What would Marx and Engels have thought of Libertarian Socialism?

[the debater]

From the little reading I've done of an English translation of the Communist Manifesto, it seems that Marx was not someone who would've supported dictators and tyrannical governments. (At least from what I remember reading.) So that leads me to question what would Marx have thought of fusing libertarian values such as the right to freedom of speech and the right to privacy with socialist economic policies and maybe even democracy? Would my views have been compatible with theirs, even when accounting for the different time periods we lived in?

[Evo2]

Marxism/Communism is democracy

In essence, marxism is an extension of democracy

Only by the workers having control over the means of production can their will be implemented. The class that controls the means of production dictates



Freedom only for the supporters of the government, only for the members of one party – however numerous they may be – is no freedom at all. Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently. Not because of any fanatical concept of "justice" but because all that is instructive, wholesome and purifying in political freedom depends on this essential characteristic, and its effectiveness vanishes when "freedom" becomes a special privilege.(...)

But socialist democracy is not something which begins only in the promised land after the foundations of socialist economy are created; it does not come as some sort of Christmas present for the worthy people who, in the interim, have loyally supported a handful of socialist dictators. Socialist democracy begins simultaneously with the beginnings of the destruction of class rule and of the construction of socialism."


"Without general elections, without unrestricted freedom of press and assembly, without a free struggle of opinion, life dies out in every public institution, becomes a mere semblance of life, in which only the bureaucracy remains as the active element. Public life gradually falls asleep, a few dozen party leaders of inexhaustible energy and boundless experience direct and rule.

Among them, in reality only a dozen outstanding heads do the leading and an elite of the working class is invited from time to time to meetings where they are to applaud the speeches of the leaders, and to approve proposed resolutions unanimously – at bottom, then, a clique affair – a dictatorship, to be sure, not the dictatorship of the proletariat but only the dictatorship of a handful of politicians, that is a dictatorship in the bourgeois sense, in the sense of the rule of the Jacobins (the postponement of the Soviet Congress from three-month periods to six-month periods!) Yes, we can go even further: such conditions must inevitably cause a brutalization of public life: attempted assassinations, shooting of hostages, etc."

Rosa Luxemburg

http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/index.htm

[motion denied]

Libertarian socialism is a redundancy. Socialism allows the free and total development of human beings.

But then again, it's impossible to know what dead men might have thought about something.

[Remus Bleys]

Marxism/Communism is democracy

You've got to be shitting me. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1922/democratic-principle.htm)

The old political doctrines based on spiritualist concepts or even on religious revelation claimed that the supernatural forces which govern the consciousness and the will of men had assigned to certain individuals, families or castes, the task of ruling and managing the collective existence, making them the repositories of "authority" by divine right. To this, the democratic philosophy which asserted itself at the time of the bourgeois revolution counterposed the proclamation of the moral, political and juridical equality of all citizens, whether they were nobles, clerics or plebeians. It sought to transfer "sovereignty" from the narrow sphere of caste or dynasty to the universal sphere of popular consultation based on suffrage which allowed a majority of the citizens to designate the leaders of the state, according to its will.



The thunderbolts hurled against this conception by the priests of all religions and by spiritualist philosophers do not suffice to give it recognition as the definitive victory of truth over obscurantist error, even if the "rationalism" of this political philosophy seemed for a long time to be the last word in social science and the art of politics, and even if many would-be socialists proclaimed their solidarity with it. This claim that the time of "privilege" was over, once a system with its social hierarchy based on the consent of the majority of electors had been set up, does not withstand the Marxist critique, which throws a completely different light on the nature of social phenomena. This claim may look like an attractive logical construction only if it is admitted from the outset that the vote, that is, the judgement, the opinion, the consciousness of each elector has the same weight in delegating power for the administration of the collective business. It is already evident that this conception is unrealistic and unmaterialist because it considers each individual to be a perfect "unit" within a system made up of many potentially equivalent units, and instead of appraising the value of the individual's opinion in the light of his manifold conditions of existence, that is, his relations with others, it postulates this value a priori with the hypothesis of the "sovereignty" of the individual. Again this amounts to denying that the consciousness of men is a concrete reflection of the facts and material conditions of their existence, to viewing it as a spark ignited with the same providential fairness in each organism, healthy or impaired, tormented or harmoniously satisfied in all its needs, by some undefinable supreme bestower of life. In the democratic theory, this supreme being no longer designates a monarch, but confers on everyone the equal capacity to do so! In spite of its rationalist front, the democratic theory rests on a no less childish metaphysical premise than does "free will", which, according to the catholic doctrine of the afterlife, wins men either damnation or salvation. Because it places itself outside of time and historical contingencies, the democratic theory is no less tainted with spiritualism than are the equally erroneous philosophies of revelation and monarchy by divine right.



