Libertarian socialism

[UnknownPerson]

How does the libertarian socialist economy work? Is it basically the means of production being owned by workers and operated for profit which is then given back to the workers? Or is something else?

[AnonymousOne]

How does the libertarian socialist economy work? Is it basically the means of production being owned by workers and operated for profit which is then given back to the workers? Or is something else?

Something entirely different. It's the means of production being controlled by the workers through direct democracy. It differs from Authoritarian Socialism such as Leninism and it's derivatives of Trotskyism, Stalinism, Maoism, Hoxhaism, Guevaraism, etc.

[syndicat]

First, the power of management, to control the work process, would lie with the assembly of all the workers in workplaces and their elected delegates.
workplace assemblies would be linked into federations by region and industry. Decision-making control would lie with congresses of delegates who would be workers who are elected by their coworkers.

Second, there would also be forms of direct democracy in communities, such as neighborhood assemblies and elected councils of delegates.

Third, the state would be replaced by a different kind of governance system, not based on control over armed forces and imposition of decisions via managerial hierarchies, but based ultimately in the assemblies in the workplaces and neighborhoods, and then congresses of delegates elected from the base assemblies. Defense of the revolution would be the responsibility of a democratically structured militia accountable to these congresses and elected coordinating councils, also accountable to the base assemblies.

Competing cooperatives in a market economy was the idea advanced back in the early 1800s by Proudhon, in the era before large-scale factory production in France, when the economy was still mostly made up of individual peasant farmers and artisans. Only a small minority of libertarian socialists nowadays still adhere to that idea.

The typical view is that the means of production are owned by the whole society and workers are not owners of their individual factories or buildings but are allotted or subcontracted control of their workplace from society, and run the workplaces to provide people with the things they want.

There is not a complete consensus among libertarian socialists on how to ensure accountability of the workplace organizations to the rest of society.

Some are advocates for some system where there would be a big meeting of delegates that would control a plan for the whole of production, either delegates from industries, or maybe the assemblies of residents in the towns and neighborhoods.

Others argue for a system of socially controlled negotiation between the residents, famiilies, their neighborhood assemblies, on the one hand, with the worker production organizations on the other hand (as for example in the proposal for "participatory economics")

There are also disagreements about whether people would earn consumption entitlement thru their work or whether all products would be distributed for free.

Libertarian socialism promotes positive liberty as necessary for liberation from oppression & exploitation. Positive liberty consists of two parts:

1. self-management. that is, control over the decisions that directly affect you, that govern your own activity.

2. equal access to the means to develop & sustain your abilities, such as health care and education

Thus libertarian socialism, as a social arrangement, could also be known as generalized self-management.

It is libertarian because of its emphasis on liberty.

[UnknownPerson]

First, the power of management, to control the work process, would lie with the assembly of all the workers in workplaces and their elected delegates.
workplace assemblies would be linked into federations by region and industry. Decision-making control would lie with congresses of delegates who would be workers who are elected by their coworkers.

Second, there would also be forms of direct democracy in communities, such as neighborhood assemblies and elected councils of delegates.

Third, the state would be replaced by a different kind of governance system, not based on control over armed forces and imposition of decisions via managerial hierarchies, but based ultimately in the assemblies in the workplaces and neighborhoods, and then congresses of delegates elected from the base assemblies. Defense of the revolution would be the responsibility of a democratically structured militia accountable to these congresses and elected coordinating councils, also accountable to the base assemblies.

Competing cooperatives in a market economy was the idea advanced back in the early 1800s by Proudhon, in the era before large-scale factory production in France, when the economy was still mostly made up of individual peasant farmers and artisans. Only a small minority of libertarian socialists nowadays still adhere to that idea.

The typical view is that the means of production are owned by the whole society and workers are not owners of their individual factories or buildings but are allotted or subcontracted control of their workplace from society, and run the workplaces to provide people with the things they want.

There is not a complete consensus among libertarian socialists on how to ensure accountability of the workplace organizations to the rest of society.

Some are advocates for some system where there would be a big meeting of delegates that would control a plan for the whole of production, either delegates from industries, or maybe the assemblies of residents in the towns and neighborhoods.

Others argue for a system of socially controlled negotiation between the residents, famiilies, their neighborhood assemblies, on the one hand, with the worker production organizations on the other hand (as for example in the proposal for "participatory economics")

There are also disagreements about whether people would earn consumption entitlement thru their work or whether all products would be distributed for free.

Libertarian socialism promotes positive liberty as necessary for liberation from oppression & exploitation. Positive liberty consists of two parts:

1. self-management. that is, control over the decisions that directly affect you, that govern your own activity.

2. equal access to the means to develop & sustain your abilities, such as health care and education

Thus libertarian socialism, as a social arrangement, could also be known as generalized self-management.

It is libertarian because of its emphasis on liberty.

Why is it often referred to as anarchist if it technically has a government, just a bottom-to-top one?

[AnonymousOne]

Why is it often referred to as anarchist if it technically has a government, just a bottom-to-top one?

Because all Anarchy means is without rulers, or masters. No one rules over anyone else in an Anarchist society because all people make up the Government. This is the meaning that Proudhon used when he first used the word.

Think of it in terms of the Anarchist slogan, "No Gods, No Masters" we still have an organized society, it's just we remove authority.


First, the power of management, to control the work process, would lie with the assembly of all the workers in workplaces and their elected delegates.
workplace assemblies would be linked into federations by region and industry. Decision-making control would lie with congresses of delegates who would be workers who are elected by their coworkers.

Second, there would also be forms of direct democracy in communities, such as neighborhood assemblies and elected councils of delegates.

Third, the state would be replaced by a different kind of governance system, not based on control over armed forces and imposition of decisions via managerial hierarchies, but based ultimately in the assemblies in the workplaces and neighborhoods, and then congresses of delegates elected from the base assemblies. Defense of the revolution would be the responsibility of a democratically structured militia accountable to these congresses and elected coordinating councils, also accountable to the base assemblies.

Competing cooperatives in a market economy was the idea advanced back in the early 1800s by Proudhon, in the era before large-scale factory production in France, when the economy was still mostly made up of individual peasant farmers and artisans. Only a small minority of libertarian socialists nowadays still adhere to that idea.

