libertarian socialism

[anticap]

The nebulousness of this 'tendency' (if one can call it that) irritates me; and yet I'm drawn to it for that same reason, because it seems to be a blanket tendency that encompasses several specific tendencies that I'm generally comfortable with.

I want to hear from self-identified libertarian socialists: How do you define it, and what do you include under that umbrella? I know that many libsocs consider the term synonymous with anarchism, so I'm hoping to hear from those who allow for a broader definition.

According to the Wikipedia article on Libertarian Marxism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Marxism), all the various currents that fall under that heading (e.g., autonomism, council communism, Luxemburgism, situationism) are included, along with anarchism, under the libsoc tent; do those libsocs who allow for a broader definition generally agree with this?

[Steve_j]

I think to explain it as simply as posible, libetarian socialists are revolutionary socialists who oppose hierarchy and centralisation as opposed to "Authoritarian socialists" who promote it for revolutionary purposes.

Edit, So for me a selection or marxist and anarchists tendencies will fall under this umbrella and for this reason a label i would identify with more than as a marxist or an anarchist.

[fa2991]

I'm an anarcho-communist and self identify as a libertarian socialist for two reasons:

1. It sounds less stupid than "anarchist."

2. It also encompasses council communism, etc., and sounds less sectarian, which is good because I'm a big fan of council communism.

[Apoi_Viitor]

I'm an anarcho-communist and self identify as a libertarian socialist for two reasons:

1. It sounds less stupid than "anarchist."

2. It also encompasses council communism, etc., and sounds less sectarian, which is good because I'm a big fan of council communism.

Pretty much this. From my understanding, the terms Anarchist and Libertarian Socialist are pretty much interchangeable (and council communism is just a way to achieve libertarian socialism). Plus, when I'm talking to non-comrades, I like to use the term Libertarian Socialist to describe myself, just because to most people Anarchy=Violence.

[Steve_j]

Pretty much this. From my understanding, the terms Anarchist and Libertarian Socialist are pretty much interchangeable
In the sense of class struggle anarchisms i would agree, although there are all your perversions such as anarcho caps and primitivists ect


Plus, when I'm talking to non-comrades, I like to use the term Libertarian Socialist to describe myself, just because to most people Anarchy=Violence. as Communism=whatever Glenn beck says it is :(

I think it is a very useful term as too most people it isnt loaded with undesiable connotations in the same way Anarchy and Communism is.

[syndicat]

i've always identified primarily as a libertarian socialist. I find it more acceptable than "anarchist" because anarchism has a negative definition that allows a much broader set of ideas including ideas I strongly disagree with, such as hyper-individualism, terrorism, anti-democracy, etc.

Also, the "anarchism vs marxism" thing doesn't make a lot of sense to me in terms of ideas, tho I do understand the reasons for it in terms of how "Marxism" came to to be identified with Bolshevism/Leninism after the Russian revolution. Libertarian socialism, as I understand it, is inconsistent with Bolshevism/Leninism. Also, revolutionary syndicalism is a form of libertarian socialist strategy, probably the primary such strategy historically.

[fa2991]

I also love using "libertarian socialist" because it confuses stupid people who believe that "libertarian" can only mean Ayn Rand, Ron Paul, etc. and that "socialist" can only mean Stalin, etc. The looks on their faces... :laugh:

[StoneFrog]

The thing with some of the Marxist tendencies is as was brought up in another thread is that they don't necessarily fight against hierarchy like anarchists. But more based on the best way to make communism work. And Council Communists and others still look to centralization, just not in the same format as Leninist. The end result is very Libertarian Socialist just not done for libertarian ideas.

I always use to use Libertarian Socialist, but after reading that thread kinda got me thinking, of the actually meaning of libertarian and in terms of Marxism. So i don't use it as much.

[Steve_j]

I also love using "libertarian socialist" because it confuses stupid people who believe that "libertarian" can only mean Ayn Rand, Ron Paul, etc. and that "socialist" can only mean Stalin, etc. The looks on their faces... :laugh:

THIS!!! I love it when americans laugh and tell you that its an oxymoron, and even more, their face when you explain :lol:

Conversation usually ends with the idiot muttering something like "fucking collectivist" and walks away.

[Tablo]

I like libertarian socialist since it doesn't sound like I'm some crazy person when I talk to people. It is quite a broad term though.

[Fietsketting]

I like libertarian socialist since it doesn't sound like I'm some crazy person when I talk to people. It is quite a broad term though.

Agreed, I call myself specificly Anarcho-Syndicalist over Anarchist due to things like primitivism and the individualised forms of anarchism...

[fa2991]

It is quite a broad term though.

That's what I like about it. It puts a bridge between me and, say, Luxemburgists, and I feel less hypocritical when I support socialist statesmen (Allende, Chavez, Castro, etc.) when I go by "libertarian socialist" than when I go by "anarchist."

[NGNM85]

Libertarian Socialism is simply 'anti-state' or 'left-wing' socialism. I would say it's more purely representative of the spirit of socialism. It can be used interchangeably with Anarchism, as it, historically, has been.

[anticap]

I love it when americans laugh and tell you that its an oxymoron

RxPUvQZ3rcQ

[Devrim]

I also love using "libertarian socialist" because it confuses stupid people who believe that "libertarian" can only mean Ayn Rand, Ron Paul, etc.

