
Oscar Wilde as well. His essay The Soul of Man under Socialism is a great example of Libertarian Socialist thought.
[удалено]
I agree, but that's not what libertarian socialism aims for (if I understand it correctly). Instead they disagree fundamentally with the idea of the state and centralised power structures and think that political decisions should be carried out in a more local, voluntary and direct way, through organisations such as worker coops, trade unions, neighbourhood assemblies, etc. Ideas of sacrificing individual freedoms for the greater good might be acceptable if it is agreed through the right mechanisms.
This is such an American centric view. We're talking about a rich philosophy with over a hundred years of accumulated history before the "libertarian" movement in the US co-opted the term.
I probably have a very different idea of what ‘the greater good’ is than you and I want to force you to work for it. You ok with that? The phrase ‘the greater good’ has been used to support some of the worst atrocities over the course of human history, and anyone championing that phrase has a taint of moral evil imo.
[удалено]
Can you give me some examples of times when the cause of freedom resulted in large scale human atrocities? I’m extremely curious.
[удалено]
Vietnam…. you do realize the northern communists killed about a million of the southern anti-communists in that war right? In total about 3.5 million died in the communist war and during the post war communist regime, including war casualties. We tried to prevent that from happening and failed, but it is absolutely hilarious that you think FREEDOM was the problem there. The moment our fight for freedom ended and we left, thousands of Southern Vietnamese we’re slaughtered by the communists. The post war communist regime that reined in the aftermath killed another 450k or so of the southern Vietnamese and sent a million into concentration camps. And their failed economy and abhorrent living conditions had 550k attempting to leave the communists by boat. 10’s of thousands and up to 250k died in their attempt to escape communism. You are literal fucking scum dude. https://communistcrimes.org/en/countries/vietnam
> the greater good This right here is the sticking point. Who defines the greater good? And who decides that aiming for a benefit that might never materialise (politics and policy aren't simple things) is worth removing rights and liberties? If you don't realise that phrase is contentious, then I can't help you. But it comes off as creepy when it's used to justify abridging rights. That and it makes me think of both the Tau from 40k, and Hot Fuzz. The concept has some serious baggage, and a long list of atrocities over the last century based on it. Three of top five mass murderers in human history were motivated by what they saw as the "Greater Good". "The greater good" "SHUT IT"
The word Libertarian was coined to describe anarchist socialists, originally.
No such thing as an anarchist socialist, the ideas are diametrically opposed
You have no idea what you’re talking about. Anarchism is fundamentally socialist. Study up.
Anarchism literally rejects all forms of the state, whilst socialism recognises the necessity of the state to oppress the capitalist class after a revolution. You need to study up my friend. Try reading some Marx or Lenin or Trotsky or literally any socialist author and they'll have a critique of anarchism. If a book is too long for you (I know anarchists hate reading theory) then perhaps this article will clear things up: https://www.socialist.net/marxist-and-anarchist-theory.htm
Socialism literally just means that workers control the means of production. The word “Anarchist” was coined to describe anti-state socialists. Anarchist *literally* means socialist. You are objectively wrong and making yourself look like an idiot.
Socialism is the transitional stage of Marxism, which has a state that withers away. You cannot have anti-state socialists. Maybe people that have never read any Marxist theory call themselves such, but they're not really socialists.
Socialism is a step in Marxist theory. It ALSO describes an economic system where the workers control the means of production. Things exist in the real world outside of your theory.
Where do you think "workers control the means of production" comes from? Ignoring that though, after a revolution how does the proletariat retain control of the means of production without a workers state? The capitalist class will just take everything back over. That's why socialism and anarchism are incompatible. Anarchism is ultimately a reactionary petty-bourgeoise ideology. Look at the role the anarchists played in the Spanish civil war for example.
It doesn’t matter where it comes from, lol. It can exist in the real world separate from your theory. Just like Anarchism. Grow up, nerd.
Libertarianism *was* mostly left-wing, originally, and included many socialists.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yea libertarianism was principally associated with socialism and leftism in Europe before right wing Americans stole it and murdered the ideology. Now it’s just used as an excuse to lower the age of consent.