It is clear that the principle of democracy has no intrinsic virtue. It is not a "principle", but rather a simple mechanism of organization, responding to the simple and crude arithmetical presumption that the majority is right and the minority is wrong. Now we shall see if and to what extent this mechanism is useful and sufficient for the functioning of organizations comprising more restricted collectivities which are not divided by economic antagonisms. To do this, these organizations must be considered in their process of historical development.
Is this democratic mechanism applicable in the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e. in the state form born from the revolutionary victory of rebel classes against the power of the bourgeois states? Can this form of state, on account of its internal mechanism of the delegation of powers and of the formation of hierarchies, thus be defined as a "proletarian democracy"? The question should be broached without prejudice, because if although we might reach the conclusion that the democratic mechanism is useful under certain conditions, as long as history has not produced a better mechanism, we must be convinced that there is not the slightest reason to establish a priori the concept of the sovereignty of the "majority" of the proletariat. In fact the day after the revolution, the proletariat will not yet be a totally homogeneous collectivity nor will it be the only class. In Russia for example, power is in the hands of the working class and the peasantry, but if we consider the entire development of the revolutionary movement, it is easy to demonstrate that the industrial proletarian class, although much less numerous than the peasantry, nevertheless plays a far more important role. Then it is logical that the Soviet mechanism accords much more value to the vote of a worker than that of a peasant.


I think they would have condemned some of its followers for being idealist. (and; some of them; especially; a more infamous; certain; restricted; user; is the worst; of them.)

[Evo2]

Democracy means "rule of the people"

Socialism, which evolves into communism, is the dictatorship of the proletariat

Since the masses have true representation under socialism/communism, then communism = democracy

[Remus Bleys]

Democracy means "rule of the people"

Socialism, which evolves into communism, is the dictatorship of the proletariat

Since the masses have true representation under socialism/communism, then communism = democracy
1. Yes
2. Nooo. For someone who quotes luxemburg you sound like a stalinist.
3. Clarify what you mean. Elaborate this idea.,

[Evo2]

As I said, the class that controls the means of production dictates

Since workers are the majority, when they take control of the means of production out of capitalist hands, then we have true democracy (will of the masses) as opposed to the deformed democracy we have under capitalism which is a free vote, for sure, but only a vote for a pro capitalist "representive".

[Evo2]

Haha as far from a Stalinist as you can get my friend ;)


What I mean is the workers having control over, let's say, a factory. These workers then elect one of their own to represent their interests at the regional level, and so on and on up the chain. A candidate that is subject to instant recall if found to be in violation of the terms he/she was elected for.

Hence communism = democracy

[Remus Bleys]

As I said, the class that controls the means of production dictates

Since workers are the majority, when they take control of the means of production out of capitalist hands, then we have true democracy (will of the masses) as opposed to the deformed democracy we have under capitalism which is a free vote, for sure, but only a vote for a pro capitalist "representive".
Proletarian democracy is a contraduction in terms. If democracy is the rule of the people how can the proletariat exercise democracy? At best, we may have democracy under communism, but I want to know what you think this means? What is the effect of this democracy? What does it do?

[Evo2]

This state of affairs should be remedied. All social wealth, the land with all its natural resources hidden in its bowels and on the surface, and all factories and works must be taken out of the hands of the exploiters and taken into common property of the people. The first duty of a real workers’ government is to declare by means of a series of decrees the most important means of production to be national property and place them under the control of society.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/12/20.htm

"Place them under the control of society"

I.e. Socially and democratically controlled by the masses

So socialism = democracy

[Evo2]

Proletarian democracy is a contraduction in terms.

An interesting, yet cryptic response. How is this a contradiction?


If democracy is the rule of the people how can the proletariat exercise democracy?

You have confused what democracy is with how it will be implemented.

At best, we may have democracy under communism, but I want to know what you think this means? What is the effect of this democracy? What does it do?

