Libertarian Socialism

[AnthArmo]

Primarily out of curiosity, who would, economically, call themselves a Libertarian Socialist

By Libertarian Socialist, I mean a Socialist economic system that works without or independently of the state/no state at all. Were decisions are made directly by workers/the general public.

The alternative I suppose would be Lenin's Soviet Socialism. Were elected workers manage a centrally owned and planned economy for the public good.

I would easily classify myself as a Libertarian Socialist. State Socialism is power far too heavily centralized that allows nutjobs (by which I mean Stalin) to take power and abuse it.

[Das war einmal]

Nope, although it is probably the most attractive form, the capitalist world is too aggressive to allow it to exist.

[fabilius]

Nope, although it is probably the most attractive form, the capitalist world is too aggressive to allow it to exist.

I agree with that to a certain extent. Of course the most utopian thing would be to slowly remove the state after having defeated capitalism.

But this depends. The way capitalists and capitalist society define economic freedom is impossible to give away.

While on the other hand, all social freedoms are in my view positive. Freedom to travel, to have sex and to express one self.

[JimmyJazz]

I support exactly the kind of transitional state that Lenin proposed: armed workers' militias instead of a standing army, direct accountability of the bureaucracy to the people, instant recallablility for all officials at all levels, and workers' control over industry exercised through soviets (workers' councils).

However, I don't support the kind of state he actually created.

I actually do call myself a libertarian socialist to any non-radical, to quickly convey the fact that I favor a less authoritarian state/society than the current militarist-capitalist one. It's redundant and unfortunate, I should just be able to call myself a socialist and convey the same information, but Stalin fucked it up. Thanks Stalin.

[x359594]

I support exactly the kind of transitional state that Lenin proposed: armed workers' militias instead of a standing army, direct accountability of the bureaucracy to the people, instant recallablility for all officials at all levels, and workers' control over industry exercised through soviets (workers' councils).

However, I don't support the kind of state he actually created...

Well said. That describes very precisely the anarcho-syndicalist program.

[JimmyJazz]

Well said. That describes very precisely the anarcho-syndicalist program.

Except that in Lenin's formulation, the state has been captured and is an ally in carrying all of this out.

As far as I'm concerned, syndicalism would be the ideal way to achieve socialism in a stateless society. Unfortunately, no anarchist has ever (to my knowledge) laid out a realistic plan for "smashing the state" in a modern nation. In practice, it usually comes down to black blocing and knifing tires on police cars. And I'm convinced that the only way to "smash" the state is to capture it.

[Poison]

Isn't libertarian socialist just another word for communist?

[x359594]

...no anarchist has ever (to my knowledge) laid out a realistic plan for "smashing the state" in a modern nation. In practice, it usually comes down to black blocing and knifing tires on police cars. And I'm convinced that the only way to "smash" the state is to capture it.

The black blocing and mayhem sometimes occur in demonstrations, but there's the real work being done by people in Cop Watch L.A., Revolutionary Autonomous Communities, the Black Riders Liberation Party and Food Not Bombs.

As for smashing the state, that's the view of one (tiny) school of anarchism. The theorists of anarchist communism and anarcho-syndicalism propose creating institutions that are parallel to the state as happened during the opening phases of the Russian Revolution of October and of the Spanish Revolution of 1936.

Take a look at Rocker's Anarcho-Syndicalism and Berkman's The ABC of Anarchist Communism or Kropotkin's Fields, Factories and Workshops to see how it can be done.

[JimmyJazz]

As for smashing the state, that's the view of one (tiny) school of anarchism.

I actually did not realize that. Said school has quite a foothold on Revleft, though.

I am a big fan of constructive rather than simply destructive methods, such as promoting industrial organization to "form the structure of the new society within the shell of the old." So in that regard, I like anarcho-syndicalism much better than simplistic "smash the state" anarchism.

But ultimately, I see political action as necessary for one simple reason: the capitalist state cannot and does not tolerate any real challenge to its sovereignty.

I am definitely not an expert in the history of the Spanish Civil War, but my guess - based mostly on my knowledge of other episodes in modern history - is that the Republican government would have eventually attacked the anarchists just as readily as Franco's government did, had the Republicans won the war. They would have waited until they were strong enough to do so of course, which might possibly mean until after WWII was over and fascism defeated across Europe, but eventually I think they would have been compelled to "make Spain safe for investment" by eliminating challenges to their sovereignty.

For any cooperative venture to be tolerated by a capitalist government, I think it has to significantly conform to the capitalist mode of production, like the Mondragon Corporation, or Sunkist, do. They both may technically be workers' cooperatives, but in every other way they resemble and perpetuate capitalism: production of goods for sale on a market (not production to meet human need), competition with other firms, etc.

