Why libertarianism is bad?

[Le Rouge]

Hello. I recently went into debate with a libertarian. I said that workers under a libertarian country would be treated like shit (extremely low wage, no unions, enormous wage gap, discrimination, etc.) simply because there wouldn't be any law protecting them.
He said that "competition" between workers would do the trick. With competition, workers will have a decent wage, etc.

So...Is the concept of competition under libertarianism bullshit or is it true?
And why libertarianism is bad?

Educate me!

Ps. Does this thread belong in the learning section?

[Susurrus]

I take it you mean right libertarianism?

[Smyg]

... 'cause there's nothing as wonderful as leftist libertarianism.

[Franz Fanonipants]

He said that "competition" between workers would do the trick. With competition, workers will have a decent wage, etc.

hahahaha

The thing is, he's obviously a class enemy because he said nothing about the bourgeois. Instead he essentially just offered a programme of workers cutting workers throats til labor can be had at the lowest output.

Unless he's willing to abolish existing class systems he's basically your enemy.

[Le Rouge]

Yes i meant Right wing libertarianism

[Tim Cornelis]

Competition between workers generally drives wages down, unless they are unionised, which is unlikely under free market capitalism. The employer will say "if you do not want to work for 1 dollar an hour, I will simply hire someone else who is willing to".

Except for those with exceptional skills, where it's the reverse, the skilled wage labourer (e.g. doctor) "if you are not going to pay me more, there are plenty of employers who are willing to hire me for a higher wage". But most wage labourers are easily replaceable, so competition will cut wages.

And as a communist you really shouldn't be asking why right-wing libertarianism is bad! It's the worst aspects of capitalism amplified!

[Bud Struggle]

It's the same as Anarchism--just without the holding hands Kumboya part.

[Tim Cornelis]

It's the same as Anarchism--just without the holding hands Kumboya part.

Content not one liners pl0x.

[RedZezz]

He said that "competition" between workers would do the trick. With competition, workers will have a decent wage, etc.


Competition between workers drives down wages. It is essentially the price a worker is offering a capitalist for his labor. In order to get the contract, the capitalist will want the lowest price.

Edit: Goti123 beat me to it.

[Susurrus]

Well, how did free competition without regulation turn out for the workers of the industrial revolution?

[Bud Struggle]

Content not one liners pl0x.

Anarchists are a fiction. They might have existed in the past, but they are long gone now. Like any past fiction, they are part of legend. Arthur, Charlemaine, Anarchist Spain.

All long gone. Make up any stories you like.

[Bardo]

He said that "competition" between workers would do the trick. With competition, workers will have a decent wage, etc.


Riiiight, because workers will have the upper hand against their employers, right? Clearly the workers are on top of the hierarchical structure here.


Competition means workers will have to work for lower and lower wages in order to stay competitive in the labor market. Why would an employer hire you for $10 hourly when he can hire an equally skilled worker who is willing to work for $5?

Sort of like how businesses don't charge higher and higher prices for their goods in order to stay competitive, they charge lower and lower prices in order to stay competitive.

For a group who is always claiming to be on the side of "human nature" and "common sense", the laissez fair crowd seems to ignore both common sense and human nature.

[The Stalinator]

A society where I have to face constant competition just for the means to live and risk of being fucked over at every other turn sounds like absolute fucking shit. Who would advocate that?

[Bronco]

I think they're wrong about competition; Libertarians mistakenly believe that firms are competing for workers so will offer higher wages when really it's the other way round; workers are competing for the firms, for their jobs, and as a result the power is very much placed into the hands of the employers and not the employees

[Bud Struggle]

A society where I have to face constant competition just for the means to live and risk of being fucked over at every other turn sounds like absolute fucking shit. Who would advocate that?

An aside:

Personally, I love it. I thrive in it. I love competition, I love the challenge, I love the everyday fight.

I love this kind of life.

Just saying. :)

[Bardo]

An aside:

Personally, I love it. I thrive in it. I love competition, I love the challenge, I love the everyday fight.

I love this kind of life.

Just saying. :)

In order for there to be winners there have to be losers, no? What happens to the losers?

Isn't an environment where only the strong survive contradictory to civilized society? IE- it's a regressive, backwards policy.

[Bud Struggle]

In order for there to be winners there have to be losers, no? What happens to the losers?

Isn't an environment where only the strong survive contradictory to civilized society? IE- it's a regressive, backwards policy.

Who defines "civilized": you, me, the monkey?

[eric922]

In order for there to be winners there have to be losers, no? What happens to the losers?

Isn't an environment where only the strong survive contradictory to civilized society? IE- it's a regressive, backwards policy.
Libertarianism always seems like an economic version of the law of the jungle. The strongest survive, and everyone else gets eaten. I would say that we as a species should have evolved beyond that point, but even during the stages of primitive communism we seemed to have some sense of responsibility for the weaker member of our society, libertarianism seems to want to remove that.

[Tim Cornelis]

Anarchists are a fiction. They might have existed in the past, but they are long gone now. Like any past fiction, they are part of legend. Arthur, Charlemaine, Anarchist Spain.

All long gone. Make up any stories you like.

Oh, Bud Struggle, sometimes I wonder if you are just messing with us--because surely such "arguments" aren't meant to be taken serious?

You're right, anarchists don't exist, they are fiction, I am fiction, those associate professors are not real, and 110,000 people in Spain are non-existent, like the thousands of people around the world.

Oh Bud Struggle, so naive.

love ya

[Susurrus]

Anarchists are a fiction. They might have existed in the past, but they are long gone now. Like any past fiction, they are part of legend. Arthur, Charlemaine, Anarchist Spain.

All long gone. Make up any stories you like.

That's right. All the anarchist users here, and all the anarchist organizations and protests across the world? An elaborate hoax by Obama. Wake up sheeple.

[Dean]

Hello. I recently went into debate with a libertarian. I said that workers under a libertarian country would be treated like shit (extremely low wage, no unions, enormous wage gap, discrimination, etc.) simply because there wouldn't be any law protecting them.
He said that "competition" between workers would do the trick. With competition, workers will have a decent wage, etc.

So...Is the concept of competition under libertarianism bullshit or is it true?
And why libertarianism is bad?

Educate me!

Ps. Does this thread belong in the learning section?


No. Workers compete to provide work for the lowest wage possible. The inverse would only be true if labor was limited and capital was plentiful.

Rich nations tend to have more capital, so the balance of power shifts toward helping workers. But a lot of capital also works to limit the number of employees needed for production, which shifts the balance of power back against the worker.

Often times, the sheer power of consumer demand - that is wage spending by the working class - forces the expansion of capital. But as wages have deteriorated and more people have lost their jobs, consumer spending has gone done, and capital production has as well.

To a large extend, capital is required to compensate society for its usage of raw materials and its damage to the environment by fines, international trade regulations and emissions standards. Libertarianism seeks to strip these regulations from capital, which will make it more mobile encourage competition between nations and workers to provide cheaper labor, less emissions standards, and in general a favorable climate for profit - which means cost cutting and regulation cutting.

Reducing regulations on capital will allow it to move across borders more freely and find more profitable conditions. More profitable conditions mean lower wages - period.

[Kornilios Sunshine]

If you are talking about Right Wing Libertarianism which I read in the thread, think it is the same thing about how bad capitalism is which is what right wing libertarians support.

[Azraella]

Some talking points:

The free market is volatile.
The reason the free market is capable of reacting so quickly is because it's volatile, reactive, and generally functions like a mindless beast (or, more appropriately, like a mob). Let's get something out of the way right now: all the "free market" really is is the collected thoughts and actions of all the economic actors within a particular economy. It's a hive mind, basically, a mob mentality, and (by definition) it has all of your money. During good times, it gets complacent, and starts taking unnecessary risks because it thinks things could never go wrong. During bad times, it panics and starts to shut down; investors hoard their money rather than invest it, and people start to save their nickles and dimes and tighten their belts, which only helps to facilitate a further downward spiral.