The typical view is that the means of production are owned by the whole society and workers are not owners of their individual factories or buildings but are allotted or subcontracted control of their workplace from society, and run the workplaces to provide people with the things they want.

There is not a complete consensus among libertarian socialists on how to ensure accountability of the workplace organizations to the rest of society.

Some are advocates for some system where there would be a big meeting of delegates that would control a plan for the whole of production, either delegates from industries, or maybe the assemblies of residents in the towns and neighborhoods.

Others argue for a system of socially controlled negotiation between the residents, famiilies, their neighborhood assemblies, on the one hand, with the worker production organizations on the other hand (as for example in the proposal for "participatory economics")

There are also disagreements about whether people would earn consumption entitlement thru their work or whether all products would be distributed for free.

Libertarian socialism promotes positive liberty as necessary for liberation from oppression & exploitation. Positive liberty consists of two parts:

1. self-management. that is, control over the decisions that directly affect you, that govern your own activity.

2. equal access to the means to develop & sustain your abilities, such as health care and education

Thus libertarian socialism, as a social arrangement, could also be known as generalized self-management.

It is libertarian because of its emphasis on liberty.

Did you ever read James Herod's "Getting Free" by any chance?

[UnknownPerson]

Because all Anarchy means is without rulers, or masters. No one rules over anyone else in an Anarchist society because all people make up the Government. This is the meaning that Proudhon used when he first used the word.

Think of it in terms of the Anarchist slogan, "No Gods, No Masters" we still have an organized society, it's just we remove authority.

But aren't there still rullers if there are elected delegates and elected councils?

[Tjis]

But aren't there still rullers if there are elected delegates and elected councils?

No. A delegate has no decisive power of their own. They are immediately recallable when they start doing things against the wishes of the group that delegated them. Because of that decisive power stays with the base groups, unlike in parliamentary democracy where decisive power is given to elected people who are not recallable until the end of their term.

[Blake's Baby]

No.

Elected delegates aren't rulers; if anything, those who do the electing are the 'rulers', as the delegates have to follow the decisions of the bodies (and therefore the people that make up the bodies) that delegate them. It's not like bourgeois democracy, these aren't representatives that you vote for every 4 or 5 years, they're members of your own workers' council that you send to another council to do a job. If they don't, you can recall them and send someone who will do the job.

EDIT: ah, just beaten to it by substantially the same answer I see!

[UnknownPerson]

No. A delegate has no decisive power of their own. They are immediately recallable when they start doing things against the wishes of the group that delegated them. Because of that decisive power stays with the base groups, unlike in parliamentary democracy where decisive power is given to elected people who are not recallable until the end of their term.

I see. Are there any mechanisms which force the elected delegates to publish all the information about the action he or she takes?

[AnonymousOne]

But aren't there still rullers if there are elected delegates and elected councils?

I'll briefly quote the Anarchist FAQ:



Anarchism is a political theory which aims to create anarchy, "the absence of a master, of a sovereign." [P-J Proudhon, What is Property , p. 264] In other words, anarchism is a political theory which aims to create a society within which individuals freely co-operate together as equals. As such anarchism opposes all forms of hierarchical control - be that control by the state or a capitalist - as harmful to the individual and their individuality as well as unnecessary.


So the delegates don't rule over the people through force, instead a voluntary assembly decides to elect people that they feel would represent their interests. These delgates are severely tied though, as they could be recalled at any time. But the decision to participate in such an assembly is a voluntary one made by the community, no one is forced into such an assembly. It's just a good idea to cooperate with others around you.

The difference is between an organized society based by free self-association, and a society based on forced authoritarian association.


I see. Are there any mechanisms which force the elected delegates to publish all the information about the action he or she takes?

The community acts as a check, and can recall the delegate at any time. Not to mention what you're discussing would be the equivalent of a senator saying they'll vote X but then votes Y. We still know about it even in an authoritarian society, one based on free association should have no problem in ensuring the delegate accurately reflects the will of the people.

[Wired]

So the delegates don't rule over the people through force, instead a voluntary assembly decides to elect people that they feel would represent their interests. These delgates are severely tied though, as they could be recalled at any time. But the decision to participate in such an assembly is a voluntary one made by the community, no one is forced into such an assembly. It's just a good idea to cooperate with others around you.

The difference is between an organized society based by free self-association, and a society based on forced authoritarian association.



The community acts as a check, and can recall the delegate at any time. Not to mention what you're discussing would be the equivalent of a senator saying they'll vote X but then votes Y. We still know about it even in an authoritarian society, one based on free association should have no problem in ensuring the delegate accurately reflects the will of the people.

Any elected body is an insult and a danger to ones own personal sovereignty. Only so long as a person who has elected someone else may 'pull out' and have a vote themselves, at any time, could this type of 'anarchism' be considered anything other than a statist sham.

[syndicat]

I favor the following as far as control of delegates: Within the constitution of this society there should be a rule that any decision of a congress of delegates can be referred back to a discussion and vote of the base assemblies if some not too large minority so petitition.

The relationship of the delegates to the population do not constitute a separate bureaucratic class structure, based on concentration of decision-making authority and expertise into the hands of a few, as for example existed in all the Communist countries.

The delegates are needed because some element of representation has to occur for a large population to self-manage the social & economic affairs over a large territory with a large population. But the delegates still have regular jobs part of the time, have to give regular reports to the base assemblies, can be voted out if the base is dissatisfied at any time, and decisions can be forced back to the assemblies for decision, if necessary, to overrule the delegates.

i agree with what blake's baby says above.

I prefer to not use the label "anarchist" myself. I think it doesn't have a clear definition. Not all libertarian socialists call themselves "anarchists."

[syndicat]

Did you ever read James Herod's "Getting Free" by any chance?

i couldn't make my way thru it. the guy's a bit of a nut case.

[Tim Cornelis]

There is more than one form of libertarian socialism.
Mutualism, collectivist anarchism, parecon, council communism, communist anarchism, inclusive democracy. So there is not one libertarian socialist economy.

[syndicat]

There is more than one form of libertarian socialism.
Mutualism, collectivist anarchism, parecon, council communism, communist anarchism, inclusive democracy. So there is not one libertarian socialist economy.

mutualism is Proudhon's market socialism. As I said, only a small minority of libertarian socialists advocate this nowadays. "collectivist anarchism" is a fiction...there is no such thing. "council communism" has no clear meaning. and nobody can make sense of Takis Fotopolis's "inclusive democracy."