It is a very America view though. Before I started posting on here, of course I had heard of right-wing libertarianism, but I associated it with a couple of 'think tanks' that advocated very marginalised ideas such as legalising all drugs and child pornography. To me the word 'libertarian' always had the connotation of the anarchism, and particularly the massive syndicalist movements in southern Europe in the first part of the century.

I have no idea who Ron Paul is, know that Ayn Rand wrote a book, which I don't know anything about, and then Glen Beck is a TV host, and that is about it. This whole US libertarian right thing doesn't have much global resonance at all.

Go to Spain and see the connections that people make to the word there.

Devrim

[Os Cangaceiros]

I situation myself within the libsoc tradition, but I prefer "anarchist", largely because I like the history of the word and the tradition behind it.

Or just socialist, because honestly I'm really getting tired of the word "libertarian", primarily for two reasons:

1) In the United States (where I live) it implies something totally different than what it refers to elsewhere;

and

2) I'm really, really sick of so-called "authoritarian socialists" strawmanning the tendency in the classic "revolutions are inherently authoritarian" way that they've been doing for the past 150 years.

[anticap]

This whole US libertarian right thing doesn't have much global resonance at all.

As Chomsky says in the above video, in the US, terms are sometimes redefined to mean their exact opposite. The right wing in this country is absolutely number one in the world when it comes to the appropriation and nullification of opposing language. Even advertising is in on it: practically every product is described as "revolutionary." When your vacuum cleaner is revolutionary, the word has lost all useful meaning.

The term "libertarian" in the political sense was coined as a self-descriptor by Dejacque, a French anarchist-communist. So it went from meaning anti-authoritarian communism in France to meaning hyper-authoritarian capitalism in the US. :lol:

[syndicat]

yeah, i also like using "libertarian socialist" rather than "anarchist" because i'm a socialist and hate allowing the state socialists monopolize the term.

the word "libertarian" was not coined by Dejaque, he borrowed it from an American anarcho-communist who coined it.

[ContrarianLemming]

I call myself a syndicalist alone. you don't have chaos (anarchism), and you done to deal with oxymorans either. (libertarian socialism)

People are almost always just curious.

[Thirsty Crow]

Libertarian Socialism is simply 'anti-state' or 'left-wing' socialism. I would say it's more purely representative of the spirit of socialism. It can be used interchangeably with Anarchism, as it, historically, has been.
Without proper historical and materialist analysis of what the state is, how it functioned and how does it function today, this "definition" is completely false and irrelevant. Moreover, the term "libertarian" should also be justified with regards to a revolutionary program that an organization puts forth. For example, it would make sense to use this term if one were to advocate the decentralization of the power of decision making by means of a proposed network of soviets, functioning on the basis of recallable delegacy.


I call myself a syndicalist alone. you don't have chaos (anarchism), and you done to deal with oxymorans either. (libertarian socialism)

People are almost always just curious.
What is so oxymoronic about the socialization of production and a libertarian atittude towards social domination?

[Zanthorus]

I'm really, really sick of so-called "authoritarian socialists" strawmanning the tendency in the classic "revolutions are inherently authoritarian" way that they've been doing for the past 150 years.

This point was actually conceded by the Friends of Durruti:


...we would assert that revolutions are totalitarian, no matter who says otherwise.

[syndicat]

you're misinterpreting what Friends of Durruti meant:


...we would assert that revolutions are totalitarian, no matter who says otherwise.

They didn't mean "totalitarian" in the post-World War 2 Anglo sense of an authoritarian regime. They meant that the revolution has to go all the way, it can't stop with half measures or it will be defeated. It would be more accurate to translate it as "totalistic".

[Zanthorus]

Hmmm, I should probably think twice before taking quotes out of articles by the International Bolshevik Tendency next time :glare:

[28350]

Libertarian Socialism is simply 'anti-state' or 'left-wing' socialism.
It's not necessarily more "left-wing."

I would say it's more purely representative of the spirit of socialism.
You must like Hegel.


It can be used interchangeably with Anarchism, as it, historically, has been.
I'm sure council communists and autonomists identify as libertarian socialists, then.

[Magón]

Like most of you, I too would fall under the umbrella of being a Libertarian Socialist as well. Living in the US, it is hard to say you're a Libertarian, because it does mean something is rather wrong with you. (:lol:) Though I do find myself proclaiming myself in public or with friends, as an Anarchist or Anarcho-Socalist, than a Libertarian Socialist. But I find in the US, if you just say you are a Lib-Soc, they just give you a look (Similar to this one--->:confused: ) and you can go about your day. (I don't think people understand what Lib-Soc means in the US.)

As for other places I've been to in the world, saying you're a Libertarian Socialist does take on a new meaning. Places like Spain, Venezuela, and even France (though my French was very terrible at the time,) think Lib-Soc is very appealing and exactly the opposite of what the American people thinks of it. (Stupid Glenn Beck.)

[NGNM85]

It's not necessarily more "left-wing."

"..of Socialism" The context is important. On the traditional Left/Right political spectrum (About which there seems to be a great deal of confusion.) Anarchism and Communism are situated at the same spot on the end of the Left hemisphere, comprising the Radical Left. This is one of the major failings of the single-axis spectrum; that it classifies Stalin and Emma Goldman in the same category.


You must like Hegel.