The free market runs on a profit.
At first, this seems like a great thing. Wouldn't it be nice if the government could turn a profit, instead of just getting further and further into debt? And private enterprise always has the best talent (well, sometimes it does), so you know you're (probably) getting the best service.

However, there's a problem with running on a profit margin: everyone involved in a for-profit enterprise is incentivized to make money. Anything else they happen to do in the process of making money is incidental. Fixing your roof, cooking you good food, dry cleaning your clothes... it's all a part of the business model, and the point of the business model is to turn a profit.

This means that, if a guy thinks he can best make money by washing your feet and cooking you gourmet food every night at dinner, he'll do that. If, however, he thinks he can best make money by burning down your house, he'll do that too. It's all about making sure the income stays as high above your expenses as possible, and that leads to some unfortunate circumstances.

A contractor, for example, might want to cut costs because he bid on a contract and didn't get enough money from it to actually cover his normal expenses. So he finds ways to cut corners: maybe he doesn't do inspections as thoroughly as he ought, so he doesn't have to have guys on the clock any longer than he has to; maybe he changes his usual supplier to someone who charges less, or who can get him a special deal; maybe he switches from experienced, skilled, unionized labor to unexperienced, unskilled, or maybe even undocumented labor so he can avoid all the complications of union contracts and labor laws.

Of course, such decisions bring problems. Improper inspections mean that you sometimes miss things, like the fact that the ground you're building on is unstable and will collapse under a heavy rainfall with all the added weight on it; cheaper materials usually means worse materials, or maybe stuff that comes from a questionable source; using unskilled labor means more opportunities for mishaps because the guys you hired don't know what they're doing and/or don't necessarily speak the same language as you. And all of this means just one thing: by saving money, you potentially endanger the people who interact with your product. It's the same when a toy maker uses lead paint, or when a restaurant cooks with expired food.


The free market won't protect you.
Here's a hard one to wrap your head around: the free market does not care whether you live or die. Their primary concern is to get your money, and so long as your money is getting spent, they don't care if it's being spent while you're a corpse. People may get into private enterprise for a whole lot of reasons, but if it doesn't make money, it's likely they're not going to stay in business for long. No matter how altruistic the intent, you eventually have to pay the bills.

[Le Rouge]

The libertarian i was debating with said that the stock market would disappear in a right wing libertarian country since it a government institution. So there wouldn't be investors right?

[Bronco]

The libertarian i was debating with said that the stock market would disappear in a right wing libertarian country since it a government institution. So there wouldn't be investors right?

Why wouldn't there be investors, the country would be basically run by private capital and enterprise

[Nox]

Hello. I recently went into debate with a libertarian. I said that workers under a libertarian country would be treated like shit (extremely low wage, no unions, enormous wage gap, discrimination, etc.) simply because there wouldn't be any law protecting them.
He said that "competition" between workers would do the trick. With competition, workers will have a decent wage, etc.

So...Is the concept of competition under libertarianism bullshit or is it true?
And why libertarianism is bad?

Educate me!

Ps. Does this thread belong in the learning section?


- Unemployment of around 15-20% is an inevitable side effect of a purely capitalist society.
- Those 15-20% will have no income whatsoever, and will rely totally on charity.
- Workers will have no control over anything and the world will be run by corporations as the world's resources are slowly drained and the planet destroyed.

[Judicator]

I think they're wrong about competition; Libertarians mistakenly believe that firms are competing for workers so will offer higher wages when really it's the other way round; workers are competing for the firms, for their jobs, and as a result the power is very much placed into the hands of the employers and not the employees

Read your buddy Goti's post about skilled workers and you'll agree firms compete for workers in that case.

In the general case, really in any bargaining situation when A is buying from B, A tries to get the lowest price and B tries to get the highest price. A competes with other buyers and B competes with other sellers. People try to avoid competition by forming monopolies and unions but these are the exception.

[Bronco]

Read your buddy Goti's post about skilled workers and you'll agree firms compete for workers in that case.

In the general case, really in any bargaining situation when A is buying from B, A tries to get the lowest price and B tries to get the highest price. A competes with other buyers and B competes with other sellers. People try to avoid competition by forming monopolies and unions but these are the exception.

I never denied there were exceptions in the case of highly skilled workers because they're in less supply, greater demand and have a stronger bargaining position etc. etc. that doesn't translate to the vast majority of workers though

[ZeroNowhere]

Content not one liners pl0x.
Anarchists are a fiction. They might have existed in the past, but they are long gone now. Like any past fiction, they are part of legend. Arthur, Charlemaine, Anarchist Spain.

All long gone. Make up any stories you like.
See previous.

[Azraella]

The libertarian i was debating with said that the stock market would disappear in a right wing libertarian country since it a government institution. So there wouldn't be investors right?

Probably, but it depends. I will say this right-wing libertarianism fails because the NAP and self-ownership are incredibly flawed concepts.

Before we get off into a bunch of semantics and further discuss libertarianism and, "yuh huh, nuh unh" arguments, there is a lot of philosophical thought that is associated with libertarianism. Libertarianism is a very wide umbrella, to the point it really needs to be clarified as to what is being discussed. Here's how I normally circumscribe what I consider to be "mainstream" libertarianism. In my experience this covers the large majority of people who call themselves libertarians. However, it's hardly comprehensive and not intended to be proscriptive.
==

Capital-L Libertrianism in the US is the Libertarian party, which has a defined political platform. In general terms, the LP position on government is that the US Constitution enumerates the powers of the federal government and reserves all rights not granted to the states or to the individual. The Constitution also enumerates various state and individual rights to state clearly that they do exist but that does not preclude the existence of other rights which are not explicitly described and any which are conceived should be reserved for the individual or the state unless the Constitution is amended to provide them to the federal government.

As far as lower case-l, general libertarianism, Cato Institute is also a good touchstone for mainstream libertarian beliefs and is usually but not always in line with the LP. Philosophically libertarianism most closely resembles classical liberalism. The Chicago School of economics is probably the best illustration of libertarian economic thought.

There are, of course, various associated loci of concepts, like the Austrian School of economics, Neoclassical Liberalism, and so on. Obviously, the farther you go down a chain of associations, the more you diverge from the initial subject, but the threads aren't hard to follow.

I would also point to the discussion in Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy as being a good discussion of the core tenets of libertarian philosophy and the internal conflicts among different sub-schools of libertarian thought. I think it gives a little too much attention to anti-propertarian veins when you look at the touchstones of libertarianism in US society, but it's still good.

==
Again, this is not proscriptive. I'm not saying describing other views as libertarian is wrong, just that I think if they diverge substantially from the above, it's probably worth noting to avoid confusion. Is the person you're debating sound like what I just described and bolded?

[Judicator]

I never denied there were exceptions in the case of highly skilled workers because they're in less supply, greater demand and have a stronger bargaining position etc. etc. that doesn't translate to the vast majority of workers though

When the economy is growing rapidly firms can compete aggressively for workers...look at China:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_13/b3977049.htm

Under normal conditions (labor market equilibrium, 5% unemployment, etc.) workers needn't try very hard to find firms and firms needn't try very hard to find workers.

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

Or it could go the other way. Plus, when you look at it, it's always been organised labour that have won gains for the worker, The 1909 People's Budget for example was the result of strike action, the idea that the market is responsible for the betterment of working conditions is a myth that doesn't stack up.

[Veovis]

The only way right-wing libertarianism could possibly be construed as 'good' is that if it's ever implemented, conditions would get so shitty that the people would have no choice but to rise up, destroy capitalism, and create something better sooner rather than later.

