Anarchism and left libertarianism

[SidBh]

What are the main differences between Anarchism and Libertarian Socialism?

[The Man]

Libertarian Socialism could still want to implement a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, like Council Communists, or Left Communists.

[Agnapostate]

It's analogous to the differences between what's known as "libertarianism" and "anarcho-capitalism." All anarchists are libertarians; not all libertarians are anarchists, since there is a minarchist tendency. The main difference is that the so-called "minarchists" seem to dominate the pseudo-libertarian movement, whereas anarchists dominate the real (left) libertarian movement, with council/left communists and libertarian Marxists a minority.

[Agent Equality]

well Anarchism is a tendency of libertarian socialism so....umm...yeah

[thefinalmarch]

PROTIP: "Libertarian" socialism does not exist as a tendency in itself - and neither does any perceived "authoritarian" socialism. "Libertarian socialism" exists as more of a broad grouping of various anti-Leninist currents. Even then, it's not a particularly useful term and, personally, I abhor it.


The only way communism could be considered "authoritarian" is if the revolution is considered to be an authoritarian act - which it inherently is, as it necessary involves the working class exerting its authority over the capitalist classes. As for communism being "libertarian", what exactly does that even mean? Communism will both grant liberty to and take liberty from people; the workers, and the capitalists & managers, respectively. It cannot be universally considered to be libertarian. The false dichotomy between "libertarian" and "authoritarian" tendencies is ridiculous. Tendencies should be classified according to the class character of their analyses. Have the societies which x tendency considers to be "truly socialist" actually abolished all classes? No? Then guess what; that tendency ain't communist. Of course, a more thorough investigation into the class character of the analyses of individuals from tendencies would yield more accurate results, but you get the picture.http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2213349&postcount=27

[The Douche]

Libertarian Socialism could still want to implement a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, like Council Communists, or Left Communists.

Anarchists do seek to implement the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Smyg]

Lolwut.

[The Douche]

Lolwut.

You should quote the post that you're lolwutting.

[syndicat]

Libertarian socialism is a more positive phrase than "anarchism" which is defined negatively ("no bosses, rulers"). However, the main historical tendency of anarchism was identical to libertarian socialism, as this was what syndicalism was aiming at.


Libertarian Socialism could still want to implement a Dictatorship of the Proletariatsince the Russian revolution "dictatorship of the proletariat" has been used to refer to a state run by a Communist party. Libertarian socialists are opposed to that.

If you mean, economic and political power in the hands of the working class through mass democratic institutions, such as workplace and neighborhood assemblies, national worker congresses, elected councils and so on, then that is what libertarian socialism is for...for actual power to the working class...not to some party that is the would-be "representative" of the working class.

"dictatorship of the proletariat" is an obsolete phrase that is best avoided. better to just say in ordinary English what you're for. fewer misunderstandings that way. and libertarian socialists never use the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat".

[Smyg]

You should quote the post that you're lolwutting.

Alright.


Anarchists do seek to implement the dictatorship of the proletariat.

I wasn't quite aware of this. Do explain.

[The Douche]

Alright.



I wasn't quite aware of this. Do explain.

The dictatorship of the proletariat means the implementation of working class rule. Which is what anarchists want.

I'm not a RAANista anymore, and I have a lot of problems with things RAAN has said and done, but I think this document is worth reading:

http://www.redanarchist.org/texts/indy/dofp.html

[miltonwasfried...man]

A lot of people are scared of the term "anarchy" because of the negative connotations attached to it by the corporate media, yet still respect the values of liberty and socialism. So they came up with a new term for the old idea, but I personally do not believe this was necessary. I am an Anarchist and I'm damn proud of it.

[GPDP]

IMO, adding "libertarian" to socialism is redundant. Socialism must be, by definition, libertarian, else it isn't socialism at all. How can you have a society run democratically by the majority, and not grant them liberty?

[Susurrus]

A lot of people are scared of the term "anarchy" because of the negative connotations attached to it by the corporate media, yet still respect the values of liberty and socialism. So they came up with a new term for the old idea, but I personally do not believe this was necessary. I am an Anarchist and I'm damn proud of it.


Libertarian as a leftist term was used a good 40 years before the right started using it.

[Desperado]

IMO, adding "libertarian" to socialism is redundant. Socialism must be, by definition, libertarian, else it isn't socialism at all. How can you have a society run democratically by the majority, and not grant them liberty?

Of course. But socialism for me is necessarily anarchistic, and anarchism for me necessarily socialistic. However my political views are not law, and so we must qualify what we mean so as to distinguish ourselves from others who use the same term differently, even if personally such qualifiers are redundant. Naturally, the best way is to refer to historical examples (because the qualifier is again possibly matter of semantics up for endless debate), but the qualifiers help by being more specific.

[Dimmu]

IMHO i dont see a difference when people say Libertarian Socialism or Anarchism. Of course we can go into details by claiming that Socialism and Communism are libertarian systems themselves.

But in my experiance Libertarian Socialism is used by anarchists to describe themselves to avoid the long discussions on that anarchism does not mean violence and disorder.

[syndicat]

IMO, adding "libertarian" to socialism is redundant. Socialism must be, by definition, libertarian, else it isn't socialism at all. How can you have a society run democratically by the majority, and not grant them liberty? when you talk about people being "granted" liberty it seems you don't understand the idea of libertarian socialism, which is that socialism is to be created from below, and is to consist in the working class directly achieving power itself, through its assemblies and delegate bodies, not thru some party controlling a state hierarchy. so liberty for the masses is something they'll have to seize for themselves, not look to saviors to "grant" it to them.

and "socialism" is a vague word that refers to social ownership over the means of production and sometimes it means working class power. but there are different conceptions historically of how to build this, including building "workers parties" to "represent" the working class in the government or in running the state. "social ownership" was what the elite in the soviet union claimed they had.

this is why it is necessary to differentiate libertarian socialism from what are ostensibly other forms of socialism. now i might say "they aren't really socialism" but I don't get to define the reference of the word. it is used to refer generally to a variety of political outlooks, including Left-social democracy and Marxism-Leninism...both of which are inconsistent with libertarian socialism.