Libertarian Socialism

[Hoxhaist]

This is a serious question. Could someone explain libertarian socialism, it seems slightly counter-intuitive, but please explain and enlighten me!

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

It's a rather broad term for leftist philosophies that dislike coercion, state power, hierarchy, social inequality, et cetera.

Once you become an anti-Marxist revolutionary (rejecting state socialism) there is a multitude of revolutionary theories each with its pros and cons. Libertarian Socialism is a broad term for the ideas those theories support, but the individual who calls themselves a "libertarian socialism" feels more strongly towards the notions of libertarian socialism than a particular ideology.

For instance, I could call myself a communist if I feel my views are more aligned with communism, as a whole, then a particular subset. If I thought my views were particularly similar to Marxist, Anarchism, Council Communist, et cetera, I might call myself as a follower of such an ideology.

I see libertarian socialism as an attempt to loosen the definitional requirements required to meet a particular criteria of what it means to be a leftist. For instance, Noam Chomsky has sympathies towards various libertarian socialist subsets, anarcho-syndicalism, for instance, but he doesn't consider himself as following that ideology.

I like a lot of things about Marxism, but I don't meet the criteria to be a Marxist because it's too specific.

[Hoxhaist]

thanks for the clarification!!

[Diagoras]

The term "libertarian" originally meant a socialist that opposed hierarchical methods of social organization in favor of direct democracy, individual liberty, and equality (as opposed to authoritarian, anti-democratic statists that call themselves socialists, like Stalin, Hoxha, Mao, etc.). It only came to mean "free market capitalist who also smokes pot" in the U.S. during the 1970s. So, "libertarian socialism" really is not "counter-intuitive", but is actually redundant (from the libertarian socialist perspective), and only really became widely used in more recent decades to differentiate between historical libertarians (socialists), and members of the Libertarian Party. Organizations like the "Libertarian Book Club", which actually is responsible for publishing and distributing libertarian socialist, anarchist, and syndicalist books and writings, are examples of holdovers from the pre-Libertarian Party age use of the term.

[Vincent P.]

I am socialist, for I believe in common ownership of the means of production and all the stuff, yet I don't accept the concept of "state" or any other form of institutions, which makes me a libertarian. So mostly, we could consider that most anarchist schools of thought here on this forum are libertarian socialist.
Now here is the tricky part: try to explain the concept to the average joe... when they don't argue that they're opposite and irreconciable ideologies (mostly self-described libertarian, that is "capitalist libertarian" which is indeed a contradictory concept) they tell me they're both crazy and utopian ideologies, and in both case they're deaf to any explanation.

[MarxSchmarx]

For better or worse, "libertarian socialism" has become basically a catch all for all those to the left of social democrats who aren't leninists, so run the gamut from Anarchists to Luxembourgists. That's the "libertarian". The "socialism" is that likely primmies are not "libertarian socialists" but utopians and technocrat types probably are.




Once you become an anti-Marxist revolutionary (rejecting state socialism) there is a multitude of revolutionary theories each with its pros and cons. Libertarian Socialism is a broad term for the ideas those theories support, but the individual who calls themselves a "libertarian socialism" feels more strongly towards the notions of libertarian socialism than a particular ideology.


There are some marxists who would also consider themselves to be basically libertarian socialism. Council communists and individuals like Paul Mattick, for instance, never really broke with the Marxian tradition.

Arguably, the Marxian corpus has been most effectively used by leninists, but it is not the only interpretation of marx.

[apathy maybe]

Yeah, it isn't "anti-Marxist" by any stretch. There are a lot of libertarian Marxists out there after all.

It basically means any socialist who wants to use libertarian methods to achieve a libertarian socialist system. It normally means someone who wants some sort of "anarchist" system, but, not always.

It is possible to be a libertarian socialist, and want something that isn't quite anarchist (I would say Leveller's Standard fits this).

For a long article, that looks OK from my brief browse of it, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism also see http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/libsoc.html which interprets the term a lot stricter than I (or Wikipedia) have.

[Devrim]

There are some marxists who would also consider themselves to be basically libertarian socialism. Council communists and individuals like Paul Mattick, for instance, never really broke with the Marxian tradition.

Yeah, it isn't "anti-Marxist" by any stretch. There are a lot of libertarian Marxists out there after all.

I don't think that Paul Mattick described himself as a 'libertarian socialist'. I think really that the whole 'libertarian Marxist' thing is an anarchist thing to 'rehabilitate' Marxists that they like. I don't think many people actually described themselves as 'libertarian Marxist'.