[thefinalmarch]

Just a little something on so-called "left-libertarianism":

Libertarian/Authoritarian: a useless dichotomy when it comes to analysing the differences between various left groups, unless you are using it to refer to a broad grouping of specific historical currents within communism.

"Marxian" communism and anarchism are literally the most authoritarian ideologies out there -- they advocate the exertion of the entire working class' authority the rest of society, by means of expropriation and seizure of political power.

[Azraella]

I think it's really a matter of how the revolution is supposed to take place. One wants a dictatorship of the proletariat first, the others want an instant transition(best way to describe it) and honestly? The end goal is the same, but the devil is in the details.

[thefinalmarch]

I think it's really a matter of how the revolution is supposed to take place. One wants a dictatorship of the proletariat first, the others want an instant transition(best way to describe it) and honestly? The end goal is the same, but the devil is in the details.
the society in the process of revolution and this envisaged "instant transition" can only be considered to be a dictatorship of the proletariat. all workers' revolutions (both anarchist and "marxist" revolutions, although ideology isn't what makes things happen in the material world) will form a dictatorship of the proletariat (I suggest all "left-libertarians" who reject this concept learn what it means), which is a de facto state -- bear in mind that the concept of a "workers' state" necessarily presupposes a huge difference to the bourgeois, feudal, slave society, etc. states in any of their historical forms.

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

"Marxian" communism and anarchism are literally the most authoritarian ideologies out there -- they advocate the exertion of the entire working class' authority the rest of society, by means of expropriation and seizure of political power.

How is that any different to the current bourgeois control over political, economic and social life?

[Klaatu]

"Libertarian" is supposed to mean freedom-loving. But freedom comes with requirements: they are responsibility, duty, looking out for ones' neighbor, etc. The modern "libertarian" is not interested in any of these things; he just thinks he is free to do whatever he wants. This kind of thinking is the antithesis of civilization itself. It follows that "libertarianism' is just a new way of saying "the law of the jungle," "dog-eat-dog," "every man for himself," etc. Libertarianism is a sort of Social Darwinism, where the strong survive and prosper, while the weak get crushed.

[Rafiq]

Because it fails to take into account the inherit systematic and class contradictions in the capitalist system.

It is also an ideology in which only the Bourgeoisie and the Petite Bourgeoisie will benefit and survive from.

[Rafiq]

It's the same as Anarchism--just without the holding hands Kumboya part.

This, was funny, I will admit. But it is invalid.

Anarchism is a strand of Socialist politics and usually represents in the interests of hte working class (Or has in the past) while Right Libertarianism is the exact opposite - represents the interests of the vulgar or "mean" bourgeoisie. The smart Bourgeois members are not Libertarians.

[Tim Cornelis]

Just a little something on so-called "left-libertarianism":

Libertarian/Authoritarian: a useless dichotomy when it comes to analysing the differences between various left groups, unless you are using it to refer to a broad grouping of specific historical currents within communism.

"Marxian" communism and anarchism are literally the most authoritarian ideologies out there

Libertarian socialism is opposed to hierarchical social relations. The act or process of revolution is not a social relation in and of itself.


they advocate the exertion of the entire working class' authority the rest of society, by means of expropriation and seizure of political power.

This argument is devoid of class analysis. The "rest of society" is the bourgeoisie, who have asserted (undemocratic) authority over the workers and impose their will continually on the workers, i.e. authoritarian social relations. Ending these social relations and transforming them in non-hierarchical social relations is therefore libertarian. Whereas Marxists have usually advocated a transitional phase of hierarchical management, discipline, and so forth, hence Marxism is not opposed to authoritarian social relations.

Ending authoritarianism is not authoritarian.

[Rafiq]

Anarchists are a fiction. They might have existed in the past, but they are long gone now. Like any past fiction, they are part of legend. Arthur, Charlemaine, Anarchist Spain.

All long gone. Make up any stories you like.

But the same can be said about the Socialist movement as a whole. We either have reformists, irrelevant Trots, Raging Stalinists who cooperate with the cops, or Anarchists without organization.

[Rafiq]

An aside:

Personally, I love it. I thrive in it. I love competition, I love the challenge, I love the everyday fight.

I love this kind of life.

Just saying. :)

Yes, I'm sure we all would if we were factory owners, too.

[Rafiq]

The libertarian i was debating with said that the stock market would disappear in a right wing libertarian country since it a government institution. So there wouldn't be investors right?

We used to have a "Free Market" and all of this was a result of which.

What makes him so sure the same thing won't happen again?

[CommunityBeliever]

And why libertarianism is bad?

Libertarian capitalism isn't good or bad anymore then say the Wizard of Oz, or any other fantasy story. It is imaginary, it only exists in people's heads.

Every single developed country, every single country that has developed industry, saw the death of "free market" capitalism and the formation of large state industries. Free markets just don't work in reality. See natural monopolies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly).


With competition, workers will have a decent wage, etc.

Competition is the reason wages are ensured to suck. Capitalism always leaves a set of unemployed people who would gladly work your job for the minimum wage.

[citizen of industry]

Aside from the question of wages, free-market capitalism leads to centralization and monopoly. The "free" competition puts the small fish out of business first, then during times of crisis large corporations have to merge to stay afloat, and the largest are better able to make it through crisis alive, thus buying out the smaller companies. A Free-market is an impossible pipe-dream. It leads to the opposite - tyrannical trusts and concentration of business and wealth in the fewest hands possible.

[ВАЛТЕР]

right wing libertarianism is capitalism on crack cocaine...

compete or starve, beg the bourgeoisie to give you a job, and your fate lays in their hands as to how much they will pay you, what you "deserve"

and when you are useless to them, boom...out the door.

[Misanthrope]

Humans aren't a commodity.

/thread.

[Baseball]

Competition between workers drives down wages. It is essentially the price a worker is offering a capitalist for his labor. In order to get the contract, the capitalist will want the lowest price.


It continues to remain mysterious why a socialist system would seek the HIGHEST price (ie cost) in ITS production.

[Revolution starts with U]

It continues to remain mysterious why a socialist system would seek the HIGHEST price (ie cost) in ITS production.

It continues to remain a mystery why you would construct such a blatant straw man and expect people to take you seriously.

We seek not the "highest" price, that is absurd. We seek for labor to be justly compensated for the fruits of their labor. If that means some arbitrary "owner" (shouldn't exist) gets less, that's your power-worshipping problem.

Cheers :cool:

[Judicator]

Humans aren't a commodity.

/thread.

Even you Marxists say labor is a commodity.

[Baseball]

It continues to remain a mystery why you would construct such a blatant straw man and expect people to take you seriously.

We seek not the "highest" price, that is absurd. We seek for labor to be justly compensated for the fruits of their labor. If that means some arbitrary "owner" (shouldn't exist) gets less, that's your power-worshipping problem.

Cheers :cool:

I simply responded the note; the complaint that the capitalist will, in order to get the "contract" will want the "lowest" price. If the socialist system is confused as to what it might want, what it defines as "just" price, that is the problem of socialism to resolve. There is no sense in condemning capitalism for something socialism has apparently not ruled out of the question for itself.

[R_P_A_S]

Competition between workers generally drives wages down, unless they are unionised, which is unlikely under free market capitalism. The employer will say "if you do not want to work for 1 dollar an hour, I will simply hire someone else who is willing to".

Except for those with exceptional skills, where it's the reverse, the skilled wage labourer (e.g. doctor) "if you are not going to pay me more, there are plenty of employers who are willing to hire me for a higher wage". But most wage labourers are easily replaceable, so competition will cut wages.

