Libertarian Socialist Question

[Marl Karx]

Can someone just give me a simple explanation of the belief system of a Libertarian Socialist, and maybe how it differs from authoritarian marxism or communism? Thanks.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Libertarian socialism is the perspective that socialism can only result from spontaneous, direct democratic action by class-conscious workers themselves rather than through authoritarian institutions. In other words it is the view that socialist revolution and socialism must be wholly organic rather than imposed bureaucratically by intellectuals and privileged state officials.

This is not "different" from communism, as the terms communism and socialism were often used interchangeably prior to Lenin's first use of the term to describe it as a "vanguard"-driven "stage" between capitalism and communism. Libertarian socialists reject what we see as Lenin's misuse of the term socialism and insist on its use in its true, original sense rather than the distortion-turned-boogeyman sense of the 20th century.

Really, Rosa Luxemburg summed it up best (sorry about the namedrop): "The whole mass of the people must take part in it. Otherwise, socialism will be decreed from behind a few official desks by a dozen intellectuals." That is, in a few words, the libertarian socialist position.

Let me know if I need to expand on that at all.

[PhoenixAsh]

Libertarian socialism is communism. But it differs from authoritarian socialism by rejecting authority and emphasizing free association and opposing any form of state socialism or prolonged DotP.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Libertarian socialism is communism. But it differs from authoritarian socialism by rejecting authority and emphasizing free association and opposing any form of state socialism or prolonged DotP.

Ignore my long-windedness. This sums it up. :o

[DigitalBluster]

Can someone just give me a simple explanation of the belief system of a Libertarian Socialist, and maybe how it differs from authoritarian marxism or communism? Thanks.

There is no single belief system among libertarian socialists. It covers a broad selection of beliefs which are sometimes considered incompatible, from mutualism to council communism.

As an example of a couple of outliers, the individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker referred to himself without irony as a socialist; and Lysander Spooner, another individualist, was a member of the First International.

[consuming negativity]

"Libertarian socialism" is another way of saying "anarchism" that comes in handy when you don't want whatever you're saying to be quite so immediately dismissed in the presence of liberals or conservatives.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

"Libertarian socialism" is another way of saying "anarchism" that comes in handy when you don't want whatever you're saying to be quite so immediately dismissed in the presence of liberals or conservatives.
Considering all the lifestylists and an-caps who use the A word, "libertarian/socialist/communist/whatever" is more explanatory.

[QueerVanguard]

There's no such thing as "authoritarian Marxism" that's just some shit Bakunin pulled out of his antisemitic ass when he got booted out of the IWA for being the idealistic conspiratorial bowel movement that he was. Anarchists of all stripes continue to use it to this day because proletarian power gets in the way of the little abstractions they drone on and on about.

[PhoenixAsh]

And the above post is a perfect example of some authoritarians trying to legitimise their propping of the state control over economic and social life and forced association of workers as opposed to worker self management and free association in order to reach exactly that. Mostly because they have ran out of arguments for that intellectual dichotomy.

[QueerVanguard]

And the above post is a perfect example of some authoritarians trying to legitimise their propping of the state control over economic and social life and forced association of workers as opposed to worker self management and free association in order to reach exactly that. Mostly because they have ran out of arguments for that intellectual dichotomy.

The argument was made by Marx and Freddie Engels, and later refined by Lenin, a long ass time ago and I can't improve on what they said. All I can say is that if you really think you can get to Communism without using the state to suppress reactionary forces during the transition, you're an undialetical dreamer who's petit bourgeois ideals are getting in the way of genuine class consciousness.

[PhoenixAsh]

It is funny how you are completely unaware of what petit-bourgeois mentality is....especially since petit-bourgeois is explicitly argued to remain loyal to private property, capitalism and the state by Marx as inherent to the class loyalties of the PB.

;)

This makes your accusation not only completely unfounded within the context of arguing against the state. But ironically it would by far be more applicable to those who actually argue for the state to solve their issues and to those who argue for state capitalism as the means to end capitalism eventually...after a while...you know...when they get around to it and the workers are deemed ready.

Here is a nice description of Petit-bourgeois mentality:

The petit bourgeois is stereotypically small-minded, parochial, conformist, acquisitive, stingy, and easily swayed by demagoguery. Populism (characterized by anti-intellectualism; the scapegoating of easy/abstract targets; charismatic yet approachable leaders, and the promotion of small-scale capitalism) is often the typical expression of petit-bourgeois politics.



But I like how you use the 150 year old accusation Marx levelled against Proudhon's mutualism specifically....concepts which are totally absent from Anarchist thought though. So you are just being very, very silly.