Well if we are discussing production for use, it will be in relation to how resources are used, to give an example.

[Evo2]

Proletarian democracy is a contraduction in terms.

An interesting, yet cryptic response. How is this a contradiction?


If democracy is the rule of the people how can the proletariat exercise democracy?

You have confused what democracy is with how it will be implemented.

At best, we may have democracy under communism, but I want to know what you think this means? What is the effect of this democracy? What does it do?

Well if we are discussing production for use, it will be in relation to how resources are used, to give an example.

[Remus Bleys]

An interesting, yet cryptic response. How is this a contradiction?
If democracy is "rule of the people" and proletarian dictatorship is rule of the proletariat (a class) then how exactly is it not a contradiction in terms? How can a class - which is necessarily limited - simultaneously be all the classes - the people?




You have confused what democracy is with how it will be implemented.Enlighten me.



Well if we are discussing production for use, it will be in relation to how resources are used, to give an example.
I know jack shit about cars. Should my voice on the creation of cars be as valid as the experts?

[Evo2]

If democracy is "rule of the people" and proletarian dictatorship is rule of the proletariat (a class) then how exactly is it not a contradiction in terms? How can a class - which is necessarily limited - simultaneously be all the classes - the people?

Because when private property is abolished, then all class distinctions are abolished, since class is defined in relation to property.

Simple Marxism


Enlighten me.

As I said earlier, when the means of production are held in common then class distinctions cease to be. Then true democracy is implemented by the workers via electing officials to regional and national offices etc etc

Thus the will of the people is expressed through a communistic society


I know jack shit about cars. Should my voice on the creation of cars be as valid as the experts?

You have no concept of how a federation works I assume?

And to imply that because a worker in a car factory cannot tell a microbiologist how to conduct research = undemocratic practice is simply ludicrous

[Remus Bleys]

Because when private property is abolished, then all class distinctions are abolished, since class is defined in relation to property.

Simple Marxism
Then there is necessarily no proletariat.



As I said earlier, when the means of production are held in common then class distinctions cease to be. Then true democracy is implemented by the workers via electing officials to regional and national offices etc etc

national?
And why do they elect officials?



You have no concept of how a federation works I assume?What do you mean by federation - it can mean many things in many different situations.


And to imply that because a worker in a car factory cannot tell a microbiologist how to conduct research = undemocratic practice is simply ludicrous
I wasn't implying that at all.

Please answer my questions.

[Evo2]

Then there is necessarily no proletariat.

No, yet I have to frame my sentences in relation to the present situation of things, where there is a proletariat. Otherwise my remarks would be redundant and nonsensical given the current economic conditions and context :glare:



national?

Ok national was a poor word to use, I'll give you that



And why do they elect officials?

Because under socialism there needs to be organisation, and the state will be reduced to resource allocation.


What do you mean by federation - it can mean many things in many different situations.

Regional representation


I wasn't implying that at all.

Then you need to choose your wording more carefully :)

[Evo2]

Furthermore, in relation to you question as to "why elect officials"


The first duty of a real workers’ government is to declare by means of a series of decrees the most important means of production to be national property and place them under the control of society.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/12/20.htm

Hence, elected officials in a socialist federation :wub:

[Remus Bleys]

edit: Socialism isnt a workers state. Luxemburg would agree with me on that.

No, yet I have to frame my sentences in relation to the present situation of things, where there is a proletariat. Otherwise my remarks would be redundant and nonsensical given the current economic conditions and context :glare:
STILL, Proletarian Democracy is a contradiction in terms. I have clearly explained why. The only talk of democracy necessarily entails talk of communism. But that does not mean communism is necessarily be democratic.




Because under socialism there needs to be organisation, and the state will be reduced to resource allocation.so why elections. why not meritocracy with democratic oversight or direct democracy or localism or full on out centralization technocracy. form could take myriad forms, why elections.


Regional representation that doesn't address anything i said at all!




Then you need to choose your wording more carefully :)Answer my questions please. You didn't answer my question. What I have been saying is being ignored by you and you are instead giving me passive aggressive bullshit.

[Evo2]

However I suspect you are attempting to see how I reconcile democracy with class distinctions ... How can we have democracy that includes capitalists, is this correct?