And as a communist you really shouldn't be asking why right-wing libertarianism is bad! It's the worst aspects of capitalism amplified!

thanks for explaining it in simple terms

[Revolution starts with U]

I simply responded the note; the complaint that the capitalist will, in order to get the "contract" will want the "lowest" price. If the socialist system is confused as to what it might want, what it defines as "just" price, that is the problem of socialism to resolve. There is no sense in condemning capitalism for something socialism has apparently not ruled out of the question for itself.

Except it has ruled it out. It will not seek the "lowest" price, in terms of the cost of labor, because it does not have "ownership" seeking profit maximization through surplus value expropriation.

[Baseball]

[
QUOTE=Goti123;2282751]Competition between workers generally drives wages down, unless they are unionised, which is unlikely under free market capitalism. The employer will say "if you do not want to work for 1 dollar an hour, I will simply hire someone else who is willing to".

Except for those with exceptional skills, where it's the reverse, the skilled wage labourer (e.g. doctor) "if you are not going to pay me more, there are plenty of employers who are willing to hire me for a higher wage". But most wage labourers are easily replaceable, so competition will cut wages.

Well, then lets look at it from a socialist angle.

The workers at the plant are supposedly democratically voting for compensation. Unless the democratic vote is expected to based upon unanimity, it is fair to say not all workers will agree on what constitutes just compensation for the fruits of their labor.

But a decision still has to be made. Somebody is going to be disappointed in what their fellow workers decide is just compensation. Presumably that person will be disappointed because the compensation is not, according to his lights, enough.
So it would seem that that worker either has to accept that decision and work for less than he thinks is the fruit of his labor, or he can leave, in which case the the workers can find another worker who will agree to work at the agreed upon lower compensation.

So what has been solved?

[Baseball]

Except it has ruled it out. It will not seek the "lowest" price, in terms of the cost of labor, because it does not have "ownership" seeking profit maximization through surplus value expropriation.

if not labor, they will seek to reduce costs in other aspects of production.

[thefinalmarch]

How is that any different to the current bourgeois control over political, economic and social life?
boy you really are just a social democrat, aren't you?

[RGacky3]

It continues to remain mysterious why a socialist system would seek the HIGHEST price (ie cost) in ITS production.

its not either/or .... thats a false choice.


Even you Marxists say labor is a commodity.

Under capitalism.


if not labor, they will seek to reduce costs in other aspects of production.

Only if its neccessary.

Baseball, all of your arguments are hypothetical and apriori, but we have actual historical examples and NONE of what you said should happen actually happened, so just give it up.

[thefinalmarch]

Libertarian socialism is opposed to hierarchical social relations.
Using the given definition, we logically conclude that any ideology which advocates "hierarchical social relations" must therefore be an authoritarian variant of socialism, which is basically used here to mean Leninism.

In doing this, the "libertarian socialists" conflate the “Marxist” communists (who advocate the temporary establishment of workers’ authority over all the other classes during a revolution) with the Leninists (The "hierarchical social relations" they and their ideological offspring advocate are the bourgeois class relations which can be found in all bourgeois societies and not just the Soviet Union, et al.) – therefore we are lead to believe that “Marxist” communists advocate the same “hierarchical social relations” as the Leninists (i.e. that which existed in the Soviet Union, et al.: bourgeois class relations).

This is simply not true. We recognise that revolution is the most authoritarian thing a class can do. Proletarian revolution, in particular, requires not just the seizure of political power by the class as a whole (i.e. the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. It wouldn’t last long; it exists simply as something of an observable phenomenon only during the process of revolution itself, until the bourgeoisie is completely removed from power and ridded of their private property. It is only a de facto state, and the concept of a workers’ state necessarily presupposes a huge difference between it and the slave, feudal, bourgeois, etc. states in all their historic forms), but it also requires the expropriation of entire classes, as well as the abolition of value (via the abolition of wage-labour and capital). These are all authoritarian acts – temporary exertions of the working class’ authority over the bourgeois class – temporary establishments of “hierarchical social relations”. The state inadvertently formed through struggle in such a period would in fact “wither away”, as the existence of any state necessarily presupposes the existence of class – proletarian revolution, and with it the dictatorship of the proletariat (i.e. the workers’ state) end when class is no more.

The main presumption of the "libertarian socialists" is that the working class has no capacity to hold authority, not even temporarily. Their presumption is of course wrong on all counts, as has been demonstrated above.

The “libertarian socialists” wouldn’t know it, of course, but their ideal societies formed in revolution would be dictatorships of the proletariat (as much as they would like to believe otherwise, you cannot “jump straight to communism”. This is no restriction put in place by the glorious vanguard party clique or whatever, but it is simply fact. It doesn't really matter though, because to the untrained observer they'd appear exactly the same).

To me, the term "libertarian socialism" is only particularly useful if placed in a historical, or an otherwise specific, context (i.e. used to group together the various anti-Leninist communist currents which have, at various points, claimed to be part of this wider, broader tendency) - because, like it or not, the "libertarian socialists" are authoritarians.


Ending these social relations and transforming them in non-hierarchical social relations is therefore libertarian. [...] Ending authoritarianism is not authoritarian.
The logical fallacy of the "libertarian socialists":

When describing a means to an end (in this case specifically, the means is 'ending authoritarianism'), you did not consider the nature of the means (authoritarian – in the sense that expropriation and political overthrow is a display of authority), only the nature of the end (libertarian).

The act of expropriation, for example, doesn't automatically stop being a display of authority when it is the working class that does it. Forcibly confiscating property is an authoritarian thing to do regardless of whoever does it. It doesn’t all of a sudden become the epitome of freedom and liberty when the working class does it.


The act or process of revolution is not a social relation in and of itself.
Well, yeah, it's the complete overthrow of all existing social conditions and relations via the changing of the current ones. Then again, I don't know where I've argued what you just said.


This argument is devoid of class analysis. The "rest of society" is the bourgeoisie, who have asserted (undemocratic) authority over the workers and impose their will continually on the workers, i.e. authoritarian social relations.
Yes, because I put it in simplistic terms for all the simpletons in OI. It was also to emphasise that "hey, exerting authority over the rest of society requires a fuckton of authority, bro". What is meant by "the rest of society" is all the other classes.

It's kind of cute how you call me out for the lack of class analysis when your disavowal of "hierarchical social relations" makes no mention of class either.


Whereas Marxists have usually advocated a transitional phase of hierarchical management, discipline, and so forth
I dare you to find me anything by Marx or Engels saying this.

I suppose I never will be able to teach you any common sense. As the mantra goes: "an anarchist's politics start with the rejection of authority; a Marxist's politics start with the rejection of class society" – although 'anarchist' can just as easily be exchanged with 'libertarian socialist'.

[thefinalmarch]

I fucking love semantics

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

I honestly can't see how there is any moral difference whether the state supports private property and ownership of the means of production, or strengthens public property and promotes collectivisation and workers self managment. The state is going to be equally coercive in both of the scenarios.

[Tim Cornelis]

Using the given definition, we logically conclude that any ideology which advocates "hierarchical social relations" must therefore be an authoritarian variant of socialism, which is basically used here to mean Leninism.

In doing this, the "libertarian socialists" conflate the “Marxist” communists (who advocate the temporary establishment of workers’ authority over all the other classes during a revolution) with the Leninists (The "hierarchical social relations" they and their ideological offspring advocate are the bourgeois class relations which can be found in all bourgeois societies and not just the Soviet Union, et al.) – therefore we are lead to believe that “Marxist” communists advocate the same “hierarchical social relations” as the Leninists (i.e. that which existed in the Soviet Union, et al.: bourgeois class relations).