[Tjis]

I see. Are there any mechanisms which force the elected delegates to publish all the information about the action he or she takes?

I am not sure what you mean. Do you mean 'how do you force elected delegates to publish information'?
If the group demands information, then the delegate will have to give information or be recalled. In practice groups would probably have a task description for their delegates, as decided upon by the whole group. This might include an obligation to give regular information updates.

Or do you mean 'how do you prevent elected delegates from holding back information'?
I first want to point out that there's no rational reason to do so. Unlike in todays world, manipulating numbers or holding back information would not do you any good financially, and while it might allow you to keep the position of delegate, that position is essentially powerless.
Furthermore, the delegate should not have access to information that is not also available to the rest of the group. It might be the delegate's responsibility to give a condensed version of this information, but nothing that can't be doublechecked with data available to all members.

Again, a delegate has no power that other group members do not have. The only difference between a delegate and a non-delegate is that a delegate represents the group in other groups.

[syndicat]

Delegate congresses would have the power to make decisions binding on the society.


I am not sure what you mean. Do you mean 'how do you force elected delegates to publish information'?
If the group demands information, then the delegate will have to give information or be recalled. In practice groups would probably have a task description for their delegates, as decided upon by the whole group. This might include an obligation to give regular information updates.

more than that, there'd be all kinds of self-managed media groups that would be reporting on the debates, on the votes, on the proposals and so on.

moreover, base assemblies would send their proposals to the congresses with their delegates.

you have to keep in mind that the active participation and decision-making role of the base assemblies is critical. it's not like passively voting for a representative every few years as now.

[Tim Cornelis]

mutualism is Proudhon's market socialism. As I said, only a small minority of libertarian socialists advocate this nowadays. "collectivist anarchism" is a fiction...there is no such thing. "council communism" has no clear meaning. and nobody can make sense of Takis Fotopolis's "inclusive democracy."

That's a wholenother discussion entirely. OP asked how libertarian socialism worked, I merely point out there is not one libertarian socialism.


mutualism is Proudhon's market socialism. As I said, only a small minority of libertarian socialists advocate this nowadays.

Yes, I very tiny minority. But what's your point? It is libertarian socialist economics, no?


"collectivist anarchism" is a fiction

I don't see how it's fiction but there are virtually no adherents. But it's libertarian socialist economics, no?


and nobody can make sense of Takis Fotopolis's "inclusive democracy."

It's fairly easy to comprehend if you take the time, but that's not the point. It's libertarian socialism.

[AnonymousOne]

mutualism is Proudhon's market socialism. As I said, only a small minority of libertarian socialists advocate this nowadays.

All the cool anarchists are mutualists.

[syndicat]

That's a wholenother discussion entirely. OP asked how libertarian socialism worked, I merely point out there is not one libertarian socialism.


There is in fact a set of coherent ideas that make up a viable libertarian socialism. And the majority historically were those ideas that could be found within the mass syndicalist labor movements during the era when libertarian socialist had mass support. this doesn't include "collectivist anarchism" since no one knows what that means. and it doesn't include Takis Fotopoulos since he's just one lone thinker who has no organized following. I've tried to read his tome but couldn't make much sense of it.

when someone asks about libertarian socialism, you have to consider what libertarian socialism has meant in terms of actual and potential mass influence. not some abstract definition with no relation to the real world.

Proudhon had some influence in the pre-factory era in France. he was opposed to unions, strikes, revolutions. a few of his ideas influenced subsequent libertarian socialists, such as the ideas of self-management and federation. but there is no meaningful current of "Proudhonism" unless you want to talk about cooperativism. but modern libertarian socialism doesn't advocate a Proudhonist strategy of building coops in the cracks of capitalism...except for a tiny minority of people. it's not a viable strategy and market socialism is not a viable conception of a sustainable liberated economy. so i don't consider it to be a relevant form of libertarian socialism.

[CHE with an AK]

controlled by the workers through direct democracy.
So in theory, 51% of the population could enact their will on the other 49%?

Also, how do you keep “democracy” from divulging into 2 wolfs and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner?




we still have an organized society, it's just we remove authority.
Or more accurately, you hand “authority” over to the will of the majority, or as a critic would call it – rule of the mob.




the decision to participate in such an assembly is a voluntary one made by the community, no one is forced into such an assembly.
What makes you think that you would get a sizeable representation then? In the U.S. it is voluntary to vote, and only about 50 % do for president, and 25 % for congress (thus 13% or 51% of that 25% make the decisions for everyone). In the U.S. it is also voluntary to run for congress, but very few ever do.




The community acts as a check, and can recall the delegate at any time.
In theory this already exists in most Western capitalist “democracies”, especially in the U.S. where in theory any state governor can be recalled through a ballot initiative. However, people are not engaged, as participation is voluntary.

I would think that such an anarchist system would have to have mandatory voting and participation to even have a semblance of working. But then people will disobey the law as they always do, and then the committee’s will have to figure out a way to punish them, and before to long – you create many of the structures that you abhor from an authoritarian Marxist framework.

[syndicat]

So in theory, 51% of the population could enact their will on the other 49%?

Also, how do you keep “democracy” from divulging into 2 wolfs and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner?you don't have any wolves. libertarian socialism is a society without a dominating, exploiting class or a bureaucratic elite that manages society through a concentration of decision-making and expertise in its hands, as in the "Communist" countries.

Or more accurately, you hand “authority” over to the will of the majority, or as a critic would call it – rule of the mob.that's what conservatives, elitists, call the rule of the working class majority.

collective self-management means collective control over those decisions that pertain to the social collective, that is, collective, public affairs.


What makes you think that you would get a sizeable representation then? In the U.S. it is voluntary to vote, and only about 50 % do for president, and 25 % for congress (thus 13% or 51% of that 25% make the decisions for everyone). In the U.S. it is also voluntary to run for congress, but very few ever do.
in the USA about half the working class doesn't vote because they perceive, correctly, that both Dems and Repubs do not represent their interests. anyway, you're talking about a system where the only role the average person has is to passively vote for who gets to be in a position of making decisions without those decisions being controlled by the base of society.

the American state is a hierarchical state machine, which defends the interests of the dominating classes, it is not a system of authentic democratic self-management in a context where the working class are empowered through their control over their workplaces and their neighborhoods.