[Remus Bleys]

However I suspect you are attempting to see how I reconcile democracy with class distinctions ... How can we have democracy that includes capitalists, is this correct?
partly. but i thought i was being explicit about this.

[argeiphontes]

Libertarian socialism is a redundancy. Socialism allows the free and total development of human beings.


Only non-statist, non-authoritarian Marxists are similar to libertarian socialists, and furthermore those who reject the dictatorship of the proletariat. Libertarian socialism is an umbrella term for the non-individualist anarchist tendencies. It can be anyone from a mutualist to a collectivist to an anarcho-communist. I'm sure Marx wouldn't approve of all of these, but maybe I'm conflating Marx himself with modern Marxists. (Here's an "interesting" piece by Rudolf Rocker on Marx and Anarchism (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/rudolf-rocker-marx-and-anarchism), which rants a bit about his relationship to Proudhon and others.

Libertarian socialism tends to advocate a decentralized system of autonomous but federated collectives. Bakunin was a collectivist (based on his Revolutionary Catechism (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/michail-bakunin-revolutionary-catechism) (manifesto)), but the goal is usually something like Kropotkin's anarcho-communism (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-anarchist-communism-its-basis-and-principles), but because of anarchism's nonidealist and nonutopian (i.e. practical and empirical) orientation, it may not be achieved right away:



He maintained that it is doubtful whether a revolution would lead directly to the realization of our ideal of communist anarchism. The collectivist watchword, “to each the product of his labor,” would be more appropriate than communism to the requirements of the real situation in the first phase of a revolution’ when the economy would be disorganized, production at a low ebb, and food supplies a priority. The economic models to be tried would, at best, evolve slowly toward communism. To put human beings brutally behind bars by imprisoning them in rigid forms of social life would be an authoritarian approach which would hinder the revolution. Mutuellisme, communism, collectivism are only different means to the same end. Santillan turned back to the wise empiricism of Proudhon and Bakunin, claiming for the coming Spanish Revolution the right to experiment freely: “The degree of mutuellisme, collectivism, or communism which can be achieved will be determined freely in each locality and each social sphere.” In fact, as will be seen later (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/daniel-guerin-anarchism-from-theory-to-practice#toc38), the experience of the Spanish “collectives” of 1936 illustrated the difficulties arising from the premature implementation of integral communism.


There is no question of a "dictatorship of the proletariat" to achieve social change, so Marx would criticize libsoc on those grounds, since IIRC the DoP is a central tenet of his transitional program.

Marx had Bakunin and his group removed from the First International. There's a summary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Workingmen%27s_Association) of this in Wikipedia and a series of documents on the conflict (http://www.marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/bakunin-conflict.htm) to wade through on marxists.org. I've skimmed some of them but have no real interest myself. Marx has only interpreted the world, the point is to change it ;)

[Evo2]

Socialism isnt a workers state. Luxemburg would agree with me on that

I agree, its just the genesis of it :)


STILL, Proletarian Democracy is a contradiction in terms. I have clearly explained why. The only talk of democracy necessarily entails talk of communism. But that does not mean communism is necessarily be democratic.


Doesn't this depend on how we define democracy?

Workers democracy is only a contradiction if you look at it from the context of there being a worker and a capitalist. However if the means of production are socially controlled, then there is no worker or capitalist, there is just human. Therefore democracy in its purest form comes to be, which is the will of the masses (who are all equal to each other in terms of economics)


I find it strange how you bulk at seeing "worker" and "democracy" appearing in the same sentence :confused:


so why elections. why not meritocracy with democratic oversight or direct democracy or localism or full on out centralization technocracy. form could take myriad forms, why elections.

Why separate direct democracy from elections? :confused: why do you see a distinction between the two? What material force divides them and makes one the antithesis of the other? Please answer

[Remus Bleys]

I agree, its just the genesis of it :)



Doesn't this depend on how we define democracy? How do you define it?


Workers democracy is only a contradiction if you look at it from the context of there being a worker and a capitalist. However if the means of production are socially controlled, then there is no worker or capitalist, there is just human. Therefore democracy in its purest form comes to be, which is the will of the masses (who are all equal to each other in terms of economics) why is this the best way of organizing a post-capitalist society. if it is then yay democracy. but why is it



I find it strange how you bulk at seeing "worker" and "democracy" appearing in the same sentence :confused:I fucking said proletariat.