This is simply not true. We recognise that revolution is the most authoritarian thing a class can do. Proletarian revolution, in particular, requires not just the seizure of political power by the class as a whole (i.e. the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. It wouldn’t last long; it exists simply as something of an observable phenomenon only during the process of revolution itself, until the bourgeoisie is completely removed from power and ridded of their private property. It is only a de facto state, and the concept of a workers’ state necessarily presupposes a huge difference between it and the slave, feudal, bourgeois, etc. states in all their historic forms), but it also requires the expropriation of entire classes, as well as the abolition of value (via the abolition of wage-labour and capital). These are all authoritarian acts – temporary exertions of the working class’ authority over the bourgeois class – temporary establishments of “hierarchical social relations”.

That's where you're wrong. Expropriation of the bourgeoisie may be an authoritarian act, it is not an authoritarian social relation. The forceful confiscation of private property, with as purpose ending authoritarian social relations, is not a social relation in and of itself--it's an act within a process.

Again, forcefully ending authoritarianism is not authoritarian of itself. Expropriating private property does not limit the individual freedom of the former owner.


The state inadvertently formed through struggle in such a period would in fact “wither away”, as the existence of any state necessarily presupposes the existence of class – proletarian revolution, and with it the dictatorship of the proletariat (i.e. the workers’ state) end when class is no more.

The main presumption of the "libertarian socialists" is that the working class has no capacity to hold authority, not even temporarily. Their presumption is of course wrong on all counts, as has been demonstrated above.

False. Libertarian socialism does not establish new authoritarian social relations, the forceful confiscation of private property has as purpose ending authoritarian social relations.

Abolishing slavery is not authoritarian, just like abolishing hierarchy is not authoritarian as such.


The “libertarian socialists” wouldn’t know it, of course, but their ideal societies formed in revolution would be dictatorships of the proletariat (as much as they would like to believe otherwise, you cannot “jump straight to communism”.

This too is false, I recall a thread in which anarchist user Surrurus (??) said something along the lines of "I've never seen the Marxist definition of DOTP contradict anarchism" and I agreed with him. This is because Marxists and anarchists have always used different definitions. If the DOTP is a network of self-governing communes, but the communes use force to prevent the re-establishment of capitalist (i.e. authoritarian) social relations, anarchists would not oppose it. But if the DOTP is power concentrated in the hands of anyone else but the workers or "people", anarchists would oppose it.

And the notion that libertarian socialists want to jump to communism overnight is a strawman refuted and discredited time and time again.



This is no restriction put in place by the glorious vanguard party clique or whatever, but it is simply fact. It doesn't really matter though, because to the untrained observer they'd appear exactly the same).

No, I fully recognise there is a difference between Marxist theory, Leninist theory, and Leninism in practice.


To me, the term "libertarian socialism" is only particularly useful if placed in a historical, or an otherwise specific, context (i.e. used to group together the various anti-Leninist communist currents which have, at various points, claimed to be part of this wider, broader tendency) - because, like it or not, the "libertarian socialists" are authoritarians.

Again false, libertarian socialists have no intention to re-establish authoritarian social relations in a new form--unlike Marxists.


When describing a means to an end (in this case specifically, the means is 'ending authoritarianism'), you did not consider the nature of the means (authoritarian – in the sense that expropriation and political overthrow is a display of authority), only the nature of the end (libertarian).

But those means are not a social relation, but an act or process, firstly. Libertarian socialism is opposed to authoritarian social relations. And expropriation does not limit the freedom of the capitalist, just like freeing slaves is not an authoritarian act.


The act of expropriation, for example, doesn't automatically stop being a display of authority when it is the working class that does it. Forcibly confiscating property is an authoritarian thing to do regardless of whoever does it. It doesn’t all of a sudden become the epitome of freedom and liberty when the working class does it.

It does exactly that because it ends authoritarian social relations.


Yes, because I put it in simplistic terms for all the simpletons in OI. It was also to emphasise that "hey, exerting authority over the rest of society requires a fuckton of authority, bro". What is meant by "the rest of society" is all the other classes.

Class society is based on the domination of the ruling class over the lower classes--hence, ending these social relations, by forcefully removing the cause of authoritarian social relations--is not authoritarian.

The working class is not exercising authority over the bourgeoisie, they are preventing the working class from exercising authority over them.


It's kind of cute how you call me out for the lack of class analysis when your disavowal of "hierarchical social relations" makes no mention of class either.

How are social relations not determinant of the class nature of society?


I dare you to find me anything by Marx or Engels saying this.


"how do these people [anarchists] propose to run a factory, operate a railway or steer a ship without having in the last resort one deciding will, without a single management"? [The Marx-Engels Reader, p. 729]

And here Engels clearly wishes the re-establish authoritarian social relations by, in his words, "demand for the concentration of all political power in the hands of the people's representatives". Not the "people" but their representatives would hold power.

And to quote an Anarchist FAQ:


If we look at Marx, we get contradictory impressions. On the one hand, he argued that freedom "consists in converting the state from an organ superimposed upon society into one completely subordinate to it." Combine this with his comments on the Paris Commune (see his "The Civil War in France"), we can say that there are clearly elements of "socialism from below" in Marx's work. On the other hand, he often stresses the need for strict centralisation of power. In 1850, for example, he argued that the workers must "not only strive for a single and indivisible German republic, but also within this republic for the most determined centralisation of power in the hands of the state authority." This was because "the path of revolutionary activity" can "proceed only from the centre." This meant that the workers must be opposed to the "federative republic" planned by the democrats and "must not allow themselves to be misguided by the democratic talk of freedom for the communities, of self-government, etc." This centralisation of power was essential to overcome local autonomy, which would allow "every village, every town and every province" to put "a new obstacle in the path" the revolution due to "local and provincial obstinacy." Decades later, Marx dismissed Bakunin's vision of "the free organisation of the worker masses from bottom to top" as "nonsense." [Marx-Engels Reader, p. 537, p. 509 and p. 547]


Also interesting, bot not related to Marx, is the Bolshevik decrees on the organisation of the Russian economy in 1918:


As for the rank and file of the workmen, the new system [of nationalisation] was scarcely conducive to enthusiasm on their part. In the first place they were forced to give up definitely the idea that the workmen employed in each particular enterprise were going to own or at least control that enterprise. This idea had been carefully inculcated in them by the demagogical agitators, and the introduction of nationalization was, indeed, a disappointment to them. For under the system of nationalized industry, the workmen became simply servants of the state, forced to submit to the officials appointed by the state in precisely the same manner in which they had been formerly forced to submit to private entrepreneurs and their managers. (source: The Economics of Communism).


I suppose I never will be able to teach you any common sense. As the mantra goes: "an anarchist's politics start with the rejection of authority; a Marxist's politics start with the rejection of class society" – although 'anarchist' can just as easily be exchanged with 'libertarian socialist'.

How is relations of power not integral to class analysis? This implies you can do away with classes, without doing away with hierarchical social relations. But even if we ignore this, why is the rejection of class society superior to the rejection of authority?

By the way, if we accept this argument as valid "libertarianism" does not exist, and every single ideology that exists and will ever exist is authoritarian. Hence, this makes definitions meaningless, which alone already implies there is something wrong with your and Marxists' analysis of authority.

[Drosophila]

Oh but competition makes the market self-regulated!

[Franz Fanonipants]

It continues to remain mysterious why a socialist system would seek the HIGHEST price (ie cost) in ITS production.

there's no profit motive in communism

so it follows

[Rafiq]

there's no profit motive in communism

so it follows

If there is no "Profit" motive in communism than communism will be less efficient than capitalism.

The difference, to adress baseball's post, is that, we aren't talking about a socialist system, we are talking about capitalism right now. It is completely possible to estabilish a more efficient means of producing things cheaper, yet at the same time assuring that the product won't have to be over produced, (As competition in these regards may very well cease to exist, 'maybe'..).