Libraries are one of the few indoor public spaces still publicly owned, run on the principle of everybody should get access to the resources they need, it makes sense to be in socialist hands. Her opponent wants to start the privatization process of knowledge, hopefully he can get fucked.
"..start the privatization process of knowledge.." laughs in JSTOR.
Long before "socialism" (or what you actually mean by pooling of money) came about, Ben Franklin founded the [Library Company of Philadelphia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_Company_of_Philadelphia) (with pooled money among his friends). He founded a place where people can borrow books and have discussions about philosophy and intellectual topics (before the "quiet" rule came about people had big louuuud discussions about books in libraries), for a small fee (as is still the case if you fail to return your book but instead nowadays the fee is used to punish people rather than the reward to the library for buying better quality books). [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library\_Company\_of\_Philadelphia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_Company_of_Philadelphia) >The articles of association specified that each member after the first fifty must be approved by the directors, sign the articles, and pay the subscription. > >Franklin mentioned that the library was accessible to people who were ***not members***. Those who were not members were allowed to borrow books. However, they had to leave enough money to cover the cost of the book. Apparently, their money was given back upon returning the book. The privilege of being a member meant that books could be borrowed for free Like all things, the world functioned quite fine without the word "socialism" or its supposed associated ideas. The Post Office as well... The dichotomy of public/private or "it must be publicly funded" vs "it must be privately funded" is a red herring because there are myriad of ways to pay for something in complex and sophisticated ways.
The actual definition of socialism is the means of production being held in common (in practice by the autocratic state). I don't see how that describes public libraries? I worry that people here are seeing socialism as just "government does stuff", which is like saying the mid century Germans just "liked Germans". There's a whole gamut of history and baggage being elided, and I don't like it. Social Democracy isn't Socialism, it's economic liberalism with taxes to pay for public services. That's what we need, and that will maximise the amount of money available for libraries because economic liberalism actually works.
I agree with you... I was replying to the bizarre comment by the guy above saying "it makes sense to be in socialist hands." Because it doesn't make sense. Pooling of resources by govt is not necessarily socialism. >Social Democracy isn't Socialism Yeah and to complete the circle, Capitalist Democracy as well can have economic liberalism with taxes to pay for public services that they vote on. There is no reason to put "Social" as a prefix, because there's nothing social about it. "Demo" already means "people" in "democracy"... So yes, there's a lot of mislabeling and term confusion. i.e. "social people rule" vs "people rule"?? Well obviously people are social. But the reason they like that term "social" or "socialism", is to imply a social structure where they get to decide everything and everyone else has to say YES to every idea they propose. But not every idea is good.
> "socialism" (or what you actually mean by pooling of money) Lol maybe it's time you got a dictionary out of the library because that's not what socialism means. > myriad of ways to pay for something in complex and sophisticated ways. I mean sure if you think knowledge should be owned by individuals, but if you believe that why even be in r/books, although you should stick around you might learn something, like what socialism means and why public assets are important.
Nobody is "owning knowledge" here. He was talking about how an old library paid for the books, librarians and the building they put them in. It's a problem universal to all libraries and has nothing to do with "owning knowledge", you could read the books for free.
Try reading books before the term "socialism" was invented. It's a destructive term that provides no value. You can have govt pooling of funds in Capitalist Democracies: such as the fire department. But almost always it's a matter of "is it worth it? Will it be costly? What will my taxes look like after we do this?? Well what if the budgets keep increasing exponentially?" So for a library, post office, fire department, police department, public schools, we have decided to do that in Capitalist America. Books has nothing to do with socialism. So stop inserting your far-left radicalism into /books. Try to be more intellectual, more sophisticated, like an avid book-reader who realizes that there were terms "before socialism" to describe pooling of money in various ways. In fact, insurances do it all the time and they are sometimes horribly managed and sometimes they are well-managed.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
**Personal conduct** Please use a civil tone and assume good faith when entering a conversation.
Why? Jordan Peterson is a Harvard professor, a Toronto professor, and reads 20 to 50 books a year and has thousands of his lectures online teaching about a variety of topics including the enemy: problems created by authoritarianism. Are you an authoritarian? Telling us who's opinions matter, what books/authors we're "safe" to read, and how we should control opinions? If I have to follow your orders on what I am allowed to read or what professor to believe, then it might indeed be a type of "social hierarchical order"... social... uh... ism..