[TheGeekySocialist]

I very much like the ideas of Libertarian Socialism, Chomsky identifies himself as one and I agree with most of what he has to say and his work is excellent.

I was till reccently in the SWP, but the more authoritarian streaks within the party have led me to leave and seek alternative forms of Socialism to follow, so far the most appealing forms I have read about are Luxembergism and Libertarian Socialism.

[UnknownPerson]

No. A delegate has no decisive power of their own. They are immediately recallable when they start doing things against the wishes of the group that delegated them. Because of that decisive power stays with the base groups, unlike in parliamentary democracy where decisive power is given to elected people who are not recallable until the end of their term.

So we can say that in libertarian socialism, the majority 'filters' the actions of it's delegates (and recalls them if those actions are shitty). Am I right?

[Tjis]

So we can say that in libertarian socialism, the majority 'filters' the actions of it's delegates. Am I right?

No, it's not filtering. Filtering would be when the delegate wants to do something and then the rest of the group says yes or no. Such a system still leaves considerable amount of power with the delegate (if the delegate is the only one that can make propositions I mean).
Instead, what a delegate can and cannot do is decided upon beforehand by the group, democratically. And this mandate can be altered at any time, again through a democratic process.

[Tim Finnegan]

mutualism is Proudhon's market socialism. As I said, only a small minority of libertarian socialists advocate this nowadays. "collectivist anarchism" is a fiction...there is no such thing. "council communism" has no clear meaning. and nobody can make sense of Takis Fotopolis's "inclusive democracy."
Council communism is really more about revolutionary praxis than post-revolutionary organisation, isn't it? So I suppose it could be debated if you could even describe it as belonging in the category of "libertarian socialist economy" to begin with.

[Tim Cornelis]

So we can say that in libertarian socialism, the majority 'filters' the actions of it's delegates (and recalls them if those actions are shitty). Am I right?

I wouldn't say "filter". All decisions are made by the people as a whole, but since all people cannot fit in one assembly all decisions are taken in decentralised neighbourhood councils. Delegates from the neighbourhood councils merely communicate the wishes of their constituents, or merely executive the decisions of the community (neighbourhood council).

---------------------------------------------


So in theory, 51% of the population could enact their will on the other 49%?

Also, how do you keep “democracy” from divulging into 2 wolfs and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner?

No, because communes, neighbourhood councils and confederations are not "political units" in that they enact regulations that regulate social, economic and individual affairs. Communes merely decide on collective consumption and the public sphere of the economy, a simple example where to build a swimming pool, if one at all. The Commune is an economic 'unit' for collective affairs, not individual affairs or consumption.

Consequently, "you hand “authority” over to the will of the majority, or as a critic would call it – rule of the mob" is obviously false.


What makes you think that you would get a sizeable representation then? In the U.S. it is voluntary to vote, and only about 50 % do for president, and 25 % for congress (thus 13% or 51% of that 25% make the decisions for everyone). In the U.S. it is also voluntary to run for congress, but very few ever do.

If they don't want to participate they don't care about the outcome. I don't see a problem. The difference is significant. In an anarchist society all collective decisions are taken by the people as a whole on a participatory basis, not an elected minority or referendums.

What is more interesting though is that a system of communes and free association of producers is not an anarchist goal (communes... communism... hmmm), it's also shared by Marxists, which makes me wonder: what do you support since you're apparently neither Marxist of any kind nor anarchist.

[UnknownPerson]

No, it's not filtering. Filtering would be when the delegate wants to do something and then the rest of the group says yes or no. Such a system still leaves considerable amount of power with the delegate (if the delegate is the only one that can make propositions I mean).
Instead, what a delegate can and cannot do is decided upon beforehand by the group, democratically. And this mandate can be altered at any time, again through a democratic process.

So the group democratically creates a constitution? And to what extent does the group actually control for undesired actions by the delegate?

[Agent Equality]

None of this will be possible without an educated populace however. No socialism/communism/anarchism or what have you will be. Those who elect the delegates must all be educated. The delegates themselves must be educated. Any system that is democratic in nature and involes the common people must be founded on an educated populace. Everyone must have an education. You honestly can't expect to create a revolution and keep the change without an educated society that understands what you are trying to accomplish and more importantly why you are trying to accomplish it. Ignorance is the most dangerous evil of all. So I say, FREE EDUCATION FOR ALL! HUZAH!!!:D

Sorry, I got a little carried away there. The whole education thing might not be completely relevant to this, but seeing as how I identify with libertarian socialism(or at least the core tennents of it[Im still finding the right place for my heart's desire])i might as well pitch in hehe.

[UnknownPerson]

None of this will be possible without an educated populace however. No socialism/communism/anarchism or what have you will be. Those who elect the delegates must all be educated. The delegates themselves must be educated. Any system that is democratic in nature and involes the common people must be founded on an educated populace. Everyone must have an education. You honestly can't expect to create a revolution and keep the change without an educated society that understands what you are trying to accomplish and more importantly why you are trying to accomplish it. Ignorance is the most dangerous evil of all. So I say, FREE EDUCATION FOR ALL! HUZAH!!!:D

Sorry, I got a little carried away there. The whole education thing might not be completely relevant to this, but seeing as how I identify with libertarian socialism(or at least the core tennents of it[Im still finding the right place for my heart's desire])i might as well pitch in hehe.

I think your argument is perfectly valid as in modern society the majority seems to vote against it's own interest, carried away by nationalistic and religious illusions which the party which is against their interest presents.

[Agent Equality]

I think your argument is perfectly valid as in modern society the majority seems to vote against it's own interest, carried away by nationalistic and religious illusions which the party which is against their interest presents.

Political parties and specifically Vanguard parties are usually against the people's interests. Anytime you have a few ruling many, trouble is always a brewing. :p Not once in communist history has a vanguard party ever given power back to the people, not once.

[Klaatu]

First, the power of management, to control the work process, would lie with the assembly of all the workers in workplaces and their elected delegates....


Also the officials in charge of the factories and trade would be well-educated scientists that understand the importance of the contribution of the individual to the good of the country.

One of the major problems with the present-day unplanned economy is the undeserved emphasis which is placed upon the so-called "job-creator," which happens to be the Plutocrat. (how much nonsense is this?)