But this kind of talk is pointless. We are talking about capitalism. Yet Socialism is still thrown into hte discussion (Probably because a solution is wanted and since most of us are socialists it is assumed that is our solution and therefore that is criticized). I already have posted what could be one of the hundreds, if not thousands of possibilities a society could organize itself into to address this problem. But never the less, this kind of talk is useless. We are criticizing capitalism right now. (Even though Baseball's posts criticizing socialism are more useful than the posters we have here criticizing capitalism only on a basis that they want socialism).

[Rafiq]

Abolishing slavery is not authoritarian, just like abolishing hierarchy is not authoritarian as such.


I don't know what this "Social Relations" business is, but on the basis of the word itself, abolishing slavery is very authoritarian. Authority is necessary to prevent people from enslaving other, weaker people.

Ergo it is still an Authoritarian social relation, in that, socially you are forcing people not to enslave other people, and your relation to them includes forcing them not to enslave people.

[Misanthrope]

Even you Marxists say labor is a commodity.

Labor isn't a human; it's produced by humans.

[Tim Cornelis]

I don't know what this "Social Relations" business is, but on the basis of the word itself, abolishing slavery is very authoritarian. Authority is necessary to prevent people from enslaving other, weaker people.

Ergo it is still an Authoritarian social relation, in that, socially you are forcing people not to enslave other people, and your relation to them includes forcing them not to enslave people.

Generally the distribution of decision-making power and the social interaction that flows from this is what is meant by social relations. Thus, employee-employer, master-slave, etc.

But seriously, if abolishing slavery is authoritarian, virtually every act is authoritarian. The word "authoritarian" becomes meaningless, right-wing libertarianism is authoritarian, left-wing libertarianism is authoritarian, Stalinism is authoritarian, not being allowed to murder someone is authoritarian, murdering someone is authoritarian. It has no meaning.

If murdering someone is an act of authority--which it is--then the prevention of murder--which may require an element of force--is not authoritarian because it prevents someone from asserting authority over his or her victim.

The same with capitalism. Preventing authoritarian social relations by a possibly forceful act of expropriation is not authoritarian because it ends authoritarian social relations and additionally does not re-establish authoritarian social relations in another form, hence it's libertarian.

[Judicator]

Labor isn't a human; it's produced by humans.

Right, so nobody's saying humans are commodities.

[Misanthrope]

Right, so nobody's saying humans are commodities.

When I first posted that comment I wasn't speaking in economic terms. Humans shouldn't be treated as commodities, which they are in capitalism.

[RedZezz]

It continues to remain mysterious why a socialist system would seek the HIGHEST price (ie cost) in ITS production.



I simply responded the note; the complaint that the capitalist will, in order to get the "contract" will want the "lowest" price. If the socialist system is confused as to what it might want, what it defines as "just" price, that is the problem of socialism to resolve. There is no sense in condemning capitalism for something socialism has apparently not ruled out of the question for itself.


I find it mysterious that it is automatically assumed that when a socialist says anything about capitalism it is automatically a complaint.

I was responding to the claim that competition will increase wages. I used a capitalist analysis to show why this is not so. Why must this be regarded as a socialist critique?

[Judicator]

When I first posted that comment I wasn't speaking in economic terms. Humans shouldn't be treated as commodities, which they are in capitalism.

The labor is bought, not the person.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=RedZezz;2284160]I find it mysterious that it is automatically assumed that when a socialist says anything about capitalism it is automatically a complaint.

I am sorry. I was incorrect to assume that a comment about declining wages in a capitalist community was not to be interpreted by as a negative by socialists.


I was responding to the claim that competition will increase wages. I used a capitalist analysis to show why this is not so. Why must this be regarded as a socialist critique?

If capitalism is going to be condemned for this or that, then the socialist is going to have to explain why and how socialism will seek to avoid/eliminate that problem.

[RedZezz]

I am sorry. I was incorrect to assume that a comment about declining wages in a capitalist community was not to be interpreted by as a negative by socialists.



I do not recall the OP saying anything about decining wages in our current society (although true, not adressed in the OP). He made the claim that in a hypothetical libertarian society, wages would be extremely low.

His opponent made the claim :


...that "competition" between workers would do the trick. With competition, workers will have a decent wage, etc.


I was responding to this claim using a capitalist analysis.

[Baseball]

The difference, to adress baseball's post, is that, we aren't talking about a socialist system, we are talking about capitalism right now. It is completely possible to estabilish a more efficient means of producing things cheaper, yet at the same time assuring that the product won't have to be over produced, (As competition in these regards may very well cease to exist, 'maybe'..).

But this kind of talk is pointless. We are talking about capitalism.

The thing here is this: If the socialist community is unable to figure out how to create a more efficient production ect., if they are not able to, or unwilling to argue it, then they scarcely support their claims about capitalism in general. How can the socialist claim that the capitalists create the current economy/world ect. for the purpose of perpetuating their own class interest; that such construction is harmful to the majority of the people ect ect ect, IF the socialist is unable to describe how their proposals are any different, or how it would lead to anything different and better than what the capitalists propose?

[Baseball]

I do not recall the OP saying anything about decining wages in our current society (although true, not adressed in the OP). He made the claim that in a hypothetical libertarian society, wages would be extremely low.

His opponent made the claim :



I was responding to this claim using a capitalist analysis.

Yes, the claim by yourself was that capitalism will seek to drive down wages (costs). Again, I do not believe I am incorrect in saying socialists are generally opposed to such a development.
So presumably the socialist community would seek the highest possible compensation for its workers. However, the catch remains the same: The compensation would be to the lowest possible compensation which would secure the workers continued labor at that particular site. The disagreement would be over the word "possible."

[Revolution starts with U]

Yes, the claim by yourself was that capitalism will seek to drive down wages (costs). Again, I do not believe I am incorrect in saying socialists are generally opposed to such a development.
So presumably the socialist community would seek the highest possible compensation for its workers. However, the catch remains the same: The compensation would be to the lowest possible compensation which would secure the workers continued labor at that particular site. The disagreement would be over the word "possible."

Any business must do this; it's called "doing business." :lol:

I fail to see how this legitamizes the capitalist mode, or critices the Socialist mode specifically.

[Baseball]

Any business must do this; it's called "doing business." :lol:

I fail to see how this legitamizes the capitalist mode, or critices the Socialist mode specifically.

Any efficient production has to do this- keep down costs as low as possible

[Revolution starts with U]

Any efficient production has to do this- keep down costs as low as possible

Yes, so the question remains: how does this legitimize the Capitalist mode?

How does this criticise the Socialist mode specifically (as opposed to Socialism and all other modes)?

[Baseball]

Yes, so the question remains: how does this legitimize the Capitalist mode?

How does this criticise the Socialist mode specifically (as opposed to Socialism and all other modes)?


Hey- i responded to a specific complaint about capitalism. I simply wondered why a socialist system would do it any different.

[RedZezz]

Yes, the claim by yourself was that capitalism will seek to drive down wages (costs). Again, I do not believe I am incorrect in saying socialists are generally opposed to such a development.
So presumably the socialist community would seek the highest possible compensation for its workers. However, the catch remains the same: The compensation would be to the lowest possible compensation which would secure the workers continued labor at that particular site. The disagreement would be over the word "possible."

Yes, my point is that in the hypothetical libertarian society the opponent of the OP presented, that is, competition between workers will drive down the price (wage) for their labor. It is also true that socialists are generally against low wages within a capitalist system since the worker's livelihood depends on it.

However, my arguement doesn't touch on that, but specifically to the claim that "competition between workers leads to higher wages for those workers".

Edit: To make myself clear, in my post, I wasn't criticising low wages or that capitalist seek low wages, but the claim that competition leads to higher wages.