I'm only vaguely aware, I know he was a big influence on Marx but I've never studied his work.


I'm sure council communists and autonomists identify as libertarian socialists, then.

There are some Communists who could also fit into that category, although there don't seem to be too many about...

[Devrim]

you're misinterpreting what Friends of Durruti meant:
...we would assert that revolutions are totalitarian, no matter who says otherwise.

They didn't mean "totalitarian" in the post-World War 2 Anglo sense of an authoritarian regime. They meant that the revolution has to go all the way, it can't stop with half measures or it will be defeated. It would be more accurate to translate it as "totalistic".

I think you are really clutching at straws here. The FoD would have been aware of Engels statement, which this echoes. It is very clear. I am not a Spanish speaker, but I would like to see one who agrees with you on this.

Devrim

[syndicat]

The FoD would have been aware of Engels statement, which this echoes.

Engels didn't say that revolutions are "totalitarian" in the sense this is understood in, say, Cold War America. He said they are "authoritarian" because one part of the population imposes its will be force against the other. I'm sure that FoD would certainly agree with Engels that a revolution does involve the working class imposing its will against the dominating classes with force. Anarchists usually do not say this makes it "authoritarian" because they use "authoritarian" to refer to a hierarchical institutional arrangement of some sort. The revolution is a liberatory, freedom-giving process, for the mass of the population.

[Devrim]

Engels didn't say that revolutions are "totalitarian" in the sense this is understood in, say, Cold War America.

OK fair point. I though you were making a different point. Cold War America isn't my first point of reference.

Devrim

[Os Cangaceiros]

Anarchism is not about the rejection of Authority as an abstract philosophical concept*, but rather about the rejection of what anarchists see as the illegitimate authority that binds them to the material circumstance that dictates their lives. I see that some people still don't understand this, so I'm here to set the record straight.

* Admittedly, anarchists haven't exactly done wonders to the claim that they reject Authority, period:


"Anarchy" comes from the Greek, and it's literal meaning is WITHOUT GOVERNMENT; the condition of people who live without constituted authority, without government.


An anarchist...is someone who denies Authority, and fights against.

[nuisance]

I think you are really clutching at straws here. The FoD would have been aware of Engels statement, which this echoes. It is very clear. I am not a Spanish speaker, but I would like to see one who agrees with you on this.

Devrim
Who really cares what one group of anarchists said, if it does actually mean that they are saying that revolutions are totalitarian, in the way that we understand it, it is hardly a concession made by the anarchist tradition.
Anyway such questions as 'is a revolution a totalitarian move?' is pretty null and void and pretty much amounts to academic wankery.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Yes I understand what you mean, it does encompass a a fair few tendencies. But as a starting point to develop from I think its good, it's a more broad idea and then you can decide afterwards upon a tendency you're drawn to, agree with.

[Svoboda]

The nebulousness of this 'tendency' (if one can call it that) irritates me; and yet I'm drawn to it for that same reason, because it seems to be a blanket tendency that encompasses several specific tendencies that I'm generally comfortable with.

I want to hear from self-identified libertarian socialists: How do you define it, and what do you include under that umbrella? I know that many libsocs consider the term synonymous with anarchism, so I'm hoping to hear from those who allow for a broader definition.

According to the Wikipedia article on Libertarian Marxism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Marxism), all the various currents that fall under that heading (e.g., autonomism, council communism, Luxemburgism, situationism) are included, along with anarchism, under the libsoc tent; do those libsocs who allow for a broader definition generally agree with this?
I guess I'm the odd one out here in that I believe in markets, and I think that anyone who defines themselves as a libertarian socialist is contradicting themselves if they believe in communism or collectivism.

[syndicat]

re: "libertarian Marxist": the syndicalist marxists of the early decades of the 20th century were also libertarian marxists.

throughout the past century the majority of libertarian socialists have been anti-market. also, the majority have seen libertarian, self-managed socialism as emerging out of the class struggle or mass struggle...not, for example, forming coops in the cracks of capitalism (even if most libertarian socialists are okay with this as a tactic).

as an aim, i guess I would define libertarian socialism as:

1. the land and means of production are owned in common by the entire population.

2. workers self-manage the workplaces and industries they work in, but as some sort of sub-contract or allocation from the population on some agreed basis.

3. through the mass worker organizations, there are active processes of redesigning jobs and work to break down the old hierarchical division of labor, through expansion of training and education and mixing of conceptual & decision-making work with doing of physical work. aiming at "integration of labor" as Kropotkin called it.

4. a complete change in the educational system so as to eliminate the present class differences in education, such as differences in resources, "tracking", or fees for entrance. not only free education but stipends so people can live while studying. this is needed to accomplish 3.

5. a society of equals, where various programs and efforts are atively underway to diminish the effects of inherited inequality on lines of gender or race/nationality.

6. governance via a system of popular power, based on the direct democracy of assemblies, in workplaces and neighborhoods, and then extended over broader regions via delegate (not representative) democracy, that is, delegates elected from the assemblies and with the assemblies actively able to control what is agreed to on the broader level.

7. replacement of the hierarchical, professional armed bodies of the state with a people's militia that is tightly under popular control, via the system of popular power described above.

thus 6. and 7. are replacements for the state.