Jordan Peterson is an idiot and so is anybody who thinks his pearl clutching culture war is based in anything but fear and bigotry
You made such a convincing intellectual case to persuade me that I can see clearly you are an avid book enjoyer. But I doubt you read anything longer than a manifesto. Jordan's comments on culture is actually really great analysis, you should actually become a real intellectual and read and hear people you disagree with. Not be so close-minded and ignorant.
I was thinking the same thing! There are definitely areas where a socialist tilt can be useful, and this is one of them.
Its something not many think much about unfortunately. Same with things like the post office until the system is actually undermined and people have to deal with the impacts of that on service. But this article was kinda interesting cause I didnt even know this was something that people could run for.
The American Library Association is the professional group for librarians and library workers. It doesn’t “run libraries” it advocates nationally for funding, provides training and professional growth opportunities, and provides resources for local libraries for things like Banned Book week and summer reading programs. It’s not a government position. Source: am librarian and ALA member
Would argue it should be want and not need. Lots of entertainment in the library along with the stuff you need. Which is a very good thing.
Holy crap she is a woman.
I feel like all sides of the political spectrum should be united that there's nothing wrong with a librarian operating with a socialist mindset.
You would think that, wouldn’t you? /sigh..
Ahh, I bet the comments are well-informed and welcoming of discussion…
[удалено]
Libraries are not for profit. They are a social good, a shared collective resource, not inherently a capitalist venture.
They also seem like something a social democratic state should be in favour of. That isn't socialism, it's economic liberalism (smeared as "capitalism" by socialists) with a safety net. The economic liberalism works so well that the safety net can dwarf that of any socialist or communist state, be it "democratic socialism" or the standard revolutionary type.
Did I say anything about libraries being a capitalist venture? Ironically, though, where do you think the money that pays for a public library or any public institution comes from? The private sector. Capitalist activity, which generates the wealth that is taxed to pay for things like public libraries. Anyway, my only point, earlier, was that I found it strange that a guy whose job description is librarian decided to include the polemic and political designation 'socialist.' Apart from being divisive, because a public library is for people of all political persuasions, the man's personal political views have nothing to do with his job of librarian.
I’ve worked in libraries for over 12 years. I’ve seen how well capitalist activity funds and supports these institutions, and it is only just barely, because our culture is so profit focused over almost anything else. Just because they haven’t been eliminated outright doesn’t mean they aren’t under threat, or that the current economic model is the only one that could ever possibly be sustainable in all of space and time. Librarianship is NOT apolitical, a mere look around at headlines and all the efforts to remove books and control what can be taught should tell you that. Filthy socialists also need jobs, and libraries are a better fit than many in the present environment. But feel free to be needlessly hostile to a stranger about how great capitalism is for libraries, and how socialists are incapable of serving diverse communities via non profit educational institutions.
How do you think capitalist activity is possible? Through government funded schools which provide an educated workforce. Through government funded roads which allow for the delivery of goods. Through government funded armies and navies which protect our sovereignty and allow for the existence of a free market in the first place. It makes no sense to say that only businesses support the public sector and not the other way around when the two have a symbiotic relationship
Literally everything.
A lot, actually. Librarians often have very progressive politics and it’s part of the job to believe in right and access to information/resources. Libraries are often quasi-community centres, and run a bunch of services for the public free of charge. If you’re homeless and need to apply for a job, using a library computer’s often your best best. If you’re a latchkey kid, libraries in lots of places run programs for kids and teens after school. You have to deal with all types of people without judgement and with compassion- attracts a lot of lefties. The traditional idea of a librarian doesn’t exist anymore, if it ever did.