[thefinalmarch]

That's where you're wrong. Expropriation of the bourgeoisie may be an authoritarian act, it is not an authoritarian social relation. The forceful confiscation of private property, with as purpose ending authoritarian social relations, is not a social relation in and of itself--it's an act within a process.
Actually, the act does in fact briefly establish an "authoritarian social relation" -- for the brief moment in time when the working class wrests political power, as well as control of the means of production, from the bourgeoisie, the bourgeoisie are made subservient to their will.


It does exactly that because it ends authoritarian social relations.
Again, you’ve done something which is completely illogical: you analysed a process and described its nature by only the nature of the outcome and not by the nature of the process itself. That doesn’t make the least bit of sense.

You have a double standard when analysing the authoritarian/libertarian nature of acts, of means, of processes: Acts or means such as cops beating someone down is authoritarian to you, as it is an exertion of authority. Yet, if some workers were to beat down a cop, you would not recognise that the workers have briefly exerted authority upon the cop, because when it comes to means with libertarian ends, you only judge according to the nature of the end. It’s a dumb double-standard.


Again, forcefully ending authoritarianism is not authoritarian of itself. Expropriating private property does not limit the individual freedom of the former owner.
What? Of course it does. It deprives the former owner of their freedom to own private property, to exploit, etc.


False. Libertarian socialism does not establish new authoritarian social relations, the forceful confiscation of private property has as purpose ending authoritarian social relations.
See first and second responses, above.


Abolishing slavery is not authoritarian, just like abolishing hierarchy is not authoritarian as such.
The abolition of slavery requires the exertion of authority on the slave-holding class. The slave-holding class is briefly made subservient to the will of whoever exerts authority on them.


This too is false, I recall a thread in which anarchist user Surrurus (??) said something along the lines of "I've never seen the Marxist definition of DOTP contradict anarchism" and I agreed with him. This is because Marxists and anarchists have always used different definitions. If the DOTP is a network of self-governing communes, but the communes use force to prevent the re-establishment of capitalist (i.e. authoritarian) social relations, anarchists would not oppose it.
Hold on, isn’t the use of force an example of the exercise of authority?


But if the DOTP is power concentrated in the hands of anyone else but the workers or "people", anarchists would oppose it.
Then it's not a dictatorship of the proletariat at all, so this example is irrelevant. It’s not something we advocate.


And the notion that libertarian socialists want to jump to communism overnight is a strawman refuted and discredited time and time again.
I was merely following a logical conclusion that you would reject a DoTP:
1. You reject authoritarianism and believe that the working class has no capacity to participate in authoritarian acts.
2. I demonstrated that the establishment as well as the maintenance of the conditions of the dictatorship of the proletariat are authoritarian acts; therefore you can’t support such a concept.

No, I fully recognise there is a difference between Marxist theory, Leninist theory, and Leninism in practice.
oops I meant to say that to the untrained observer, the DoTP and communism would look basically the same.


Again false, libertarian socialists have no intention to re-establish authoritarian social relations in a new form--unlike Marxists.
See first and second responses, above.


Class society is based on the domination of the ruling class over the lower classes--hence, ending these social relations, by forcefully removing the cause of authoritarian social relations--is not authoritarian.
The dictatorship of the proletariat is in fact a very brief period of class society (it’s just that the tables have turned), right up to the point of its overthrow. The name literally means “the political domination of the proletariat”. It exists only during and after the working class’ wresting of political power from the bourgeoisie, until the point where the bourgeoisie are expropriated, meaning they don’t exist as a class any more. It’s more of an observable phenomenon than something to be planned in some sort of stage theory.


The working class is not exercising authority over the bourgeoisie, they are preventing the working class from exercising authority over them.
I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here.


How are social relations not determinant of the class nature of society?
I feel that the term “hierarchical social relations” (and also how it's used a lot of the time) is itself just an example of empty phraseology, and that determination of the class nature of society extends much deeper and is more complex than what I consider to be the empty phraseology of “hierarchical social relations”.


And here Engels clearly wishes the re-establish authoritarian social relations by, in his words, "demand for the concentration of all political power in the hands of the people's representatives". Not the "people" but their representatives would hold power.
The quoted text is from Engels’ Critique of the Draft Social-Democratic Program of 1891. You have to understand this quote in its historical context: the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) was an early social democratic party (a party in the current sense of the word, and not the “historical party” such as that implied by the title of The Manifesto of the Communist Party) which fought for the immediate aims of the working class in Germany at the time, by participating in parliament. Social democracy was, at the time, far more radical than its present incarnation.

If you had read the previous sections of the text, you would see that Engels points out that in Germany, the executive branch of government held far more power than the Reichstag (which was the legislative/parliamentary body to which representatives were elected).

“As regards the rights being granted to the people and their representatives, the imperial constitution is, strictly speaking, a copy of the Prussian constitution of 1850, a constitution whose articles are extremely reactionary and give the government all the real power, while the chambers are not even allowed to reject taxes; a constitution, which proved during the period of the conflict that the government could do anything it liked with it. The rights of the Reichstag are the same as those of the Prussian chamber and this is why Liebknecht called this Reichstag the fig-leaf of absolutism.”

“…in Germany where the government is almost omnipotent and the Reichstag and all other representative bodies have no real power…”

Engels concluded that the representatives of the SPD were therefore held back in their ability to fight for the workers’ immediate interests in parliament and so he recommended that the SPD should advocate greater delegation of authority to the Reichstag.

Also, literally immediately after the text you quoted, there’s this:

“That would suffice for the time being if it is impossible to go any further.”

Your quote had nothing to do with the political organisation of the dictatorship of the proletariat, or indeed that of communist society.


And to quote an Anarchist FAQ:
Marx argued for a bourgeois German republic because, in the wider context of the bourgeois revolutions of the 17th–18th centuries, the overthrow of the feudal state apparatus would in fact be progressive as it would take Germany a step closer to communism. It’s kind of like how Marx was a staunch supporter of the Union in the American Civil War because a Union victory would mean that the slave-holding class in the Confederacy would be defeated and the slaves would become proletarians, with the newfound capacity to abolish class society itself. Also, much of his very early views were basically antiquated and irrelevant by the time of his death (such as the "ten planks of communism" found in the manifesto).

As for the rejection of "the free organisation of the worker masses from bottom to top" – I can find no mention of this in Marx’s writings or correspondences at all. I only get search results for the AFAQ. Maybe I haven’t looked hard enough but it seems a little suspicious to me.

Anyway, ZeroNowhere apparently did a short critique of the AFAQ (which you can read here: http://http://www.revleft.com/vb/critique-anarchist-faq-t100349/index.html) nearly three years ago. You might be interested in the following section:

“"Decades later, Marx dismissed Bakunin's vision of "the free organisation of the worker masses from bottom to top" as "nonsense."" Ooh, interesting. Could you please provide the context in which Marx revealed his secret authoritarianism? Marx saw Bakunin's rhetoric as mere empty phraseology, for example, "[The rank and file of the International Alliance of Socialist Democracy (Bakunin's organization)] are told of nothing but pure anarchy, of anti-authoritarianism, of a free federation of autonomous groups, and other equally harmless things: a mere jumble of words." For Marx, a solid basis for communist practice is not provided by Bakunin, so he considers the phrases empty.”


Also interesting, bot not related to Marx, is the Bolshevik decrees on the organisation of the Russian economy in 1918:

(source: The Economics of Communism).
You’re absolutely right in that it has no relation to Marx.


How is relations of power not integral to class analysis? This implies you can do away with classes, without doing away with hierarchical social relations. But even if we ignore this, why is the rejection of class society superior to the rejection of authority?
See what I said about ‘empty phraseology’ (not in ZeroNowhere’s critique, but earlier on in this post).