The whole libertarian/authoritarian thing isn't really an issue in Marxists thinking. Personally, I think it is a pretty meaningless dichotomy, and I find it difficult to understand what the actual point is.

Devrim

[Os Cangaceiros]

"Libertarian socialism" covers a range of philosophies. I tend to think that a libertarian socialist is someone who agrees with certain tenents, amoung them collective ownership, voluntary association and anti-authoritarianism (although not "anti-authoritarianism" in the sense that Marxists sometimes use in strawman arguments with anarchists).

[Jack]

For better or worse, "libertarian socialism" has become basically a catch all for all those to the left of social democrats who aren't leninists, so run the gamut from Anarchists to Luxembourgists. That's the "libertarian". The "socialism" is that likely primmies are not "libertarian socialists" but utopians and technocrat types probably are.




There are some marxists who would also consider themselves to be basically libertarian socialism. Council communists and individuals like Paul Mattick, for instance, never really broke with the Marxian tradition.

Arguably, the Marxian corpus has been most effectively used by leninists, but it is not the only interpretation of marx.

I would not consider Luxembourgists to be libertarian socialists, there is a degree of centralization. Council Communists, however, would be libsocs.

[Devrim]

I would not consider Luxembourgists to be libertarian socialists, there is a degree of centralization. Council Communists, however, would be libsocs.

Don't you think it is about how people consider themselves, not how you consider them?

The council communists certainly didn't consider themselves to be libertarian socialists.

Devrim

[Diagoras]

The council communists certainly didn't consider themselves to be libertarian socialists.

Huh, I generally considered them as falling under the libsoc umbrella. I am certainly no council communist expert though. Is there a particular reason why they would not fit there?

[Devrim]

Huh, I generally considered them as falling under the libsoc umbrella. I am certainly no council communist expert though. Is there a particular reason why they would not fit there?

They fit there perfectly in that the whole idea of libertarian socialist/Marxist/communist is basically a label created by anarchists to include Marxists that they like. Although it may have taken up a little resonance, it doesn't have much meaning beyond that.

It is not though a term that they would have used themselves as the whole libertarian/authoritarian contrast doesn't really exist in Marxism, and they argued very strongly against anarchism.

Devrim

[MarxSchmarx]

Well certainly many groups and individuals won't want to be associated with the phrase "libertarian socialism", but I get the sense that the term is understood more by what it's not than what it is.

As apathy maybe notes, in the broader context of the left, the distinguishing feature of these groups is how they eschew a heavy or substantive reliance on the state, proletarian or otherwise, to develop socialism and ultimately communism. Because such a view is shared by diverse tendencies including Marxists, and because their emphasis on "social revolution" is broadly consistent, it's probably fair to group these tendencies under the umbrella of "libertarian socialism".



The whole libertarian/authoritarian thing isn't really an issue in Marxists thinking. Personally, I think it is a pretty meaningless dichotomy, and I find it difficult to understand what the actual point is.

I find this a little confusing: could you clarify? It seems almost axiomatic that there are and will be distinctions - the authoritarian approach is basically "socialism from above" and the libertarian approach basically "socialism from below".

Concretely, the former could lead to state policies, gulags to intern anybody a few bureaucrats suspect as enemies of the state, and using other tools of capitalist government construct socialism. Whilst the libertarian approach won't rely on such institutions to establish socialism, but rather agitation and building alternative institutions under the present system before a full takeover of capitalist state institutions is undertaken.

At least that's how I've always read into it, which is why I'm curious to hear why you came to a different conclusion.

[Devrim]

As apathy maybe notes, in the broader context of the left, the distinguishing feature of these groups is how they eschew a heavy or substantive reliance on the state, proletarian or otherwise,

But the council communists argued for a council state, so that would automatically exclude them.


it's probably fair to group these tendencies under the umbrella of "libertarian socialism".

Only if you want to integrate them into anarchism in a dishonest manner.


I find this a little confusing: could you clarify? It seems almost axiomatic that there are and will be distinctions - the authoritarian approach is basically "socialism from above" and the libertarian approach basically "socialism from below".

Admittedly there are some groups that think that the party seizes power on behalf of the working class, but if you talk to any sort of sophisticated Marxists, they believe that the working class takes power through councils, just as the anarchists do. I have talked to anarchists and Trotskyists, who, if you ignore the semantical differences, have outlined a very similar schema for a post revolutionary state (or non-state if you are ana anarchist).