8. active control over use or access to the environmental commons, via the resident assemblies and federations of these, so this means there may be some system of negotiation between production organizations and the community on acceptable levels of pollution (if any)

9. production is geared to providing direct benefit for people, it is not governed by the pursuit of private profit (as it would be, for example, in a "market socialist" economy of coops).

[Thirsty Crow]

...And what would you propose as viable means for an organization of exchange/trade of materials/products which cannot be produced in sufficient quantities in a given region/territory (assuming that autarky isn't what we're aiming at)?

And could you elaborate on certain social, material and political preconditions that would have to be fulkfilled in order that people may develop such social and political organization?
For instance, it seems to me that this proposal necessitates successful revolution on an at least continental geographical basis...

[syndicat]

even before we can talk about revolution, that presupposes a revolutionary agent. so the working class must have transformed itself from a class "in itself" -- an objectively dominated and exploited class -- into a class "for itself"...which means well-organized, with widespread aspiration for achieving a libertarian socialism as a replacement for capitalism, development of ability, knowledge and confidence to be able to carry off that kind of challenge.

it is desireable for such the revolutionary process to envelope as much territory as it can, hopefully a multi-national or continental region with a varied set of resources and industries.

[robbo203]

I guess I'm the odd one out here in that I believe in markets, and I think that anyone who defines themselves as a libertarian socialist is contradicting themselves if they believe in communism or collectivism.


How so? In fact, the replacement of markets and rationing by free access to goods and services and voluntary labour within the framework of a genuine communist society could not possibly be more "libertarian" in that sense. The scope for individual choice and self determination would be massively enlarged, not diminished, in a free communist society in my view. It is the market economy which cripples individuality in so many ways

[Svoboda]

How so? In fact, the replacement of markets and rationing by free access to goods and services and voluntary labour within the framework of a genuine communist society could not possibly be more "libertarian" in that sense. The scope for individual choice and self determination would be massively enlarged, not diminished, in a free communist society in my view. It is the market economy which cripples individuality in so many ways
Well when look at communist society I sort of see a tribe mentality where everyone supposedly has there certain place or obligation to the ones around them, and as with a tribe mentality everyone essentially believes or has to believe in same thing in order to maintain order. I especially see a lack of freedom in work, I see no reason why I should be motivated to work if I can get no better reward then the guy next to me, basically the asshole is half as productive as me and yet reaps the same rewards so why should I work harder? Further in communism I have no property, I have no right to essentially have anything of my own, everything is for the "collective" good, and who decides this "good" is it me? No, its the government or if you believe in the final stage of communism government disappears then its the collective majority or still government, I can't be an individual because I am part of a collective because I must meet the standards of what everyone else must tell me.

In my market economy that functions through essentially worker cooperatives control of each individual business, I would essentially want a fusion of labor and capital, and yet the maintainment of competition between workers and companies which would spur innovation and worker incentive, and society would exist strictly on a mutual agreement between man and man to not violate each other's liberty.

[Magón]

Well when look at communist society I sort of see a tribe mentality where everyone supposedly has there certain place or obligation to the ones around them, and as with a tribe mentality everyone essentially believes or has to believe in same thing in order to maintain order.

Obviously, in this situation, if you didn't believe in the same thing, you wouldn't be living in the situation that you do. (For example, and Communist Community, etc.) You can call it a "tribal mentality", but it's just a collective of people who follow the same ideology/ethics, and work for the same goals, which is whatever they've come together for. Obviously, this goes on a nation/global scale, and together you work to better everyone's lives, rather than just being selfish and trying to better your own, while stomping on everyone else to get by. (Capitalism, etc.)


I especially see a lack of freedom in work, I see no reason why I should be motivated to work if I can get no better reward then the guy next to me, basically the asshole is half as productive as me and yet reaps the same rewards so why should I work harder?

Um, you're kind of wrong. Obviously in a community like a Communist one, or an Anarchist one, everyone is trying to better everyone, rather than like I said already, stomping on everyone else to get by. If the guy working next to me isn't pulling his weight, then he might be punished by having something taken away from him, or restricted for a limited time, or indefinitely. But by this stage, people would already (or should), have the mindset that everyone must pull their own equal weight in the community, or things begin to fall apart. It's like a dam, holding back a river. Any small crack in the dam, can become a danger for the entire dam. That's why you have people to fix it up, and pull their weight to keep the cracks from happening.


Further in communism I have no property, I have no right to essentially have anything of my own, everything is for the "collective" good, and who decides this "good" is it me? No, its the government or if you believe in the final stage of communism government disappears then its the collective majority or still government, I can't be an individual because I am part of a collective because I must meet the standards of what everyone else must tell me.

If you're talking about property, as in land, my question to you is how do you own something that wasn't yours to begin with? Once you're dead, that land cease to be yours, or those around you who "owned" it. You can occupy that land for a time, but it's never really your land to begin with. Before you came onto the scene, that land wasn't yours, it was either someone else's or no one's at all. Having personal things, is something that would be available to everyone. If I have a gun, that gun is mine, nobody else's. (When I die, that gun cease to be mine. So it doesn't matter whether you call it yours or not, in reality, everything you own or inhabit during your life, ceases to be yours once you die. So owning something, is really just "renting" or "controlling" for as long as you can. That even goes in today's world. If I die tomorrow or today, whatever I own cease to be mine, and someone else takes it or gets rid of it. You never really "own" anything, even in todays Capitalist Market world. But don't tell a Capitalist, they'll get red faced.)