Why separate direct democracy from elections? :confused: why do you see a distinction between the two? Who force divides them and makes one the antithesis of the other? Please answer
Because they are different?
Please answer my questions.

[Evo2]

How do you define it?

Well I think I will have to put myself in the care of our audience ... didnt I state at the beginning that democracy = "rule of the people"?

What this means, in my terms (and in any sane definition), is the rule of the majority

The majority = the Workers

Communism is the rule of the workers, with all other classes being extinct

Hence Communism = Democracy


why is this the best way of organizing a post-capitalist society. if it is then yay democracy. but why is it

W...T...F

Do I really need to explain the merits of democracy to you over other organisational systems?

Do I really need to spell out why democracy is better than Theocracy?


I fucking said proletariat.

Ummmm that means worker :o



Because they are different?

You didnt answer my question

"Why separate direct democracy from elections? why do you see a distinction between the two? What force divides them and makes one the antithesis of the other?"

Please answer

[Evo2]

bertarian socialism tends to advocate a decentralized system of autonomous but federated collectives.

Which is what Marx envisioned and is the communist goal

[Remus Bleys]

Well I think I will have to put myself in the care of our audience ... didnt I state at the beginning that democracy = "rule of the people"?

What this means, in my terms (and in any sane definition), is the rule of the majority Will the bourgeois be allowed to participate in the "democracy" of the dotp?


The majority = the Workers

Communism is the rule of the workers, with all other classes being extinct

Hence Communism = Democracy

This is rather confused. You state that there is only the workers - and you seem to confuse workers with the proletariat as a class (as well as thinking the proletariat continues into socialism) - and then say that workers are the majority, but aren't worker's the only?


W...T...F This is rather frustrating for me too.


Do I really need to explain the merits of democracy to you over other organisational systems?That's what I've explicitly been asking...


Do I really need to spell out why democracy is better than Theocracy? Where the fuck did I say anything about theocracy?




Ummmm that means worker :o
:laugh:




You didnt answer my question
Your question was "What is the difference between representative and direct democracy" I really can't explain it better than representative democracy is when you elect, direct democracy is direct rule of the people. isn't that obvious?


Please answer
Okay. Whatever. Now, answer mine that you have been avoiding.


Which is what Marx envisioned and is the communist goal :rolleyes:

[Evo2]

Will the bourgeois be allowed to participate in the "democracy" of the dotp?

How can there be a bourgeois class when all classes are abolished through common ownership? Your question makes no sense


This is rather confused. You state that there is only the workers - and you seem to confuse workers with the proletariat as a class (as well as thinking the proletariat continues into socialism) - and then say that workers are the majority, but aren't worker's the only?

Im using Marxist definitions of proletariat, I.e those who do not own the mean of production (you can break this down into lumpen proletriat etc)

Furthermore you misrepresent me. When did I say that the class distinction of proletariat continues into socialism? Did I not say that under socialism, when private property has been abolished, that there are no more workers only humans. Read a few posts up, its all there.

Now the workers being the only "class" (of course this loses all meaning under socialism) doesn't mean there is no democracy, and to be honest I get the feeling you are playing with words here in order to simply be contrarian however lets give the benefit of the doubt :)

Even when classes are abolished, democracy can still said to be in effect since the mass of people are given a wider say in how society is run and production is organised.

True democracy exists as people can have a more meaningful way in how society directs itself.

However I think I see your objection. Why need a concept of "democracy" when the masses of people have the same economic interests and have no classes to define themselves against. Am I hitting on your point?



Okay. Whatever. Now, answer mine that you have been avoiding.

Dodge

[argeiphontes]

You guys are littering this thread with OT conversation.

[Remus Bleys]

You guys are littering this thread with OT conversation.
Libertarian Socialism is irrevocably tied up with freedom of the press, democracy, and other such liberalism (i always thought). So a discussion on democracy, i think, is well within the range of the topic.

[Art Vandelay]

Marx & Engels probably would've commented that the authoritarian/libertarian distinction is a false dichotomy.

Re debate on democracy: http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1922/democratic-principle.htm

[motion denied]

I did disregard anarchists in my comment. I stand by my point though: all socialism is 'libertarian' (see 9mm's post above), regardless of what anarchists say.

