Why Isn't Libertarian Socialism More Popular?

There are few genuinely socialist governments in the world. Period. The best we can often hope for is the social-democratic model found in Sweden and Norway. That doesn't mean we should stop endeavouring towards a *more* libertarian socialist model that invests more power in communities rather than in remote, and often very wealthy, cabels of individuals who often end up thinking very alike, partly because they attended the same schools and colleges, but also because they cannot help but be influenced by working and living together whether they're based in Washington D.C., London or Strasbourg.

Capitalism is the antithesis of socialism, not libertarianism.

Libertarian socialism is not anti-government (anarchism may be, but that is only one offshoot of libertarian socialism). It is anti-State and anti-authoritarianism. However, it does support smaller, democratically-organised structures in the provision of services, such as social welfare, education, housing and healthcare.

FWIW, I am not a purist libertarian socialist. At this juncture, I don't yet believe a fully libertarian socialist system is yet workable, but I do believe we should be incrementally moving in that direction, rather than regressing further into authoritarianism (i.e. more laws, more surveillance, more government control/micro-management of our lives). We do at present need a reasonably large State to authorise and fund public education, healthcare and the other essential services I outlined, along with roads and infrastructure, but the point I keep making is that it is a 'necessary evil' rather than something that should be propped up as a innate good. We should not worship the State or expand it any further than it *needs* to be, but it should be as large as is required to provide those services. I don't even have a particular problem with managerial and administrative expansion within the public sector (as many do). They are often needed for the day-to-day running of services, and moreover, they provide stable, decent, middle-income jobs for 'ordinary people', who have accrued *attainable* skills and qualifications through hard work, years of service and through accessible college courses/degrees, rather than privileged elites. It's where more power and resources are concentrated at the *top* of the hierarchy (i.e. Presidents and Prime Ministers, and wealthy senators and congresspeople) where I take issue.

DING DING!

This is the correct answer!

I see the bad and the good in both.

Socialism is good in that most socialist societies provide a safety net that prevents anyone from becoming *really* poor. And I don't care how 'lazy' and 'whiny' an individual is, no one should be living in poverty, especially not within a G8 nation, and especially if they have children and other dependants to provide for.

Where socialism is more problematic, in my experience, is that certain sectors within the public/state system, particularly the civil service, often have a closed-shop, elitist and opaque process for hiring its workforce, whereas in my experience from working in private companies, it's generally easier to get ahead and make promotion/increase one's salary, if one is willing to work hard, whatever school/college one attended, and whatever race, gender and class one belongs to. I've seen rich privately-educated white men get preferential treatment in the public sector, and I've also seen situations, at the lower-end, where women and POC have gotten preferential treatment over white people. This means that if one is a working-class white man, as opposed to a wealthy, privately-educated white man, one is caught in the middle and thus loses out (is it any wonder that working-class white men are one of the demographics most likey to drop out of school early, and one of the demographics most likely to be a small business owner/work in the private sector?)

This isn't an anti-woke/anti-affirmative action rant. I have some sympathy for Affirmative Action, but unless it *also* addresses *class* to a similar degree to the way it addresses other marginalised groups, it stands to reason that working-class white men, who come from poor backgrounds, but necessarily don't benefit from programs targeted specifically at women and/or POC, don't have an avenue for accessing the public sector, which, as I say, is mostly dominated by rich white privately-educated men at its higher echelons.

Look up Libertarian Socialism, as well as the four quadrant political spectrum.

As a Libertarian Socialist, I am as far away on the political spectrum from Stalin as I am from Ayn Rand. Not all socialists are authoritarians, and plenty of right-wingers are.

American Libertarians believe in big business and helping the rich. Less business regulation and consumer protection laws help big business while hurting most Americans. For instance, deregulating The Glass-Steagall Act created the mortgage crisis which lead to millions of Americans in foreclosure.

Fewer government services help the rich who don't need them, anyway. Conservatives want to end Social Security and Medicare. That's not going to hurt Elon Musk.

Technically, the U.S. has plenty of socialism which helps everyone. Socialism examples:
public libraries, public schools, Polio vaccine, food and drug safety agencies, police, firefighters, military, public highways and bridges, street lights, public and national parks, food stamps, the internet, GPS, post office, medicare and medicaid, housing programs, senior citizen centers, public transportation, electricity water and sewer systems, courts, passports, driver license, coast guard, border control, student loans and grants, garbage collection, farm subsidies, EPA, jails/prisons, etc..