We must bear in mind that the upper-crust, blueblooded, monied, born-with-silver-spoon-in-mouth RichieRich is NOT the major contributor to domestic jobs. In FACT, the opposite is true: these are the very people that have been exporting the good-paying jobs abroad, much to the detriment of our own domestic worker!

[Tjis]

So the group democratically creates a constitution?
No, more like a job description.
Don't think too big of this. A delegate is merely a person within a group that goes to meetings when going with the entire group would be impractical. When they're not being a delegate, they'll do the work the others in their group do as well. when they are being a delegate, they act according to a predefined mandate that was democratically decided upon by that particular group.

I'll give a simplified example of a libertarian socialist world, and the delegate's role in it.
Let's say we have a country of potato-loving people. People get their potatoes from distribution points, which get them from transporters, which get them from farmers.
In order to make sure that enough potatoes are grown and to make sure that enough potatoes arrive at each distribution point, some sort of coordination is necessary. Without coordination some points would likely end up with more than they need, while others would end up with a shortage. Some farms would not be able to meet demands while other farms would be idle. Sometimes farms would produce far too much, sometimes far too little. So coordination between farms, transporters and distributors is necessary.

It'd be impractical for every distributor to seek out farms and transportation by themselves. Instead, the distributors have formed a federation tasked with managing all that. At regular intervals delegates from each distributor meet, exchange potato consumption information and use this information to estimate how much potatoes are needed in the future.
Similarily, farms have also federated. At regular intervals delegates from each farm meet to exchange information about their past harvests, and to use that information to predict how much potatoes could be grown at full production.
Transporters have also federated. Through delegates, each transporter exchange information about their transportation and storage capabilities, and based on that they estimate how much they could transport in the future.

Now that each federation has information about their own industry, all that is needed is to combine it. Delegates from the distributor federation, farm federation and transport federation go over all the information and come up with a plan that minimizes overproduction and transportation need. These delegates then present the plan to their own federations, the whole thing is voted on and if it passes with a majority in each federation its a go.

As you can see the role of a delegate is not comparable to the role of an elected official. it is not a position of glory, status and power, but just another job that needs to be done.


And to what extent does the group actually control for undesired actions by the delegate?
At any point the group can recall their delegate and send a replacement. if a delegate misbehaves (where I assume 'misbehave' means act against the mandate decided upon by their group), they are recalled.

[AnonymousOne]

So in theory, 51% of the population could enact their will on the other 49%?

Also, how do you keep “democracy” from divulging into 2 wolfs and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner?


Or more accurately, you hand “authority” over to the will of the majority, or as a critic would call it – rule of the mob.

Che with an AK,

I don't hold the reactionary view that the working class is uncapable of managing it's own affairs. Indeed, your view is common and bourgeoise. The idea that the proleteriat needs to be guided by a higher authority has always been an argument used by the bosses and forces of Capital in an attempt to delegitimize worker movements. For someone who claims to want to liberate the people from oppression, it looks a lot like you're a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Considering your defense of Che Guevara as some kind of revolutionary ubermensch in the Che thread, and your apparent disdain for the people I question your motives for advocacy of revolution. Perhaps you don't want to liberate the proleteriat but are more interested in the idea of taking control over others? Perhaps you aren't really an Authoritarian Socialist, but more an Authoritarian? It certainly seems that way, considering you're constant apologizing for an elite bureaucracy to rule over the people.

Furthermore, you show a total and complete ignorance of what Syndicat and I have been saying, namely that there is no hierarchy within an Anarchist society. There is no authority, everything is built on voluntary associations. This is possible because the tools of State coercion have been removed from the society. There is no army, police, secret police, intelligence agency, w/e to force people to comply. This would be obvious to anyone with even a passing familiarity with Anarchist thought.




What makes you think that you would get a sizeable representation then? In the U.S. it is voluntary to vote, and only about 50 % do for president, and 25 % for congress (thus 13% or 51% of that 25% make the decisions for everyone). In the U.S. it is also voluntary to run for congress, but very few ever do.

As Syndicat pointed out above, the reason for this is because most workers feel powerless within our current society. Most don't vote because they don't think it can make any difference, and they're right. However in a society with direct democracy making decisions, determining production, working conditions, allocation of resources, etc. people would be more likely to vote, as it would have real tangible impacts on their lives. Not to mention with a smaller pool, such as that of a neighborhood assembly that individual's vote weighs more when contrasted to a large pool of 300,000,000 individuals.




In theory this already exists in most Western capitalist “democracies”, especially in the U.S. where in theory any state governor can be recalled through a ballot initiative. However, people are not engaged, as participation is voluntary.

Yes, but as you point out this is only in theory. The reason being that recall is very difficult to do considering the large scale needed, for example trying to collect thousands of signatures makes it all but impossible to begin recall.

In a smaller assembly, it would be easier to get signatures and would remove the high "cost" of beginning a recall process. Not to mention, other triggers could set up an automatic recall. Let's go through an example:

Billy Bob, has been elected the delegate to the regional agriculture assembly. He will represent his community of a thousand people, and help determine what the regional strategy for agriculture will be. His community affiliated with the regional assembly a few years ago as a way of helping increase diversity in food supply. Some other communities didny't decide to affiliate.

Billy Bob has been told that he needs to make sure that the community have enough diversity in agriculture. He must make sure that no matter what, the community will grow at least 65% of food for it's own consumption. As a part of the vote, a recall trigger is inserted into Billy Bob's mandate, if Billy Bob violates that 65% plan he will be stripped of delegate status and an alternate, Johnny Joe will go instead.

Billy Bob goes to the assembly, but he ends up presenting a plan which would have the community growing only 35% of food for it's own consumption. The recall trigger fires, Billy Bob is no longer a delegate and will face punishment at home (being kicked out of the assembly etc.).

That's the kind of accountability I was discussing.



I would think that such an anarchist system would have to have mandatory voting and participation to even have a semblance of working. But then people will disobey the law as they always do, and then the committee’s will have to figure out a way to punish them, and before to long – you create many of the structures that you abhor from an authoritarian Marxist framework.

I already explained while people will be more likely to participate within democracy and vote within an anarchist society. With votes mattering more to people's life, people will be more likely to vote. Once again, I don't think workers are incapable of managing their affairs democratically.