I think the idea that Marxist believe that they will seize control of the state and institute socialism from above is, outside of certain Stalinist dinosaurs, an anarchist fallacy.

Devrim

[Os Cangaceiros]

Only if you want to integrate them into anarchism in a dishonest manner.

The views of the council communists and the views of the, say, anarcho-syndicalists are not terribly far removed. The biggest difference is probably the language they use to describe their goals, and the labels they apply to themselves. Both see the worker's council as essentially being the embryo of the new society and economy (although, admittedly, I'm not very familiar with the council communist's stance on trade unionism). Both factions are opposed to more "authoritarian" strains of socialism, and both oppose the organizational methods of aforementioned authoritarian socialists, such as the revolutionary vanguard party. So they're not that far apart. (And I'm not saying this as an anarchist trying to "rehabilitate" Marxists I like, either.)

In addition, drawing a clear line between the two groups over the "worker's state" gets tricky, as well, being that the exact definition of the word "state" is nebulous...Marxists and anarchists sometimes define it differently.

[Devrim]

The views of the council communists and the views of the, say, anarcho-syndicalists are not terribly far removed. The biggest difference is probably the language they use to describe their goals, and the labels they apply to themselves. Both see the worker's council as essentially being the embryo of the new society and economy (although, admittedly, I'm not very familiar with the council communist's stance on trade unionism).

Well, first I think that the anarcho-syndicalists see the union as the embryo of the new society, and the council communists saw unions as intrinsically anti-working class, so that is a bit of a difference.

Devrim

[Os Cangaceiros]

Well, first I think that the anarcho-syndicalists see the union as the embryo of the new society, and the council communists saw unions as intrinsically anti-working class, so that is a bit of a difference.

Devrim

That's true. They do have a significant breach insofar as tactics are concerned. I was speaking more of the roles they see for councils post-capitalism, though. Also, many of the insurrectionary anarchists of old (and even some today) saw unions as completely reactionary and essentially charlatans...however, that doesn't change the fact that they were still anarchists.

[Devrim]

That's true. They do have a significant breach insofar as tactics are concerned. I was speaking more of the roles they see for councils post-capitalism, though.
But anarcho-syndicalists believe that the unions, not the councils will run society.

Also, many of the insurrectionary anarchists of old (and even some today) saw unions as completely reactionary and essentially charlatans...however, that doesn't change the fact that they were still anarchists.

And the council communists were neither anarchists or libertarians, but what is your point here.

Maybe, more interesting is what do you think an anarchist is?

Devrim

[Schrödinger's Cat]

A libertarian socialist is a libertarian that doesn't make up theories like "natural rights" to defend slavery.

[MarxSchmarx]

Devrim I think there is little real disagreement here except for semantics.


E.g.:




it's probably fair to group these tendencies under the umbrella of "libertarian socialism". Only if you want to integrate them into anarchism in a dishonest manner.As explosive situation noted, the point really is that there is more in common between, say, platformist anarchists and council communists than would meet the eye. It's not really about "subsuming" one movement under another, it's rather identifying their nefarious similarities.


I have talked to anarchists and Trotskyists, who, if you ignore the semantical differences, have outlined a very similar schema for a post revolutionary state (or non-state if you are ana anarchist)... I think the idea that Marxist believe that they will seize control of the state and institute socialism from above is, outside of certain Stalinist dinosaurs, an anarchist fallacy.Hmmm... But to be fair, anarchists frequently say things like "some marxists, such as council communists and Paul Mattick don't have knee-jerk authoritarian instincts." Sure, anarchists unnecessarily flame the whole Marx/Bakunin thing. But perhaps because of their historical antagonism, I don't see Leninists as doing much better.

Indeed, does the blame really fall entirely on anarchists? Why do Trotskyists feel a need to piss off potential allies, then, by justifying the repression of Makhnov? Or rekindling old, stale debates about whether the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was justified or not? Almost surely we are speaking to different Trotskyites, because the Trotksyists I speak to have made mountaints out of the mole-hills of "sectarian differences". To be sure anarchists often do the same.

Moreover, I have a very authoritarian reading of Lenin, as someone who basically theorized a version of "socialism from above" (and realized it), although he tried to sugar-coat it. So admittedly that biases how I view the Trotskyist project that continues to stick to the Leninist cannon.

[Os Cangaceiros]

But anarcho-syndicalists believe that the unions, not the councils will run society.

In my opinion, judging from the anarcho-syndicalist rhetoric in regards to an emphasis on democracy, the "difference" between a revolutionary syndicalist union and a worker's council wouldn't be terribly great.