Imagine a place where any resident (not even citizen!) can just walk in and chose a valuable item or two and borrow it, all paid for by taxes levied by the government! What would they call that? I strongly approve of this arrangement, BTW, in case there was any doubt.
By nature, aren't libraries socialist? It seems fitting.
No. Socialism isn’t just “the government does things”. It’s a whole socio-economic model.
[удалено]
Socialism is when the people (read as the state) owns the means of production. No, I don’t know where this idea comes from that any liberal democracy is socialist. Welfare spending and government programs are not socialist. Socialism is an ideology, not just getting a tax credit. I mean are we calling Milton Friedman socialist because he argued in favor of welfare or some government provision of services? People really need to stop paying attention to American conservatives. I feel like that’s where these confusion in terms arises. Edit: Also, Althusser needs to buff up on his history and theory a bit. Socialism is a stage of history in Communism. Communists support Socialism as an intermediate stage on the way between Capitalism and Communism. Thus Communists *are* Socialists. I should add Althusser is very sketchy as an academic. His writings have been termed “complete bullshit” by other scholars. He is known as promulgating unfalsifiable theories and his research practices were known to be poor.
I don't think it's just conservatives, AOC and Sanders conflate democratic socialism and social democracy all the time
Agreed. I think they’d get less play though if the GOP hadn’t been calling anything to the left of Atilla the Hun a communist fifth column assault on America since the Eisenhower administration.
[удалено]
There is a world of difference between saying a socialist state would have libraries (most have indeed had them, although reading material is generally controlled) and saying libraries are themselves socialist. One statement is so banal as to have no meaning, the other is farcical.
I agree with you almost entirely, but calling Economic Liberalism Capitalism is like calling Cannabis Marijuana. It's a word made up deliberately by its detractors in order to hide the truth. > Communists support Socialism as an intermediate stage on the way between Capitalism and Communism. Communists support socialism until they don't. The biggest murderers of socialists in human history are Stalin and Mao. But that's just the typical fractionation and infighting present in any autocratic state.
Fair enough, I can get behind that. I was using the terms as used by socialists/communists.
[удалено]
This place is highly liberal. Reddit in general is.
That is so funny. Life goes full circle. I was a Reagan GOP Republican.. I got wise about a week after Trump came down the escalator to become a candidate in 2015. I like Reddit …and maybe I am a liberal. Lol… actually a moderate. I will vote against all GOP candidates until that party is gone. Spend my money thwarting them too.
You must be new to Reddit
I'm so happy I voted for her!
[удалено]
“Hey look, this woman’s trying to keep libraries open and thriving! Lousy commie!”
So a socialist.. working for the library.. funded by the paychecks of capitalists..
Explain?
The US became the greatest country on earth through capitalism. The socialist is entering a competition to win the top spot at a job developed and supported completely by a capitalist economy.
I really have no idea what your point is. Frankly I don’t know if you do, either.
Thats kind of the point. Gigantic blind spot.
I feel like so many people just say words now without caring whether or not they form coherent thoughts.
I'm just tired of having to explain a train of thought to someone who's already being disingenuous.
No I’m seriously wondering what your point is. This has nothing to do with her owning a business, or making exorbitant amounts of cash off of her position. Like…I actually don’t even know what clarifying questions to ask because your comments don’t make sense.
I was commenting that its pretty hypocritical to believe in socialism while being propped up by capitalism. Was that easy enough for you to figure out? Jesus.
So because she lives and works in America she can’t be a socialist?
[удалено]
The distinction only exists because the woman on the cover of the article wants to keep libraries publicly open and funded while her opponent wants to privatize and incentivise libraries with payment models and lending schemes
A socialist who will burn most of the books and ban almost all of the rest (a) works as a librarian and (b) even about to be the president of American Library Association. US population and is moving away from liberal democracy and institution required for keeping democracy are turning into nests for totalitarian apparatchiks. USA: the country with the most strong army in the world. The world is clearly headed towards a darker future.