[RedSonRising]

I actually did not realize that. Said school has quite a foothold on Revleft, though.

I am a big fan of constructive rather than simply destructive methods, such as promoting industrial organization to "form the structure of the new society within the shell of the old." So in that regard, I like anarcho-syndicalism much better than simplistic "smash the state" anarchism.

But ultimately, I see political action as necessary for one simple reason: the capitalist state cannot and does not tolerate any real challenge to its sovereignty.

I am definitely not an expert in the history of the Spanish Civil War, but my guess - based mostly on my knowledge of other episodes in modern history - is that the Republican government would have eventually attacked the anarchists just as readily as Franco's government did, had the Republicans won the war. They would have waited until they were strong enough to do so of course, which might possibly mean until after WWII was over and fascism defeated across Europe, but eventually I think they would have been compelled to "make Spain safe for investment" by eliminating challenges to their sovereignty.

For any cooperative venture to be tolerated by a capitalist government, I think it has to significantly conform to the capitalist mode of production, like the Mondragon Corporation, or Sunkist, do. They both may technically be workers' cooperatives, but in every other way they resemble and perpetuate capitalism: production of goods for sale on a market (not production to meet human need), competition with other firms, etc.

I agree with many of these points. In my opinion, the hopes of "producing for use" must apply to commonly needed products and non-commercial (or very basically commercial) goods. The more nationally interested resources, such as oil, should be managed nationally, though easier to handle resources should be municipalized in order to allow local accommodation and prevent overbearing state bureaucratic management to hinder production. Competing cooperatives would be technically following a free market economics model, but the fact that workers' cooperatives are managing these institutions allow for the balance between democratic sovereignty in the workplace, greater diversity in the market for products, and innovation (and I also think consensus and proportional agreements are viable alternatives to majoritarian models). As technology progresses and efficiency in production makes human labor obsolete, all production will basically come under control of technocratic institutions, and later machines will take their place in serving popular interests through coordinated efficiency. This balance and different applications to the economy, as opposed to a single approach to all industries whether it be libertarian or statist in foundation, is in my opinion key to a successful socialist economy on the path towards commnuism.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

It's pretty much just another word for Anarchist Communist. I would call myself either.

[Glenn Beck]

Voted Other because of the weasel-worded false dilemma between "libertarian socialism" (a redundant term if there ever was one) and non-anarchism which is assumed to inevitably lead to the GULAG.

I am in favor of a democratic socialist state held in check by independent but legally authoritative bodies of grassroots and worker's democracy and where all elected officials are subject to instant recall by direct referendum. I don't have any fetish for de-centralization of jurisdiction but rather believe in subsidiary levels of authority that flow from central/general to local/specific.


As for smashing the state, that's the view of one (tiny) school of anarchism. The theorists of anarchist communism and anarcho-syndicalism propose creating institutions that are parallel to the state as happened during the opening phases of the Russian Revolution of October and of the Spanish Revolution of 1936.

Interesting stuff, I'll def. check out the works you suggested

[revolution inaction]

I am definitely not an expert in the history of the Spanish Civil War, but my guess - based mostly on my knowledge of other episodes in modern history - is that the Republican government would have eventually attacked the anarchists just as readily as Franco's government did, had the Republicans won the war. They would have waited until they were strong enough to do so of course, which might possibly mean until after WWII was over and fascism defeated across Europe, but eventually I think they would have been compelled to "make Spain safe for investment" by eliminating challenges to their sovereignty.


They did attack the anarchists, and the POUM, it may be one of the reasons they lost the war with the fascists.
The only reason they where able to do this though is that the CNT didn't take the opportunity to remove the government when they had the chance instead joining it in an attempt to prioritise the fight against fascism and the have a revolution later.

[Pogue]

Yes, I'd describe myself as such. It's an easy catch all, basically.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Except that in Lenin's formulation, the state has been captured and is an ally in carrying all of this out.

As far as I'm concerned, syndicalism would be the ideal way to achieve socialism in a stateless society. Unfortunately, no anarchist has ever (to my knowledge) laid out a realistic plan for "smashing the state" in a modern nation. In practice, it usually comes down to black blocing and knifing tires on police cars. And I'm convinced that the only way to "smash" the state is to capture it.

I suggest that anarchists borrow from Marx and Engels and use the word "commonwealth" to describe the post-bourgeois society. Even they never used the term "workers' state" for a reason: because states are, fundamentally speaking, the primary instruments of minority class rule.