[Vici]

Remus Bleys is essentially correct. Proletarian democracy is indeed a contradiction in terms if democracy is interpreted as following: ' [...] form of government in which all eligible citizens participate equally—either directly or through elected representatives—in the proposal, development, and creation of laws. '

Proletarian democracy is a perfect term when it is interpreted as class democracy. As Lenin articulates:


If we are not to mock at common sense and history, it is obvious that we cannot speak of "pure democracy” as long as different classes exist; we can only speak of class democracy. (Let us say in parenthesis that “pure democracy” is not only an ignorant phrase, revealing a lack of understanding both of the class struggle and of the nature of the state, but also a thrice-empty phrase, since in communist society democracy will wither away in the process of changing and becoming a habit, but will never e “pure” democracy.)

He goes on to address the conflation of 'pure' democracy versus class democracy:


“Pure democracy” is the mendacious phrase of a liberal who wants to fool the workers. History knows of bourgeois democracy which takes the place of feudalism, and of proletarian democracy which takes the place of bourgeois democracy.

Lenin defined the nature of democracy during the transition period thus: "Democracy for the vast majority of the people and suppression by force, i.e., exclusion from democracy, of the exploiters and oppressors of the people -- this is the change democracy undergoes during the transition from capitalism to communism." (Ibid., p. 467)

Further, he explained the relation between democracy and the state:

Democracy is a form of state, one of its varieties. Consequently, like every state, it represents, on the one hand, the organized, systematic use of force against persons; but, on the other hand, it signifies the formal recognition of equality of citizens, the equal right of all to determine the structure of, and to administer, the state. This, in turn, results in the fact that, at a certain stage in the development of democracy, it first welds together the class that wages a revolutionary struggle against capitalism -- the proletariat, and enables it to crush, smash to atoms, wipe off the face of the earth the bourgeois, even the republican-bourgeois, state machine, the standing army, the police and the bureaucracy and to substitute for them a more democratic state machine, but a state machine nevertheless, in the shape of armed workers who proceed to form a militia involving the entire population. Here 'quantity turns into quality'; such a degree of democracy implies overstepping the boundaries of bourgeois society and beginning its socialist reorganization.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Evo - Rhemus is clearly trying to say that if we have a program to build Communism, the kinds of class antagonisms that Capitalism and earlier economic models built up over thousands of years don't go away overnight. The bourgeoisie will still have bourgeois interests in reversing the revolution, for instance, even if they have been stripped of their right to property.

And that's even assuming the working class has enough organization to drop all bourgeois economic norms overnight without causing massive economic disruption and pain for everyone. On top of this, many workers out of false consciousness retain various reactionary ideological commitments that could be used by the bourgeoisie and other reactionary classes to organize against their fellow workers. So really religious workers might have a strong desire to deny women the right to abortion, say, or white workers might have a strong desire to maintain as many privileges as possible over black workers. This happened in every revolution, where countless workers sided with the forces denying them rights because the working class itself is fractured. In that case, can the "Proletarian democracy" allow all of those people to vote on everything all the time?

In that sense, Rhemus is arguing that you can't have a perfect, moral ideal of "democracy" in the aftermath of a revolution because the class antagonisms are still at play (in a certain cense, the "revolution" isn't really complete).

That said, I think it's easy to make the case that some kind of participatory democracy (and democracy in the broad sense of the term, not the modern liberal one) is the best model for managing and preserving a communal society.

[Remus Bleys]

state and revolution also said democracy would wither away.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Libertarian Socialism is irrevocably tied up with freedom of the press, democracy, and other such liberalism (i always thought). So a discussion on democracy, i think, is well within the range of the topic.

I'm interested as to why you think freedom of the press and at least some form of democracy are things to be castigated with the old 'liberalism' insult?

If there isn't freedom of the press, if that can be taken away, then why not take away other things? Freedom to vote? Freedom to associate in a group? Freedom to criticise the people/party/movement in power?

It is in fact 'liberal' (if we want to throw such words around) to label any sort of freedom as either 'liberal' or a 'right'. Freedoms are not universal - they are won (and sometimes lost) during struggle and are subject to the constraints of the specific socio-political circumstances they occur within.