And the council communists were neither anarchists or libertarians, but what is your point here.

My point was simply that two groups of people (in my example, insurrectionary anarchists and "mass anarchists") can support different sets of tactics and still belong to the same broad intellectual tradition.


Maybe, more interesting is what do you think an anarchist is?
Someone who is opposed to capitalism and opposed to the use of the state as an organ of proletarian power in pursuit of revolution. The answer is a bit more complicated than that, of course, but I'm too tired to go into it in any detail at the moment.

[Devrim]

A libertarian socialist is a libertarian that doesn't make up theories like "natural rights" to defend slavery.

Actually, the term 'libertarian' has been in use in the workers' movement for much longer than it has been in use in the United States by right-wing free marketers. Libertarian socialists are not in any way 'libertarians'.

Devrim

[Devrim]

As explosive situation noted, the point really is that there is more in common between, say, platformist anarchists and council communists than would meet the eye. It's not really about "subsuming" one movement under another, it's rather identifying their nefarious similarities.

One of the things that I find when looking at anarchism is that it is not very homogeneous even at times within the same organisation, so it is sometimes difficult to talk about the political positions of anarchist organisations.

There are, I know, 'Platformists' who support national liberation, and work in the trade unions. Council communists reject both of these positions. From the council communist perspective here, those anarchists are not similar to themselves at all, but similar to the Trotskyists.

For anarchists the important political divide is the 'libertarian/authoritarian' one. For left communists, and we can include council communists within that here, it isn't. The primary questions are on the nature of war and revolution, and trade unions and so-called 'workers' parties'.


Almost surely we are speaking to different Trotskyites, because the Trotksyists I speak to have made mountaints out of the mole-hills of "sectarian differences".

Ah, maybe you misunderstood me here. I didn't mean speaking to them together. I meant I had heard the same schema explained by them on different occasions. Of course if they were together they would argue.:)


Indeed, does the blame really fall entirely on anarchists? Why do Trotskyists feel a need to piss off potential allies,

I think that you misunderstood this too. I wasn't blaming anarchists for anything here. I was explaining why I didn't understand the 'libertarian/authoritarian' dichotomy.


Why do Trotskyists feel a need to piss off potential allies, then, by justifying the repression of Makhnov? Or rekindling old, stale debates about whether the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was justified or not?

I don't think that they do it to 'piss people off'. That isn't there reasoning. I am not one for having debates with anarchists about exactly when the Soviet Union degenerated*.

I think that the debates about things like Afghanistan are not 'old, and stale' (but then I imagine that you don't remember it whereas I do':blushing:). There are important questions. For us if an organisation supported the Soviet invasion they were directly supporting an imperialist power. If an organisation supported the US backed resistance they were supporting the policy of a different imperialist power. Either of these positions would make an organisation counter-revolutionary.

Revolutionaries do not take sides in bourgeois wars.

Devrim

*That said our organisation in Ankara has a meeting on Kronstadt next week. I might go and see what we have to say on it.

[Devrim]

In my opinion, judging from the anarcho-syndicalist rhetoric in regards to an emphasis on democracy, the "difference" between a revolutionary syndicalist union and a worker's council wouldn't be terribly great.

But in the council communists opinion it would be. They believe that unions can't be revolutionary and tend to become integrated into the state.


Someone who is opposed to capitalism and opposed to the use of the state as an organ of proletarian power in pursuit of revolution. The answer is a bit more complicated than that, of course, but I'm too tired to go into it in any detail at the moment.

That would make our organisation the ICC anarchist. We are not.

Devrim

[Os Cangaceiros]

But in the council communists opinion it would be. They believe that unions can't be revolutionary and tend to become integrated into the state.

Granted, that's what I referred to as the difference of tactics.

I also tend to believe that there is a serious communication breakdown between various factions of the revolutionary left in regards to what different sides think the other schools of socialist thought believe. That's why websites such as this are good. :)


That would make our organisation the ICC anarchist. We are not.

There are other differences, too...many anarchists have a different conception of the state and class analysis. Like I said, though, I don't particularly want to go about defining anarchism in this thread. It's a difficult and complicated task, far more so than defining Marxism is.

You can classify yourself and your organization anyway you like. I'm not here to tell you that you're really an anarchist or a council communist or a Stalinist or whatever. I'm just looking at what different schools of Marxism and anarchism believe as impartially as I can, and wondering if they're really so alien and different from each other. That's all.