[Bala Perdida]

The argument was made by Marx and Freddie Engels, and later refined by Lenin, a long ass time ago and I can't improve on what they said. All I can say is that if you really think you can get to Communism without using the state to suppress reactionary forces during the transition, you're an undialetical dreamer who's petit bourgeois ideals are getting in the way of genuine class consciousness.Any evidence to support anything you just said? Or are you just going to continue to liberal out on anarchist ideas?

[OGLemon]

* nvm

[QueerVanguard]

Any evidence to support anything you just said? Or are you just going to continue to liberal out on anarchist ideas?

LOL!! Liberal? Me?? Surely you jest. Anarchism is liberalism followed to its logical conclusion according to a shit ton of Anarchists throughout history, so people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones around.

The petit bourgeois mentality of Anarchism has less to do with how Anarchists feel about property and everything to do with their decentralized, fallen-human nature-makes-hierarchy evil, small is beautiful blueprints for the world. Every major Anarchist thinker, from Proudhon to Bakunin to Kropotkin (or as I like to call him, Crap-pot-kin) and every single one since has been afflicted with this ahistorical, idealistic petit bourgeois virus. Flip through their books and see it for yourself.

[#FF0000]

Y'all realize that not being a "libertarian socialist" doesn't necessarily mean one is an "authoritarian", right?

[Bala Perdida]

LOL!! Liberal? Me?? Surely you jest. Anarchism is liberalism followed to its logical conclusion according to a shit ton of Anarchists throughout history, so people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones around.

The petit bourgeois mentality of Anarchism has less to do with how Anarchists feel about property and everything to do with their decentralized, fallen-human nature-makes-hierarchy evil, small is beautiful blueprints for the world. Every major Anarchist thinker, from Proudhon to Bakunin to Kropotkin (or as I like to call him, Crap-pot-kin) and every single one since has been afflicted with this ahistorical, idealistic petit bourgeois virus. Flip through their books and see it for yourself.
Yeah, the liberal insult was mostly a joke. Marxists have been taking to it recently whenever their ideas or institutions are criticized, and I thought it would be funny to turn the tables. Unless I were to argue "liberals criticize us too... your just doing their job." Anarchism being related to liberalism is mostly some Chomskyite shit as I see it. At least recently.

Other than this your not really answering the OP. You're just calling us petit bourgeois, and defending your flawed authoritarian state by claiming it's "proletarian power" when in reality the proletarian have been nearly disenfranchised when such institutions have been introduced.

[PhoenixAsh]

LOL!! Liberal? Me?? Surely you jest. Anarchism is liberalism followed to its logical conclusion according to a shit ton of Anarchists throughout history, so people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones around.

The petit bourgeois mentality of Anarchism has less to do with how Anarchists feel about property and everything to do with their decentralized, fallen-human nature-makes-hierarchy evil, small is beautiful blueprints for the world. Every major Anarchist thinker, from Proudhon to Bakunin to Kropotkin (or as I like to call him, Crap-pot-kin) and every single one since has been afflicted with this ahistorical, idealistic petit bourgeois virus. Flip through their books and see it for yourself.


Except of course non of these things are actually petit-bourgeois. Plus show a complete and profound lack of understanding of Anarchism.

[Zoroaster]

To QueerVanguard:

Petit-Bourgeois nature of anarchism? I'm no anarchist, but anarchism is the most left-wing ideology there is. Anyone who's studied Anarchist Catalonia or the May '68 uprisings know this.

Sure, many individualist anarchists were middle-class citizens, but they arguably hated capitalism more than any Marxist. Take Proudhon, for example. Sure, he supported a stock market, but he realized that when workers are engaged with their work, they make better decisions than the CEO of the company, and without his book, "What is Property?", Marx would have never become the founder of communism.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

The argument was made by Marx and Freddie Engels, and later refined by Lenin, a long ass time ago and I can't improve on what they said.
Marxism or Leninism aren't religions, with holy writ passed down through the generations, you know.


All I can say is that if you really think you can get to Communism without using the state to suppress reactionary forces during the transition, you're an undialetical dreamer who's petit bourgeois ideals are getting in the way of genuine class consciousness.
You have no understanding of what petit-bourgeois even means if you think a revolutionary is petit-bourgeois because they're anti-state. Also, there's nothing inherent to dialectics that is pro-state or anti-state. You toss out the word "dialectics" all the time as if it were a magic word that renders your argument valid simply by using it.

[(A)]

I don't know a lot about anarchist history or theory. From what I know I don't tend to lean towards it myself as I think there needs to be some form or organization in society but I am a firm believer in Democracy {hence the name}.