[UnknownPerson]

No, more like a job description.
Don't think too big of this. A delegate is merely a person within a group that goes to meetings when going with the entire group would be impractical. When they're not being a delegate, they'll do the work the others in their group do as well. when they are being a delegate, they act according to a predefined mandate that was democratically decided upon by that particular group.

I'll give a simplified example of a libertarian socialist world, and the delegate's role in it.
Let's say we have a country of potato-loving people. People get their potatoes from distribution points, which get them from transporters, which get them from farmers.
In order to make sure that enough potatoes are grown and to make sure that enough potatoes arrive at each distribution point, some sort of coordination is necessary. Without coordination some points would likely end up with more than they need, while others would end up with a shortage. Some farms would not be able to meet demands while other farms would be idle. Sometimes farms would produce far too much, sometimes far too little. So coordination between farms, transporters and distributors is necessary.

It'd be impractical for every distributor to seek out farms and transportation by themselves. Instead, the distributors have formed a federation tasked with managing all that. At regular intervals delegates from each distributor meet, exchange potato consumption information and use this information to estimate how much potatoes are needed in the future.
Similarily, farms have also federated. At regular intervals delegates from each farm meet to exchange information about their past harvests, and to use that information to predict how much potatoes could be grown at full production.
Transporters have also federated. Through delegates, each transporter exchange information about their transportation and storage capabilities, and based on that they estimate how much they could transport in the future.

Now that each federation has information about their own industry, all that is needed is to combine it. Delegates from the distributor federation, farm federation and transport federation go over all the information and come up with a plan that minimizes overproduction and transportation need. These delegates then present the plan to their own federations, the whole thing is voted on and if it passes with a majority in each federation its a go.

As you can see the role of a delegate is not comparable to the role of an elected official. it is not a position of glory, status and power, but just another job that needs to be done.


At any point the group can recall their delegate and send a replacement. if a delegate misbehaves (where I assume 'misbehave' means act against the mandate decided upon by their group), they are recalled.

I see. Would it be fair enough to call libertarian socialism "decentralized government socialism" or "bottom-to-top socialism"?

And how would distribution be done? To each according to his contribution, or to each according to his need? I suppose your example implies 'to each according to his need', but maybe you didn't intend to explain distribution with it?

[Tjis]

I see. Would it be fair enough to call libertarian socialism "decentralized government socialism"
Depending on how you define government, yes. I rather not call it a government though, simply because calling it a government will lead to all kinds of semantic disputes.


or "bottom-to-top socialism"?
This is a better description.



And how would distribution be done? To each according to his contribution, or to each according to his need? I suppose your example implies 'to each according to his need', but maybe you didn't intend to explain distribution with it?
I intentionally didn't add this. What I wanted to show was the role of delegates in a decentralized planning process, not my prediction of all aspects of a libertarian socialist society.

Personally I am in favor of distribution according to need. The reason for this is very pragmatic: need is easily predicted. In essence, any distribution point only needs to keep track of how fast various products are consumed in order to predict future need for those products. Many other distribution schemes, like according to contribution require a way to account for how much work each and every person has done. Not only is keeping track of so many people ethically questionable, it is also simply impossible, because not all work is equal. Different kinds of (essential) work will require different work times, different energy expenditure, different education level. A system that seeks to reward everyone based on their contribution must have a way to somehow turn all those different factors in one single metric so that we can say 'joe the plumber has contributed 70 points this month and doc the docter has contributed 60 points.' Not an easy task.
Another problem with this is that the work of keeping track of how much work everyon did and deciding how much of a contribution it was is not done magically. It has to be done by actual people. So in order to reward people based on their contribution there has to be a group that does no productive work but only judges the work of others. This is a new class-based society in embryo form.

Anyway, that is my view on these things, but during an actual revolution the restructuring of society is not up to me or any other individual, or even any socialist group. It is up to the workers, and the revolution is to put them in charge, not any socialist group. This is the essence of libertarian socialism.

[UnknownPerson]

Depending on how you define government, yes. I rather not call it a government though, simply because calling it a government will lead to all kinds of semantic disputes.


This is a better description.


I intentionally didn't add this. What I wanted to show was the role of delegates in a decentralized planning process, not my prediction of all aspects of a libertarian socialist society.

Personally I am in favor of distribution according to need. The reason for this is very pragmatic: need is easily predicted. In essence, any distribution point only needs to keep track of how fast various products are consumed in order to predict future need for those products. Many other distribution schemes, like according to contribution require a way to account for how much work each and every person has done. Not only is keeping track of so many people ethically questionable, it is also simply impossible, because not all work is equal. Different kinds of (essential) work will require different work times, different energy expenditure, different education level. A system that seeks to reward everyone based on their contribution must have a way to somehow turn all those different factors in one single metric so that we can say 'joe the plumber has contributed 70 points this month and doc the docter has contributed 60 points.' Not an easy task.
Another problem with this is that the work of keeping track of how much work everyon did and deciding how much of a contribution it was is not done magically. It has to be done by actual people. So in order to reward people based on their contribution there has to be a group that does no productive work but only judges the work of others. This is a new class-based society in embryo form.

Anyway, that is my view on these things, but during an actual revolution the restructuring of society is not up to me or any other individual, or even any socialist group. It is up to the workers, and the revolution is to put them in charge, not any socialist group. This is the essence of libertarian socialism.

How is libertarian socialism different from communism in this case? Is it because there are forms of libertarian socialism which promote distribution based on contribution?

[Rafiq]

Sounds a little Utopian to me :/

I have no problem with strong central planning, honestly.

[Tjis]

How is libertarian socialism different from communism in this case? Is it because there are forms of libertarian socialism which promote distribution based on contribution?
There are forms of libertarian socialism that do not wish to establish communism. Also, there are socialist/communist ideologies that are not libertarian socialist, such as those that would establish a transitional workers state with a parliament and a centrally planned economy.

But I think most people that call themselves libertarian socialists merely do so because the term is less known than anarchist or communist and therefore has fewer image problems.