[Das war einmal]

I agree with that to a certain extent. Of course the most utopian thing would be to slowly remove the state after having defeated capitalism.

But this depends. The way capitalists and capitalist society define economic freedom is impossible to give away.

While on the other hand, all social freedoms are in my view positive. Freedom to travel, to have sex and to express one self.


Socialist states didnt took away any freedoms that where there in those countries in the first place. The amount of free speech is different per socialist country, so its foolish to compare them totally. Its like comparing India to the Netherlands which both have a market run economy.

[Das war einmal]

Basically, if it would be possible it could be better than state socialism, but it totally depends on the situation and with the state of mind of the local population. Whats possible in Chiapas will not work in Europe. Atleast not for the moment.

[Mike Morin]

Capitalism is defeating itself as Marx said it would by over-production. It is defeating itself in that it does not recognize a finite world, and it made impossible assumptions about effective demand for its revenue maximization scheme which reached its zenith (our nadir) in the supply-side economics fiasco of the last generation.

All the Obama/Geithner grand larceny will not save the dying, almost dead Capitalist system.

Will there be any pieces left for us to pick up after Capitalism deteriorates to nothing but barbarian piracy?

I lean toward anarcho-syndicalism because I view the objective of the working people and the indigent and the infirm as forming an economic democracy that adheres to the old adage, "by those according to their abilities, for those according to their needs".

But I have serious doubts that we have and will have the skills and abilities and the access to resources to succeed. A big part of the problem is that the Capitalist modes of production are not sustainable, either economically or with respect to natural resources. Therefore, simply taking over the means of production will not nearly be good enough. We must also radically change the way resources are allocated to and within communities, and among and within economic sectors.

Mondragon and Sunkist and others are mutualists trapped within the Capitalist hegemony. Others such as New Harmony (there were others but I can't think of the names specifically), often referred to as utopian experiments, tried to form self-sufficient cooperative communitarian enclaves, but found themselves trapped by Capitalism in a different way; they found that in the evolution of human "civilization" and because of the demands of the dominant "culture" that most people can no longer exist in isolated communities (possible exceptions being encroached upon in the Amazon Rain Forest, perhaps).


Mike Morin
"Peoples Equity Union"

[Das war einmal]

People, this is not mend to offend you, but as I read this post, I find it interesting to see that most of you (including myself) are from a developed country where there is a certain amount of free speech (as in you cant be prosecuted atm for your political opinion) and a freedom to organize (although you probably will be surveyed). The most 'state socialist' regimes and supporters you will find in the 3th world countries. From the USSR to Cuba, all these were underdeveloped countries. As we see nowadays, marxist movements (like Phillipines NPA) or guerillia movements with a marxist origin (like the FARC) are pro state-socialist. I dont think this is a coincedence and therefor backs up the claim that you cant have libertarian socialism because the capitalist regimes will crush this more easily than a socialist state. Thats what I believe and thats why I am an anti-revisionist marxist-leninist who preffers a state, although I do believe that it should be rather decentrallist, if possible and be more like a grassroots movement.

[RebelDog]

I suggest that anarchists borrow from Marx and Engels and use the word "commonwealth" to describe the post-bourgeois society. Even they never used the term "workers' state" for a reason: because states are, fundamentally speaking, the primary instruments of minority class rule.

Have you seen the light?

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'm actually trying to enlighten anarchists here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=1571

If a sufficient number of them know the content of my very own discussion in the Anarchist forum itself and start using that word suggested by Marx and Engels themselves, Marxists in turn will have to reconsider the repeated usage of the term "workers' state."

Besides, I do have a few anarchist-leaning mumblings in my programmatic work ("the repressive instruments for the rule of minority classes").

[robbo203]

If a sufficient number of them know the content of my very own discussion in the Anarchist forum itself and start using that word suggested by Marx and Engels themselves, Marxists in turn will have to reconsider the repeated usage of the term "workers' state."
.


Quite true. It seems to me to be an oxymoron to talk of a "workers state". The only reasonable thing to do upon capturing the state is to get rid of it, to prevent it from being used by the capitalists to hinder the establishment of socialism. The removal of the state and elimination of class society are, in my book, two aspects of the same thing and for that reason are simulutaneous events. You cannot keep one without the other

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

I'm actually trying to enlighten anarchists here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=1571

If a sufficient number of them know the content of my very own discussion in the Anarchist forum itself and start using that word suggested by Marx and Engels themselves, Marxists in turn will have to reconsider the repeated usage of the term "workers' state."

Besides, I do have a few anarchist-leaning mumblings in my programmatic work ("the repressive instruments for the rule of minority classes").