I could be mistaken but I think Libertarian socialism is closer to Minarchism (Minimal Statism) than Anarchism. Communalisim or Council Communism are the terms I would use. :unsure:

[DigitalBluster]

I don't know a lot about anarchist history or theory. From what I know I don't tend to lean towards it myself as I think there needs to be some form or organization in society but I am a firm believer in Democracy {hence the name}.

I'm not aware of any (sincere) anarchists who oppose organization as such. The issue they have is with the form it takes.


I could be mistaken but I think Libertarian socialism is closer to Minarchism (Minimal Statism) than Anarchism. Communalisim or Council Communism are the terms I would use. :unsure:

As I understand it, "libertarian socialism" is more an umbrella term than an independent school of thought in its own right. It includes all forms of (legitimate) anarchism, but also various non-anarchist schools of socialism, such as council communism.

[BIXX]

I'm not aware of any (sincere) anarchists who oppose organization as such. The issue they have is with the form it takes.


I oppose all organization, and I assure you I am a sincere anarchist.

There have been many anti-organizationalist anarchists throughout history. Right now they are kinda expanding (at least it seems that way).

[exeexe]

Libertarian Socialist, and maybe how it differs from authoritarian marxism or communism? Thanks.Libsoc is socialism and therefore its ideology is broader than just communism. Libsoc contains communism but it contains also other kinds of socialist tendencies
See Chapter 3 for all 27 tendencies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

Libsoc wants to smash the state immediately as a part of the revolution and let the revolution form its own life from below (because there are so many tendencies to pick between), while authoritarian Marxists needs the state to create their beloved dictatorship and from here they have a base (the vanguard party) to install the correct and the one and only form of revolution which everyone must obey or they will have to die in labor camps.

[DigitalBluster]

I oppose all organization, and I assure you I am a sincere anarchist.

It's possible we're using different definitions for "organization," but maybe not, so I'd like to know if you'd object to a traditional barn raising (for example). I'd suggest this requires some level of coordination, and this is the sense (http://www.synonym.com/synonyms/coordinate/) I intended for "organization." Do you disagree? If so, do you believe a barn raising might occur as some sort of emergent phenomenon? Or would you prefer all barns be raised by individuals? Or would you prefer there be no barns? These are sincere questions. (I don't expect an elaborate explication; we shouldn't derail the thread.)

[#FF0000]

Generally speaking, Libertarian Socialism means "Anarchism". Council Communists generally don't use the "Libertarian" label

[Zukunftsmusik]

There have been many anti-organizationalist anarchists throughout history. Right now they are kinda expanding (at least it seems that way).

On the internet, maybe.


As I understand it, "libertarian socialism" is more an umbrella term than an independent school of thought in its own right. It includes all forms of (legitimate) anarchism, but also various non-anarchist schools of socialism, such as council communism.


Generally speaking, Libertarian Socialism means "Anarchism". Council Communists generally don't use the "Libertarian" label

Yes. While some groups within the two camps might at times have come to similar positions, they come from different political/theoretical traditions. Council communism comes from splits with and from the (Marxist) communist left and has little to do with so-called libertarian socialism.

[DigitalBluster]

Nevertheless it's often included under that umbrella. But then, so are folks like Tucker, who don't appear very socialist to me. So we have socialists included even though they don't call themselves "libertarian"; and libertarians included just because they call themselves "socialist." It's a muddled group.

[Os Cangaceiros]

re: anarchism as "petty bourgeois ideology"

Anarchism had it's roots originally in the artisan worker (like the Jura clockmakers, for instance), a class that was essentially liquidated by industrial capitalism. That class no longer exists in any meaningful sense, unlike the "petite bourgeoisie", which still exists...some of the early republican uprisings like the Paris and Barcelona communes can be seen as the final death rattle of the artisanal workers.

[Zukunftsmusik]

dp

[Zukunftsmusik]

Nevertheless it's often included under that umbrella.

And wrongly so. I think the rest of your post explains why. It's not a tradition in the same way real political currents are. If "libertarian socialism" can be ascribed to this Tucker fellow (Jeffersonian anarchist individualism - lol) and anarchists as well as Rühle or Gorter or, say, GIC, - or even Luxemburg - then it's not very useful as a category for one's politics - and therefore often used by people with shaky politics, to envelope leftism with some appeals to democracy, for example.

[DigitalBluster]

I agree with your assessment as to its usefulness. But since it isn't a school in its own right, with a firm definition as to its nature, there can be no right nor wrong when it comes to who's included.

[#FF0000]

I mean, the definition is kind of firm, though. Libertarianism, historically, meant anarchism.

[DigitalBluster]

And yet both "anarchism" and "libertarian socialism" persist as terms. This doesn't necessarily mean they're not synonymous (there are lots of synonyms (http://www.synonym.com/)), but it suggests there may be some level of nuance between the terms.

Anyway it's not like I have a stake in the definition.