[Agent Equality]

Che with an AK,

I don't hold the reactionary view that the working class is uncapable of managing it's own affairs. Indeed, your view is common and bourgeoise. The idea that the proleteriat needs to be guided by a higher authority has always been an argument used by the bosses and forces of Capital in an attempt to delegitimize worker movements. For someone who claims to want to liberate the people from oppression, it looks a lot like you're a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Considering your defense of Che Guevara as some kind of revolutionary ubermensch in the Che thread, and your apparent disdain for the people I question your motives for advocacy of revolution. Perhaps you don't want to liberate the proleteriat but are more interested in the idea of taking control over others? Perhaps you aren't really an Authoritarian Socialist, but more an Authoritarian? It certainly seems that way, considering you're constant apologizing for an elite bureaucracy to rule over the people.

You took the words right out of my mouth on this one anon. Bravo. I couldn't have said it better myself. Che with an AK, zenga-zenga, and the rest of the authoritarians seem to have more in common with fascists than they do with socialists who actually care for the people. Their arguments defending their beloved dictators/oligarchs are not in the least bit convincing and only serve to further demonize them.

These authoritarians probably don't even believe the ludcricrous nonsense they say and are probably just doing it for teh lulz as I'm sure Revleft By Birth is doing or because they have the totilitarian fetish and think its cool. If they somehow actually do believe this stuff, then they need to visit a psychiatrist immediately and get a check on their mental and emotional health, because they obviously have some issues (only the crazy ones )

I sure hope there aren't any authoritarian mods or admins on here otherwise this could possibly be considered flaming :D

[Jimmie Higgins]

Something entirely different. It's the means of production being controlled by the workers through direct democracy. It differs from Authoritarian Socialism such as Leninism and it's derivatives of Trotskyism, Stalinism, Maoism, Hoxhaism, Guevaraism, etc.

Leninism is really mostly the theory of how conscious radicals should organize themselves - how society should be run after is just Marxism: production run by the workers through democracy. All power to the soviets. Of course it failed but I don't think there was some ideological original sin of Marxism or the Bolsheviks that led to this - just terrible conditions and a downward trajectory that led to internal counter-revolution.

The USSR and many of the theories that looked to that model as "legitimate socialism" really don't have class at the heart of their projects except in maybe a paternalistic sense with lip-service to democracy at best. Anecdotally, I think it's revealing that under Stalin, Russian textbooks were re-written and the class-based history adopted after the revolution was replaced by traditional "great man" history which emphasized Russia's historic past and even Tsarist national heroes. I identify with Trotskyism because I see it as an attempt to hold onto the basic principles of worker's power, proletarian-democracy, and internationalism. The main difference I see between my politics and class-focused anarchists is how to organize for revolution, not what follows.

[Jimmie Higgins]

So in theory, 51% of the population could enact their will on the other 49%?

Also, how do you keep “democracy” from divulging into 2 wolfs and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner?Worker's power. People "fight over crumbs" in capitalism because we are pitted against each-other even though workers have common interests. Without a despotic economy, with a cooperative and democratic organization of production and society, the common interests of workers means that we don't have to fight eachother due to artificial scasity due to capitalist inequalities.


Or more accurately, you hand “authority” over to the will of the majority, or as a critic would call it – rule of the mob.Rule of the mob? That's better than the rule of a minority class of capitalists or slave-owners or aristocrats. In fact I thought rule of the "mob" i.e. the mass of regular people was the goal of socialism.


What makes you think that you would get a sizeable representation then? In the U.S. it is voluntary to vote, and only about 50 % do for president, and 25 % for congress (thus 13% or 51% of that 25% make the decisions for everyone). In the U.S. it is also voluntary to run for congress, but very few ever do. :rolleyes: Democracy in capitalist countries isn't about the popular and democratic will of people, in fact it has all these institutions and rules and bureaucratic hoops to jump in order for the state to insulate itself from real popular demands. When the US state wants to go to war or bail out banks, it acts incredibly quickly and efficiently... when people demand reforms or whatnot, suddenly there's all this red-tape and procedural rules that slow things down. This is because our "Democracy/Republic" is not an instrument for popular decision making, it's not here to empower us or help us run society, it's there to allow the capitalist system to thrive and part of that is allowing some controlled participation in order to confine these demands to the logic of the system.

People don't vote in the US, specifically, poor and oppressed groups don't vote because people know it doesn't make a difference. There are pleanty of examples of times when people felt they were on the offensive and have become incredibly active - even in the electoral arena. Black people during civil rights for example or even poor people and young people during the Obama campaign. It was misguided, but shows that people would mobilize even now if they felt that their effort might actually make a difference.


In theory this already exists in most Western capitalist “democracies”, especially in the U.S. where in theory any state governor can be recalled through a ballot initiative. However, people are not engaged, as participation is voluntary. In the US in order to actually put this into practice, you need money, signature-gatherers and so on. Again a lot of hoops to jump through. Average people have NEVER to my knowlege really run an independant recall effort. In California the 2003 recall was started by a billionaire who wanted to become Governor. In Wisconsin it's the union leaders who have initiated the recall against the right-wing elected officials (because they want to fight, they just want to do it through the Democratic Party rather than have a rank and file mobilization... which might become militant and that they might not be able to control).

[syndicat]

Leninism is really mostly the theory of how conscious radicals should organize themselves - how society should be run after is just Marxism: production run by the workers through democracy. All power to the soviets.

Leninism is the theory that a single vanguard party should take state power and then implement its program through the state, with the mass organizations being mere transmission belts of the party. This was why the revolutionary syndicalist labor organizations split from the Red Trade Union International in 1921. When Angel Pestana, representing the CNT in Spain, talked for 10 minutes on the need for union autonomy, he was responded to by a one-hour tirade by Trotsky...who wasn't a worker, so why was he at that congress? Lenin and Trotsky never advocated direct worker management of production during the Russian revolution, but advocated anti-worker practices such as Taylorism.

There are many authoritarian quotes from Lenin and Trotsky from the period of the Russian revolution that can be used to justify authoritarian and statist practices.

Libertarian socialism is about the autonomy and rank and file self-management of the mass organizations/movements. It is our theory that a self-managed socialism can only be built by that kind of movement. Self-management is central to libertarian socialism not only as aim but as process...self-management of struggles.