I don't get it. Why don't you think there could be a workers state? Link to the post where you argued this?

[Mike Morin]

Quite true. It seems to me to be an oxymoron to talk of a "workers state". The only reasonable thing to do upon capturing the state is to get rid of it, to prevent it from being used by the capitalists to hinder the establishment of socialism. The removal of the state and elimination of class society are, in my book, two aspects of the same thing and for that reason are simulutaneous events. You cannot keep one without the other

I agree, in theory, that the major reason for capturing the state is to get rid of it, to prevent it from being used to hinder the establishment of socialism.

But consider, in practice, the role of a greatly reduced state (i.e. temporarily keeping the treasury and temporary keeping of safety-net/social welfare programs) in transitioning to a socialist economy with a ad hoc concomitant development of local/inter-community/inter-regional worldwide planning, policy, implementation, and dispute resolution functions involved with the implementation of an economic democracy. Such would comprise a minimalized "government of sorts".

In the ideal, we would need to temporarily keep national treasuries to evolve to a world currency, to eventually evolve to a moneyless socialist economic democracy.

Other than the reality check of ever getting there (moneyless economy), I question the assumption that it presupposes that all work is equal. For example, should someone WHO TAKES GREAT RISK and has busied him/herself in becoming eminently proficient in their work, such as the people who put up downed power lines be considered to have access to the same amount of scarce natural and economic resources as someone like me who does knowledge and communications work? No, I think that utility (wo)man should be compensated more than me.

As long as there are differences in the quality of environments (housing, neighborhoods, and the like) there will be a need to have a method to allocate who gets what. Of course, one of our major goals needs to bring approximate parity/equity to all environments.

However, I wonder that even in the ideal world where everybuddy's environment was of approximate parity/equity in quality, would we need some (much reduced) remunerative reward for risky, good, and hard work?

What would be the motivation to take the risk, to hone one's skills, and to work hard. True, the latter two, especially, could be motivated by love for others and self if one knew that they would have access to all their needs and some wants in an egalitarian environment. But we don't have that, now. Not even close.

Also, there will be work that no one really wants to do, but needs to be done, at least until we can transition to a humane world economy. What will motivate people to do that work?

Will it be necessary and sufficient, while we are evolving towards parity/equity in environments to allocate the differential based solely on need especially considering that we have so much in the way of opulence and ostentatiousness in environments and property holdings in the status quo (which nobuddy needs). Shouldn't re-allocation of real and personal property be re-allocated based on an individual or families need and their contribution to the good of the (World &) community while socially re-allocating resources to a quality of life, parity/equity/humanity paradigm in lieu of a standard of living lifestyle based on exploitative relationships.

If not money, how will such reallocations be managed?

Seems to me, the only alternative would be class warfare and/or a ridiculously over-bearing State.

How will division of labor be managed? There has to be a fit between what people want to do and what needs to be done? An economic democracy is the ideal, but hierarchies (not monetary) will need to evolve or the satisfying and effective educational and placement activities will not occur.

We need to identify and try to get consensus on the ideal, for sure. That's called defining our mission. We need to come up with something succint and believable. Something that the majority of the world will understand and will work towards.

But we need to give even much more thought and reach consensus about how we get from Globe C to World S.

I will be criticized for being a Vanguardist, for sure. But who are we participating in these discussions? Are we the totality of workers on the planet?


Mike Morin
Peoples Equity Union

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ The Marxist definition of "state" doesn't refer to the civil-administrative functions you've mentioned, but to "armed bodies of men": the military, the police, the prison apparatus, etc.


I don't get it. Why don't you think there could be a workers state? Link to the post where you argued this?

That group discussion link you quoted is the link made by Marx and Engels themselves against continuing the instruments of minority-class rule:

"The free people's state is transformed into the free state. Grammatically speaking, a free state is one in which the state is free vis-a-vis its citizens, a state, that is, with a despotic government. All the palaver about the state ought to be dropped, especially after the Commune, which had ceased to be a state in the true sense of the term. The people's state has been flung in our teeth ad nauseam by the anarchists, although Marx's anti-Proudhon piece and after it the Communist Manifesto declare outright that, with the introduction of the socialist order of society, the state will dissolve of itself and disappear. Now, since the state is merely a transitional institution of which use is made in the struggle, in the revolution, to keep down one's enemies by force, it is utter nonsense to speak of a free people's state; so long as the proletariat still makes use of the state, it makes use of it, not for the purpose of freedom, but of keeping down its enemies and, as soon as there can be any question of freedom, the state as such ceases to exist. We would therefore suggest that Gemeinwesen be universally substituted for state; it is a good old German word that can very well do service for the French 'Commune'."