I would essentially want a fusion of labor and capital, and yet the maintainment of competition between workers and companies which would spur innovation and worker incentive, and society would exist strictly on a mutual agreement between man and man to not violate each other's liberty.

Isn't that basically what Communism is trying to do? I mean, having a mutual agreement that no man will violate/abuse one another, to gain more liberty in the work place is Communism. Having a capital market cripples the equality, just look at todays world, and you see that. People are always trying to climb the corporate ladder, and it doesn't help anyone.

[syndicat]

I see no reason why I should be motivated to work if I can get no better reward then the guy next to me, basically the asshole is half as productive as me and yet reaps the same rewards so why should I work harder? Further in communism I have no property, I have no right to essentially have anything of my own, everything is for the "collective" good, and who decides this "good" is it me?

A person's abilities are not due solely to that person...and this includes you. For example in a libertarian socialist society education would be free. and this is important to the abilities you would have. the "productivity" of each person depends on the equipment that has been socially provided and depends on the effectiveness of collective organization. so your "productivity" also depends on others. so it is completely improper for you to suppose you should be remunerated for your abilities or "productivity". It would be more legitimate if you were to talk about effort. But as long as that other person is making as much of an effort as you, why does it matter if you know more or have certain skills he or she doesn't have?

And you are simply wrong when you say there would be no freedom in work if means of production are owned in common by the society. The society can allocate or sub-contract to the worker organization the management of the work. So the workers would self-manage their own work. It wouldn't be a libertarian form of socialism without this.

And what do you mean by "property"? Do you mean means of production? And if means of production are used by a group of people to produce things, and if the society depends on those means of production, why should you own them?

You would still own personal possessions. And this might include, say, your house or a fishing boat. The issue isn't personal property but social property, that is, means of production.

A basic problem with market socialism among cooperatives is that this is almost inevitably going to become a class system. That's because in that system people with scarce skills, marketing savvy, engineering skills, etc. are going to be able to force coops to give them privileges to hire them, and before you know it you're going to have an internal class hierarchy in the coops...just as exists right now for example in the Mondragon coops.

Also, markets tend to encourage firms to shift costs onto others in society, as for example through pollution.

[anticap]

the word "libertarian" was not coined by Dejaque, he borrowed it from an American anarcho-communist who coined it.

Not that it matters, ultimately, but do you know the name of this American?


I guess I'm the odd one out here in that I believe in markets, and I think that anyone who defines themselves as a libertarian socialist is contradicting themselves if they believe in communism or collectivism.

I disagree, but I'm thanking every post in this thread, just because. :p

[Svoboda]

Obviously, in this situation, if you didn't believe in the same thing, you wouldn't be living in the situation that you do. (For example, and Communist Community, etc.) You can call it a "tribal mentality", but it's just a collective of people who follow the same ideology/ethics, and work for the same goals, which is whatever they've come together for. Obviously, this goes on a nation/global scale, and together you work to better everyone's lives, rather than just being selfish and trying to better your own, while stomping on everyone else to get by. (Capitalism, etc.)
What if I don't want to work for the same goals? And you can't control people from being selfish, you have to realize that most people on this world are greedy selfish inconsiderate assholes, and even those that are aren't this have the potential to be it. Further the worker is just as greedy as the Capitalist if he would get the opportunity.




Um, you're kind of wrong. Obviously in a community like a Communist one, or an Anarchist one, everyone is trying to better everyone, rather than like I said already, stomping on everyone else to get by. If the guy working next to me isn't pulling his weight, then he might be punished by having something taken away from him, or restricted for a limited time, or indefinitely. But by this stage, people would already (or should), have the mindset that everyone must pull their own equal weight in the community, or things begin to fall apart. It's like a dam, holding back a river. Any small crack in the dam, can become a danger for the entire dam. That's why you have people to fix it up, and pull their weight to keep the cracks from happening.
To quote Adam Smith “A person who can acquire no property can have no other interest but to eat as much, and to labour as little as possible. Whatever work he does beyond what is sufficient to purchase his own maintenance can be squeezed out of him by violence only, and not by any interest of his own.”. And this once again is true by the fact that people are greedy assholes, no form of "punishment" that you give to the worker can really force him to work hard.


If you're talking about property, as in land, my question to you is how do you own something that wasn't yours to begin with? Once you're dead, that land cease to be yours, or those around you who "owned" it. You can occupy that land for a time, but it's never really your land to begin with. Before you came onto the scene, that land wasn't yours, it was either someone else's or no one's at all. Having personal things, is something that would be available to everyone. If I have a gun, that gun is mine, nobody else's. (When I die, that gun cease to be mine. So it doesn't matter whether you call it yours or not, in reality, everything you own or inhabit during your life, ceases to be yours once you die. So owning something, is really just "renting" or "controlling" for as long as you can. That even goes in today's world. If I die tomorrow or today, whatever I own cease to be mine, and someone else takes it or gets rid of it. You never really "own" anything, even in todays Capitalist Market world. But don't tell a Capitalist, they'll get red faced.)

I agree with what you say here, I also advocate possession property, what you use is what you own, but in my eyes communism does have property like this.