From the beginning in the fall of 1917 the Bolshevik party engaged in various practices that would prefigure a bureaucratic class system. Setting up a political police force, answerable only to the party central committee (not to the soviets), which could engage in summary executions without trial. Creating top-down a statist central planning body to plan and control the whole economy from above. Dissolution of soviets in the spring of 1918 when the Bolsheviks lost elections. "Circumstances" don't explain this. Other alternatives methods could have been used....such as those proposed by Russian libertarian socialists at the time. Moreover, if the entire outcome is explained by "circumstances" then why both with Leninism? Leninism got its credence originally because of the claim that a "successful revolution" had established "workers rule" in Russia. only a closer look shows that isn't what happened.


I identify with Trotskyism because I see it as an attempt to hold onto the basic principles of worker's power, proletarian-democracy, and internationalism. The main difference I see between my politics and class-focused anarchists is how to organize for revolution, not what follows.

Trotsky said that the party's birthright to rule takes precedence over the "passing whims of the workers democracy." He certainly opposed workers management of production in the Russian revolution.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Leninism is the theory that a single vanguard party should take state power and then implement its program through the state, This is a straw-man. Did the revolution fail, yes. Did the party begin to substitute its class, yes, very quickly. Was this the Bolshevik theory, was this operating in a vacuum, is failure somehow inevitable? All of these quotes are from after the Revolution when they were facing many problems and already going down a road away from worker's power due to these conditions. To conflate the ideal aims with practice under desperate conditions is either just lazy or I don't know what.

Failure was AN outcome, but not the only outcome - your argument is like Stalinist who claim that the Spanish Revolution shows that "anarchism just always fails". When talking about historical events, context and class and the dynamics as well as the political ideas are all important and in the mix. The Bolsheviks in the early few years were constantly emphasizing how they were not operating under ideal conditions and that there was unwanted increasing beurocratic influence etc.

Anyway there are plenty of silly groups out there who do think that THEY are the vanguard or that the role of an organized vanguard is to run a "worker's state" for the working class. Then again there are anarchists out there who think that dumpster diving is a revolutionary act. Both come with the territory of living in times with low working class self-activity. But "vanguardism" is only a theory of how to organize for a revolution, I support this but as a means to achieve worker's power "power to worker's councils" not power to a party. This is really a Stalinist parody of Leninism that came after the Russian Revolution and was adopted by revolutionaries fighting revolutions that had little to do with working class self-emancipation.

[Joe Payne]

Well actually that is exactly what they always advocated. Just because syndicalist has the summation doesn't mean its a strawman. They sought to construct a workers' state. This is obvious and apparent, in none of Lenin's writings does he ever even begin to discuss exactly how or when the state would dissolve, only that they need to construct a state. The actions of the Bolsheviks from day one were solely directed towards the building of a new state. To them this was the revolutionary project. Nothing else needed to be focused upon because after the state was built, everything would come automatically, the state would somehow wither away and we'd magically have a free federation of communes.

That's the failure of the theory, the focus on the need to build a new state , and mistaking the workers' state for actual proletarian power.

You can't so easily separate Stalin from the Lenin and Trotsky. If the Bolsheviks were such a great party, how did Stalin even originally get in? How was he able to grow through the ranks, gain prestige, and hold major positions if he was so evil and the bolsheviks pre Stalin so good? Why was the party structured in a way where the base membership had less power than the myriad of executive bodies of the Party?

The Ukrainian revolution stuck to revolutionary, direct organs of the toilers the entire time. The revolution never degenerated into a bureacratic nightmare, the workers and peasants free soviets, assemblies, and factory committees were never subverted and in fact flourished, until it was wiped out by the Reds.

If "objective conditions" can explain why the Bolsheviks degenerated, then why didn't the revolution in Ukraine (which faced far worse conditions). Or hell, I'll let ya'll take the cop out as long as we can do the same for Spain ;)

[syndicat]

This is a straw-man. bullshit. it's what they actually did as soon as they had the opportunity to gain state power via the Council of People's Commissars in Oct 1917.



Did the revolution fail, yes. Did the party begin to substitute its class, yes, very quickly. Was this the Bolshevik theory, was this operating in a vacuum, is failure somehow inevitable? All of these quotes are from after the Revolution when they were facing many problems and already going down a road away from worker's power due to these conditions. To conflate the ideal aims with practice under desperate conditions is either just lazy or I don't know what.the things i refer to were from the very revolutionary process. the creation of the cheka and vesenkha (Supreme Council of National Economy) were in Nov-Dec 1917, that is, as soon as they had control of the national government. When the merger between the peasant congress and workers & soldiers congress took place in Nov-Dec, the bolsheviks immediately starting packing the soviet congress & its central executive committee to ensure a structural Bolshevik majority and were ruling by decree...without consulting even the nominal legislature of the country...within months.

These things were NOT inevitable. they were choices. That the Bolsheviks would do this falls out of their ideology. The "vanguard party" is supposed to carry in itself the necessary seeds of socialism so this becomes a ready-made justification for doing whatever is needed to ensure its power. they very quickly fell into referring to the Soviet government as "workers power" thru a highly Orwellian use of language: it's supposedly workers power because "the workers party" is running things. and why is it the "workers party" because its Marxist ideology ensures they are the only party that "truly" represents working class interests. this is a ready-made ideology for substitutionism right there.

And their commitment to centralized state planning and centralized state control were well-suited to the development of a new bureaucratic class.

That these directions were not inevitable is shown by the alternatives proposed by the libertarian socialist organizations in Russia at the time. instead of a top-down planning council staffed with managers, engineers and party stalwarts, the syndicalists & maximalists proposed a national congress of the factory committees to provide a grassroots coordination and planning for the economy, controlled by workers. but the Bolsheviks prevented this from happening.

instead of one-man management and taylorism, they could have proposed coordinated workers management with technical training and resources provided.

instead of destroying the soviets when they lost majorities in the spring of 1918, they could have proposed a federation of grassroots soviets, like the grassroots soviet in Kronstadt, as proposed by the maximalists and libertarian left.

you should read "Before Stalinism" by Sam Farber (a member of Solidarity). Farber points out that a feature of the Marxism of both the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks is that they were fixated on control of the central government, and did not emphasize or orient to building particpation by working people in the decisions that would govern their daily lives, in their workplaces or where they lived. this is a fundamental failing in their ideology and practice.

Lenin never emphasized any degree of worker control beyond mere "checking and surveillance" of management, "open the books" so workers could check finances, and that kind of thing. in State and Revolution he proposed the German post office as a model for socialism, "suitably modified" by worker "surveillance and checking".