[Sea]

I'm interested as to why you think freedom of the press and at least some form of democracy are things to be castigated with the old 'liberalism' insult?Democracy can be useful in some contexts. In many contexts, it is a fairly poor way of getting shit done because it relies on over half of the people polled being correct, democratic centralism being one of many attempts to remedy this 'arithmetical superstition'. As an organizational method, it also has the potential to be fatally uncoordinated when large numbers are involved. This is why, among other reasons, bourgeois-democratic states do not (cannot feasibly) democratize their armies. The liberal vision of democracy, and the liberal reasoning of upholding it and supporting it, Bordiga criticized ruthlessly and justly for being idealistic nonsense. The 'democratic advantage' of not being subordinated to the will of one individual or clique was useful when representative democracy was the great counter-argument to monarchism, and before the economy had reached the stage of monopoly. Unfortunately, this very same liberal vision of democracy which was upheld by the French, American and Haitian revolutions is still fed to us today, and is today hopelessly obsolete.

That does not mean democracy itself is forever tainted. Vague concepts of democracy existed long before capitalism, and therefore democracy cannot be written off as bourgeois. What is bourgeois is the obsolete liberal line of reasoning in support of bourgeois democracy, and what is incorrect are those communist who adopt this line without further criticism.
state and revolution also said democracy would wither away.Right. The worker's state in the meantime would be democratic, and of course as the state withers away, the democracy that characteristics it will too.

As to the OP, "libertarian socialism" is a loaded phrase. Marx and Engels, and any competent communist, loath the notion of furthering the liberty of those that enslave us! The bourgeoisie has liberty and free reign already. But what about to the working class? Well, the working class is supposed to be the class exercising its authority over the ruling class. The authority of a healthy worker's state would originate from the workers. I'll let you figure out what that means as to how at liberty they are.

[argeiphontes]

As to the OP, "libertarian socialism" is a loaded phrase. Marx and Engels, and any competent communist, loath the notion of furthering the liberty of those that enslave us! The bourgeoisie has liberty and free reign already. But what about to the working class? Well, the working class is supposed to be the class exercising its authority over the ruling class. The authority of a healthy worker's state would originate from the workers. I'll let you figure out what that means as to how at liberty they are.

In socialism, there are no classes, oppressors, or a distinction between workers and nonworkers. It's perfectly free to take on a libertarian character. But at least you addressed the OP.

All the discussion about democracy and Lenin or whatever doesn't make any sense in relation to the OP; people seem to be confusing a Dictatorship of the Proletariat or other transitional state with the final goal. They would have to explain why democracy doesn't make sense in a socialist context.

[Sea]

In socialism, there are no classes, oppressors, or a distinction between workers and nonworkers. It's perfectly free to take on a libertarian character. But at least you addressed the OP.That's something that anarchists, libertarian socialists, left communists, and if you change the word 'socialism' to 'communism' to take into account the difference in terminology, Marxist-Leninists, Maoists, Trotskyists, Guevarists, and pretty much every self-professed radical leftist agrees with.

The question is how we should get there, not how things will be when we're there. Should we use authoritarianism against the bourgeoisie, and against those who are, regardless of their own class, sympathetic to the bourgeoisie? That's the central question.

[VivalaCuarta]

Libertarian Socialism is a catch-phrase for traitors who sided with imperialist "democracies" against the Soviet Union. They got what they wanted.

[argeiphontes]

That's the central question.

Fair enough. I guess I was just looking forward to hearing some other criticisms. But yeah, the question of methods would probably be the biggest one. The only one?

[Sea]

But then again, it's impossible to know what dead men might have thought about something.Honestly it's more likely that if Marx and Engels were alive today they'd focus first on things like automobiles, aeroplanes, cell phones and maxing out Crysis 3.

There would also be a very long backlog of people to polemicize against, so it is likely they would turn Herr Vogt into a fill-in-the-blanks form, sort of like Mad Libs.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

Libertarian Socialism is a catch-phrase for traitors who sided with imperialist "democracies" against the Soviet Union. They got what they wanted.
:rolleyes:
What do you mean, excactly?

[argeiphontes]

Libertarian Socialism is a catch-phrase for traitors who sided with imperialist "democracies" against the Soviet Union. They got what they wanted.

Yeah, that is interesting. Libertarian socialists might want to know who were the traitors to the working class and the soviets.

[Rafiq]

They would have made nothing of it, such dichotomy does not fit our ends, it is a distraction against the real existing class struggle and the conquest for political and state power.