Isn't that basically what Communism is trying to do? I mean, having a mutual agreement that no man will violate/abuse one another, to gain more liberty in the work place is Communism. Having a capital market cripples the equality, just look at todays world, and you see that. People are always trying to climb the corporate ladder, and it doesn't help anyone.
Yes today's market system is exploitative because greed is unrestrained, while Communism seems to dream of the disappearance of greed, which I see as being an impossible pipe dream. For me there must be a fusion of Capital and Labor, under the Capitalist market whoever holds Capital holds all power, that must come to an end by making Capital common.

A person's abilities are not due solely to that person...and this includes you. For example in a libertarian socialist society education would be free. and this is important to the abilities you would have. the "productivity" of each person depends on the equipment that has been socially provided and depends on the effectiveness of collective organization. so your "productivity" also depends on others. so it is completely improper for you to suppose you should be remunerated for your abilities or "productivity". It would be more legitimate if you were to talk about effort. But as long as that other person is making as much of an effort as you, why does it matter if you know more or have certain skills he or she doesn't have?
First if a person is being a lazy asshole he shouldn't be getting the same reward as me, but if a person is more productive and puts forth more innovative ideas he by all means should receive a greater reward than me. Second, how would you get "free education" in your "libertarian" society.


And you are simply wrong when you say there would be no freedom in work if means of production are owned in common by the society. The society can allocate or sub-contract to the worker organization the management of the work. So the workers would self-manage their own work. It wouldn't be a libertarian form of socialism without this.

He can "self-manage" all he wants but with no property he has no real freedom.



And if means of production are used by a group of people to produce things, and if the society depends on those means of production, why should you own them?

I shouldn't own the means of production directly and I should own it with my fellow workers, but not in a collectivist or communist fashion, greed a natural human condition must persist, so yes we all own the company but their could still be a CEO running the show who makes more money than anyone else.




A basic problem with market socialism among cooperatives is that this is almost inevitably going to become a class system. That's because in that system people with scarce skills, marketing savvy, engineering skills, etc. are going to be able to force coops to give them privileges to hire them, and before you know it you're going to have an internal class hierarchy in the coops...just as exists right now for example in the Mondragon coops.
Sure the engineers and the innovative people will get paid more because they deserve it. Under communism I see no reason why I should strive to be innovative when I can make the same amount of money sweeping the floor. But the workers interest will be kept in place because no matter what company they are in they will make up the majority, and they will see good reason to hire skilled and innovative people for more money as they would see by hiring such people they could improve their interests as such a person could in the long run increase profits and income for all.

[BLACKPLATES]

Murray Bookchin was a "Libertarian Socialist" or "communitarian" or "communalist" and finally a "municipalist". The Greens lean that way. It a great ideal but no one has ever really been able to articulate a way to get there. Bookchin and others usually wound up settling on, as a definition of a legitmate state authority, the municipality. the town or city govt, organized in a cooperative sort of confederation with other municipalities.

[syndicat]

Sure the engineers and the innovative people will get paid more because they deserve it.

if we assume that everyone puts in the same effort, why does someone "deserve" more than another?

and if people have engineering knowledge and other forms of expertise only because of a free socially provided educational system, why do they "deserve" anything more than anyone else? this is an elitist outlook that is inconsistent with workers liberation.

you will end up with a technocratic dominating and exploiting class.

[Svoboda]

if we assume that everyone puts in the same effort, why does someone "deserve" more than another?

and if people have engineering knowledge and other forms of expertise only because of a free socially provided educational system, why do they "deserve" anything more than anyone else? this is an elitist outlook that is inconsistent with workers liberation.

you will end up with a technocratic dominating and exploiting class.
If I work hard hard in school and understand math, science or whatever really well I should be rewarded for it, while if joe schmo flunks out of school cause he dosen't give a shit he shouldn't get the same reward as me. You want to call it "elitist" fine, but I call it a realist solution, your workers paradise with everyone loving each other and working for the sake of each other is unrealistic, you need incentive or else people won't care.

Why was slave labor ultimately proved to be significantly less productive than wage labor? Answer, incentive. Why did the centrally planned economies of the the soviet bloc stagger behind the west? Answer, incentive. Why can communism never work? Answer, incentive.

[Magón]

What if I don't want to work for the same goals? And you can't control people from being selfish, you have to realize that most people on this world are greedy selfish inconsiderate assholes, and even those that are aren't this have the potential to be it. Further the worker is just as greedy as the Capitalist if he would get the opportunity.

Um, if you haven't realized it by now, even in todays world, people generally work for the same goals. Carpenters, Scientists, Doctors, Factory Workers, etc. They all work for the same goals, just in different fields. Carpenters build furniture, etc. so people have something to sit on or live in. Scientists work on the latest vaccine/medicine to keep people alive. Doctors all work to keep people alive, and without Factory Workers, the world wouldn't be what it is, and we wouldn't have what we have. Sure there's a lot of Greed, but that's why you have to teach/show people that Greed isn't something that can be taken lightly anymore. Greed is something that runs rampant in Capitalist Society, and it's out duty as Leftists to tell people that Greed is something of the past, that we can't let Greed take over our lives anymore.

That personal gain with Greed, is something that cannot succeed in a truly successful Communist Society.



To quote Adam Smith “A person who can acquire no property can have no other interest but to eat as much, and to labour as little as possible. Whatever work he does beyond what is sufficient to purchase his own maintenance can be squeezed out of him by violence only, and not by any interest of his own.”. And this once again is true by the fact that people are greedy assholes, no form of "punishment" that you give to the worker can really force him to work hard.]