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

^^^ The Marxist definition of "state" doesn't refer to the civil-administrative functions you've mentioned, but to "armed bodies of men": the military, the police, the prison apparatus, etc.



That group discussion link you quoted is the link made by Marx and Engels themselves against continuing the instruments of minority-class rule:

"The free people's state is transformed into the free state. Grammatically speaking, a free state is one in which the state is free vis-a-vis its citizens, a state, that is, with a despotic government. All the palaver about the state ought to be dropped, especially after the Commune, which had ceased to be a state in the true sense of the term. The people's state has been flung in our teeth ad nauseam by the anarchists, although Marx's anti-Proudhon piece and after it the Communist Manifesto declare outright that, with the introduction of the socialist order of society, the state will dissolve of itself and disappear. Now, since the state is merely a transitional institution of which use is made in the struggle, in the revolution, to keep down one's enemies by force, it is utter nonsense to speak of a free people's state; so long as the proletariat still makes use of the state, it makes use of it, not for the purpose of freedom, but of keeping down its enemies and, as soon as there can be any question of freedom, the state as such ceases to exist. We would therefore suggest that Gemeinwesen be universally substituted for state; it is a good old German word that can very well do service for the French 'Commune'."

I mean, why is this incompatible with a workers state?

[Jack]

In practice, it usually comes down to black blocing and knifing tires on police cars.

We've assasinated a hell of alot more heads of state than Marxists.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

We've assasinated a hell of alot more heads of state than Marxists.

How's that working out for ya?


Due in particular to this concept of "propaganda of the deed", the anarchist movement has often been represented as violent and terrorist, beginning with several bombings and assassinations at the end of the 19th century. This image has stuck, anarchists are still today often caricatured as wild-eyed fanatics with a stereotypical fuse-lite bomb.


In American history, the First Red Scare took place in the period 1917–1920, and was marked by a widespread fear of anarchism, as well as the effects of radical political agitation in American society. Fueled by anarchist bombings and spurred on by Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer, it was characterized by illegal search and seizures, unwarranted arrests and detainments, and deportation of hundreds of suspected communists and anarchists.

[ZeroNowhere]

We've assasinated a hell of alot more heads of state than Marxists.
This would only be impressive in chess. Or one of those shoe-throwing games (I still think that somebody should make one for Obama). Otherwise, us Marxists have accomplished just as much as non-Marxists on this field.

[griffjam]

How's that working out for ya?


Secret communist agendas ceased being dangerous, or really any adjective of consequence, years ago. The worst thing communism does these days is make Ivy League students waste a couple of years wearing ugly clothes and attending boring meetings.:laugh:

[Mike Morin]

We've assasinated a hell of alot more heads of state than Marxists.


Who is "We"? I'm sure that you're not talking about Anarchists, but rather the USA CIA and associated miltary and para-military thugs.

Read Perkins', Confessions of an Economic Hit-man .


Mike Morin
Peoples Equity Union

[Mike Morin]

^^^ The Marxist definition of "state" doesn't refer to the civil-administrative functions you've mentioned, but to "armed bodies of men": the military, the police, the prison apparatus, etc.


Ideally, I'd like to eventually abolish the military. Other than the
unpopularity among reactionary Americans, there would be issues of
transition of employment for military and other types of "security"
personnel like police and jailers. Then there is the issue that people go
into these positions because of a lack of other economic opportunities.

Fidel Castro said that we are all policeman, meaning that we should all
follow moral code in all aspects of life and help straighten others out who
are acting immorally or amorally. I have given a lot of thought to the
prison industrial complex and the unfairness of such system. The ideal
would be zero incarceration. I suggest employment transition planning for
the guards and policemen and citizen review boards for prisoners.

I am sure that many have been unfairly prosecuted since, especially for the poor, there are never any or very little in the way of investigations on the behalf of
their defense. Some, if not many, are political prisoners, and the system, the military/police/prison/jail/courts/security industrial complex is not only self perpetuating, they are "growth" industries...




Mike Morin
Peoples Equity Union

[revolution inaction]

Who is "We"? I'm sure that you're not talking about Anarchists, but rather the USA CIA and associated miltary and para-military thugs.


Are you denying that anarchists have assassinated several heads of state and other people in positions of power such as business leaders?

Its not something i would boast about since it is a failed tactic but its defiantly true.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Are you denying that anarchists have assassinated several heads of state and other people in positions of power such as business leaders?

Its not something i would boast about since it is a failed tactic but its defiantly true.

Exactly failed tactic, will never bring about revolution.