By the way, if we accept this argument as valid "libertarianism" does not exist, and every single ideology that exists and will ever exist is authoritarian. Hence, this makes definitions meaningless, which alone already implies there is something wrong with your and Marxists' analysis of authority.
I also do not understand what you’re on about here.

[Tim Cornelis]

Actually, the act does in fact briefly establish an "authoritarian social relation" -- for the brief moment in time when the working class wrests political power, as well as control of the means of production, from the bourgeoisie, the bourgeoisie are made subservient to their will.

No they are not. Firstly, the act of expropriation is not a social relation, it's an act. Just like punching someone in the face is an act and not a social relation. Secondly, expropriation of property does not imply the loss of personal autonomy of the capitalist--unless you execute or imprison him, which I do not advocate.



You have a double standard when analysing the authoritarian/libertarian nature of acts, of means, of processes: Acts or means such as cops beating someone down is authoritarian to you, as it is an exertion of authority. Yet, if some workers were to beat down a cop, you would not recognise that the workers have briefly exerted authority upon the cop, because when it comes to means with libertarian ends, you only judge according to the nature of the end. It’s a dumb double-standard.

If a bunch of cops beat up a worker it's an act of authoritarianism. If a bunch of workers beat up a cop, it's an act of authoritarianism. If a bunch of cops attempt to beat up a bunch of workers, and the workers defend themselves by beating the cops, it's not an authoritarian act--but the prevention thereof. In any case, whether an act is authoritarian is irrelevant as I oppose authoritarian social relations first and foremost.



What? Of course it does. It deprives the former owner of their freedom to own private property, to exploit, etc.

It deprives them of the right to own private property, not their freedom.

Freedom is the ability to control your own decisions and life, it is freedom from authority. The "freedom" to take away the freedom of others is not a freedom but a right (or privilege depending on how you see it).

The capitalist does not lose his personal autonomy.



The abolition of slavery requires the exertion of authority on the slave-holding class. The slave-holding class is briefly made subservient to the will of whoever exerts authority on them.

The abolition of slavery requires the prevention of exertion of authority by the slave-holding class, by an act which requires an element of force. But no authoritarian social relation is established by forcefully preventing (which, again, is an act not a social relation) the would be slave owner from owning slaves.



Hold on, isn’t the use of force an example of the exercise of authority?

Act =/= social relation



Then it's not a dictatorship of the proletariat at all, so this example is irrelevant. It’s not something we advocate.



I was merely following a logical conclusion that you would reject a DoTP:
1. You reject authoritarianism and believe that the working class has no capacity to participate in authoritarian acts.
2. I demonstrated that the establishment as well as the maintenance of the conditions of the dictatorship of the proletariat are authoritarian acts; therefore you can’t support such a concept.

Again, preventing authoritarian social relations by means of a forceful act does not equal the re-establishment of authoritarian social relations.

Social relations =/= acts


The dictatorship of the proletariat is in fact a very brief period of class society (it’s just that the tables have turned), right up to the point of its overthrow. The name literally means “the political domination of the proletariat”. It exists only during and after the working class’ wresting of political power from the bourgeoisie, until the point where the bourgeoisie are expropriated, meaning they don’t exist as a class any more. It’s more of an observable phenomenon than something to be planned in some sort of stage theory.

I realise this, as long as the DOTP internally does not establish social relations of public managers and obeying workers (as during the Russian revolution), anarchism and the DOTP are compatible.



I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here.

Currently, the bourgeoisie is exercising authority over the proletariat. In my view, the social revolution entails preventing the bourgeoisie from asserting authority over the proletariat, by means of acts of force if necessary. However, the bourgeois individuals will not become subject of the workers in that they will be commanded to clean the toilets, they capitalists do not lose their personal freedom, they lose the right to ownership. Hence, and I will repeat it again, no authoritarian social relations are established between the workers and the (former) capitalists.



I feel that the term “hierarchical social relations” (and also how it's used a lot of the time) is itself just an example of empty phraseology, and that determination of the class nature of society extends much deeper and is more complex than what I consider to be the empty phraseology of “hierarchical social relations”.

Perhaps.



The quoted text is from Engels’ Critique of the Draft Social-Democratic Program of 1891. You have to understand this quote in its historical context: the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) was an early social democratic party (a party in the current sense of the word, and not the “historical party” such as that implied by the title of The Manifesto of the Communist Party) which fought for the immediate aims of the working class in Germany at the time, by participating in parliament. Social democracy was, at the time, far more radical than its present incarnation.

If you had read the previous sections of the text, you would see that Engels points out that in Germany, the executive branch of government held far more power than the Reichstag (which was the legislative/parliamentary body to which representatives were elected).

“As regards the rights being granted to the people and their representatives, the imperial constitution is, strictly speaking, a copy of the Prussian constitution of 1850, a constitution whose articles are extremely reactionary and give the government all the real power, while the chambers are not even allowed to reject taxes; a constitution, which proved during the period of the conflict that the government could do anything it liked with it. The rights of the Reichstag are the same as those of the Prussian chamber and this is why Liebknecht called this Reichstag the fig-leaf of absolutism.”

“…in Germany where the government is almost omnipotent and the Reichstag and all other representative bodies have no real power…”

Engels concluded that the representatives of the SPD were therefore held back in their ability to fight for the workers’ immediate interests in parliament and so he recommended that the SPD should advocate greater delegation of authority to the Reichstag.

Also, literally immediately after the text you quoted, there’s this:

“That would suffice for the time being if it is impossible to go any further.”

Your quote had nothing to do with the political organisation of the dictatorship of the proletariat, or indeed that of communist society.


Marx argued for a bourgeois German republic because, in the wider context of the bourgeois revolutions of the 17th–18th centuries, the overthrow of the feudal state apparatus would in fact be progressive as it would take Germany a step closer to communism. It’s kind of like how Marx was a staunch supporter of the Union in the American Civil War because a Union victory would mean that the slave-holding class in the Confederacy would be defeated and the slaves would become proletarians, with the newfound capacity to abolish class society itself. Also, much of his very early views were basically antiquated and irrelevant by the time of his death (such as the "ten planks of communism" found in the manifesto).

As for the rejection of "the free organisation of the worker masses from bottom to top" – I can find no mention of this in Marx’s writings or correspondences at all. I only get search results for the AFAQ. Maybe I haven’t looked hard enough but it seems a little suspicious to me.

Anyway, ZeroNowhere apparently did a short critique of the AFAQ (which you can read here: http://http://www.revleft.com/vb/critique-anarchist-faq-t100349/index.html) nearly three years ago. You might be interested in the following section:

“"Decades later, Marx dismissed Bakunin's vision of "the free organisation of the worker masses from bottom to top" as "nonsense."" Ooh, interesting. Could you please provide the context in which Marx revealed his secret authoritarianism? Marx saw Bakunin's rhetoric as mere empty phraseology, for example, "[The rank and file of the International Alliance of Socialist Democracy (Bakunin's organization)] are told of nothing but pure anarchy, of anti-authoritarianism, of a free federation of autonomous groups, and other equally harmless things: a mere jumble of words." For Marx, a solid basis for communist practice is not provided by Bakunin, so he considers the phrases empty.”

Granted. Nonetheless, does the quote by Engels where he likens the organisation of factories to that of ships (central command control) not imply he wishes to manage factories as ships are managed, namely in a hierarchical fashion?


See what I said about ‘empty phraseology’ (not in ZeroNowhere’s critique, but earlier on in this post).


I also do not understand what you’re on about here.[/QUOTE]

If every single ideology is "authoritarian" it means nothing, correct? Even Gandhi is an authoritarian, correct?

By the way, I think we are spending way too much time discussing what we call something.

Question: do you think anarchism in content is compatible with the DOTP?