I wouldn't advise this by any means, but your comment on no form of "punishment" that is given will make a worker, work harder, is blatantly false. I don't/wouldn't/or think by any means this is a good idea, but it's been shown in the past, that obviously (even in todays life) people who are threatened will work harder, as maybe their job means a lot to them, and without it, they'll become what they don't want.

Taking Greedy Personal Gain out of Communist Society, would clear any of that up, and show people that working hard is to their own personal advantage, as they've succeeded in bettering themselves and those around them in the future. That building that home, couch, car, etc. was really something of a piece of art.


I agree with what you say here, I also advocate possession property, what you use is what you own, but in my eyes communism does have property like this.

Communism does have property, but not private property. Like I said, you don't own anything really, that you think you do. The car you drive, the home you live in, etc. all cease to be yours once you're dead. So like I also said, they're more likely to be seen as temporary ownership objects. Because last I checked, when you die, you can't take a whole home or car with you. I'm pretty sure in a Communist Society, the need for putting personal possessions with the dead will stop. At least with the less personal things, like a car, home, etc. Things like maybe photos, or something could be buried, but in life, you don't own anything. Whether Communist or Capitalist, it can all easily be taken away through different means: Robbery, Death, Courts, etc. Nothing you have now, tomorrow, or ever, will ever really be your own. You're sort of like the "caretaker" of that possession for your life.


Yes today's market system is exploitative because greed is unrestrained, while Communism seems to dream of the disappearance of greed, which I see as being an impossible pipe dream. For me there must be a fusion of Capital and Labor, under the Capitalist market whoever holds Capital holds all power, that must come to an end by making Capital common.


How can you have Capital in a Communist Society, when it's the workers (those who make everything) are in charge. There is no hierarchal ladder of King, Queen, etc. There's only the worker. Working to better his and her life, and those around them, with proper work. Sort of like an ecosystem. Kill, Maim, or just drag something out of the equally balanced ecosystem, and you've got trouble. (Like in todays world. We don't live in a balanced ecosystem, things have been pulled out of it. And as Leftists, we're trying to be the balance of equality back. Obviously through different means: Marxism, Anarchism, Communism, etc.)

[Svoboda]

Um, if you haven't realized it by now, even in todays world, people generally work for the same goals. Carpenters, Scientists, Doctors, Factory Workers, etc. They all work for the same goals, just in different fields. Carpenters build furniture, etc. so people have something to sit on or live in. Scientists work on the latest vaccine/medicine to keep people alive. Doctors all work to keep people alive, and without Factory Workers, the world wouldn't be what it is, and we wouldn't have what we have. Sure there's a lot of Greed, but that's why you have to teach/show people that Greed isn't something that can be taken lightly anymore. Greed is something that runs rampant in Capitalist Society, and it's out duty as Leftists to tell people that Greed is something of the past, that we can't let Greed take over our lives anymore.

The Carpenters, factory workers, doctors etc. work for their own personal goals, scientists work on the latest vaccine or medicine for personal gain, only a small minority truly work on helping people, this is clearly seen in how scientists today aren't really researching cures for diseases because in the long run this would not make money, instead they are researching to make drugs that just make sure you stay alive and that you keep taking twenty pills a day and that you keep coughing up the dough.


That personal gain with Greed, is something that cannot succeed in a truly successful Communist Society.

Greed is impossible to eradicate its like trying to get rid of hate or jealously, its simply something all or at least most humans posses.




I wouldn't advise this by any means, but your comment on no form of "punishment" that is given will make a worker, work harder, is blatantly false. I don't/wouldn't/or think by any means this is a good idea, but it's been shown in the past, that obviously (even in todays life) people who are threatened will work harder, as maybe their job means a lot to them, and without it, they'll become what they don't want.

Slave labor failed because it was unproductive because no matter how much you threatened the slave's life they just didn't have the heart in it and therefore they couldn't be forced to work harder. That's why the wage-laborer would prove much more productive than a slave, as the means to maintain a worker were very low and you didn't need to threaten them with any force because they need that job.


Taking Greedy Personal Gain out of Communist Society, would clear any of that up, and show people that working hard is to their own personal advantage, as they've succeeded in bettering themselves and those around them in the future. That building that home, couch, car, etc. was really something of a piece of art.

Once again good luck getting rid of greed, and people in large hard out of greed, they work hard to make as much as possible and in order to advance themselves without that greed I'd don't see a person wanting to work hard.



Communism does have property, but not private property. Like I said, you don't own anything really, that you think you do. The car you drive, the home you live in, etc. all cease to be yours once you're dead. So like I also said, they're more likely to be seen as temporary ownership objects. Because last I checked, when you die, you can't take a whole home or car with you. I'm pretty sure in a Communist Society, the need for putting personal possessions with the dead will stop. At least with the less personal things, like a car, home, etc. Things like maybe photos, or something could be buried, but in life, you don't own anything. Whether Communist or Capitalist, it can all easily be taken away through different means: Robbery, Death, Courts, etc. Nothing you have now, tomorrow, or ever, will ever really be your own. You're sort of like the "caretaker" of that possession for your life.
I agree fully with your view on property, but I don't believe that would really be possible under communism.





How can you have Capital in a Communist Society, when it's the workers (those who make everything) are in charge. There is no hierarchal ladder of King, Queen, etc. There's only the worker. Working to better his and her life, and those around them, with proper work. Sort of like an ecosystem. Kill, Maim, or just drag something out of the equally balanced ecosystem, and you've got trouble. (Like in todays world. We don't live in a balanced ecosystem, things have been pulled out of it. And as Leftists, we're trying to be the balance of equality back. Obviously through different means: Marxism, Anarchism, Communism, etc.)
I don't understand, Capital is just crap that labor is exerted on like wood, steel, land etc, how would that not exist?

[Apoi_Viitor]

If I work hard hard in school and understand math, science or whatever really well I should be rewarded for it, while if joe schmo flunks out of school cause he dosen't give a shit he shouldn't get the same reward as me. You want to call it "elitist" fine, but I call it a realist solution, your workers paradise with everyone loving each other and working for the sake of each other is unrealistic, you need incentive or else people won't care.

Why was slave labor ultimately proved to be significantly less productive than wage labor? Answer, incentive. Why did the centrally planned economies of the the soviet bloc stagger behind the west? Answer, incentive. Why can communism never work? Answer, incentive.

http://www.amazon.com/Drive-Surprising-Truth-About-Motivates/dp/0143145088

*****es don't know shit 'bout human motivation.


The Carpenters, factory workers, doctors etc. work for their own personal goals, scientists work on the latest vaccine or medicine for personal gain, only a small minority truly work on helping people, this is clearly seen in how scientists today aren't really researching cures for diseases because in the long run this would not make money, instead they are researching to make drugs that just make sure you stay alive and that you keep taking twenty pills a day and that you keep coughing up the dough.

That's because where do scientists get their funding from? - private enterprises. Someone can fact check me on this, but I read a while back, that the reason for the recent "lack of scientific cures" is because Scientific Funding has switched from mostly public to mostly private. That just means, that scientists can no longer get the funding for researching into actual scientific cures - which doesn't prove they don't want to or don't care, they just simply can't.. Now, if their funding went back to being public sponsored, this situation would reverse.

[syndicat]

If I work hard hard in school and understand math, science or whatever really well I should be rewarded for it, while if joe schmo flunks out of school cause he dosen't give a shit he shouldn't get the same reward as me.

1. In the USA people who gain access to higher education, such as graduate schools and high quality four-year universities are overwhelmingly from the elite classes. This due to two things. First, it's due to greater financial resources of their parents and, second, their parents working highly technical or conceptual or decision-making types of jobs, as bosses, engineers, doctors etc. tends to develop in them various skills and vocabularies and forms of knowledge which their children are exposed to. And in countries that practice "tracking" via standardized tests, as in the USA, this leads then to a class-biased educational system.

so don't try to pull any bullshit about equality of opportunity. what's needed is to change the jobs so that all jobs require skill and share in decision-making and conceptualization work as well as doing the physical work. so the old division between the professional/managerial class and the working class has to be dissolved.

2. You say you "work hard" in school. Do you work harder than a construction worker, miner, a meatcutter who is forced to debone 800 hams a day and gets tendonitis, etc. Well, of course not.

In fact your claim about "hard work" is bullshit. I know. I went through university and grad school. It was a wonderful experience. I loved it. I got to learn new things all the time. I got to hang out with students who shared my interests.

So, the issue is this: Does the fact you happened to be good at learning certain things in school entitle you to permanently earn more and have a better life than other workers? Why?

Right now the reason people of the professional/managerial class make higher salaries isn't because the "work hard". It's because they have the social power to demand privileges. And there won't be any working class liberation without breaking that power.


You want to call it "elitist" fine, but I call it a realist solution, your workers paradise with everyone loving each other and working for the sake of each other is unrealistic, you need incentive or else people won't care.

where did i say i was against incentives? if people are paid to work, that is an incentive to work. if people receive praise and social recognition for inventions or other personal contributions, that is an incentive.



Why was slave labor ultimately proved to be significantly less productive than wage labor? Answer, incentive.

but whose incentive? the slave owners had no incentive to invest in equipment to enhance productivity. when labor costs are pushed to the very bottom, that is what happens.

But, again, i'm not proposing that people not be paid, so your argument is a strawman.



Why did the centrally planned economies of the the soviet bloc stagger behind the west? Answer, incentive. Why can communism never work? Answer, incentive.

wrong. A central planning regime concentrates decision-making and information at the top. Thus managers and workers had an incentive to collude in lying to the people at the top about their abilities so that they would get an easier quota. Managers had an incentive to hoard labor and resources for the same reason.

[ellipsis]

For me it just seems to fit, I'm definitely not an anarchist or at least a very good one but am anti-authoritarian and semi-non-hierarchical and in terms of personal freedoms, libertarian. BUT I come from a Marxist perspective. So Lib soc just seems to fit.

[anticap]

I don't understand, Capital is just crap that labor is exerted on like wood, steel, land etc, how would that not exist?

You've conflated "means of production" with "capital." It's a common bit of shorthand, but not exactly accurate. Means of production will always exist, of course; but they don't become capital until they enter the cycle of capitalist production. The shorthand is safe as long as we're taking capitalism for granted, but it's still probably a good habit to break, if we want to be perfectly clear.