What system best represents my views?

[Rev0lutionary]

I see myself as a libertarian socialist, but from my understanding of what I have read on this site and on others, is that this is a broad term used to describe different types of anarchist socialism. So my question is given these principles listed below which system describes my beliefs the most?

-no social hierarchy. Status derived from contribution to community, political and reformed educational status
-Religion, jobs, & marriage are up to the individual. Free, equal access to healthcare, education, housing, and food provided funded by higher taxation on the mega rich.
- full employment is realized for everyone who wants to work.
- The State is abolished. Voluntary citizens councils, trade unions, and workers councils to act in place of the state are created.
- enterprises controlled through councils and direct democracy
- promotes secularism
-no federal reserve central banking. Issued interest free credit
-goods are purchased from a free market where prices represent "the amount of labor necessary to produce an article of exactly similar and equal utility."
- no corporate dictatorship/control
-production made to benefit all humanity, not for private profit and corporations
- anti war
- decriminalize drug use. Addicts are provided rehabilitation housing instead of prison. Funds go to treatment instead of police enforcement
- citizens vote for laws at citizens councils
- workers can create unions, strike and engage in other forms of job actions
- freedom of the press
- laws against discrimination

The idea of a gift economy (anarcho communism) sounds ideal, except I believe that every human being is entitled to a basic standard of living healthcare, shelter, food, and education, so where could this come from in an anarcho communist society?

[Tim Cornelis]

Sort of individualist anarchist, mutualist ideas. But they your views seem to be in a formative stage, I don't think they are fully developed. But that's maybe because I recognise my previous views in them when my views were in full development.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I hate to be that guy, but you sound a bit confused, and what you've described is not socialism or anarchism in any sense. And look, that's OK, you seem to be new to socialism and it's not like any of us were born with an understanding of the law of value. (Except perhaps comrade Bordiga.) So while what I'm about to say might seems as if it's intended to discourage you, it's actually intended to make you think.

First of all, socialism, of which anarchism is one branch, means the abolition of commodity production (where things are produced to be sold on the market) in favour of scientifically planned production for human need. Your bullet points all seem to assume that there is still a market, that there are enterprises, mega-rich to be taxed etc. It describes a kind of capitalism. It might seem a very nice kind of capitalism, and a lot of people would say that there's nothing wrong with having a nice capitalism "until" socialism, but first of all that makes socialism into something like the Kingdom of Heaven, something people talk about as a dream or ideal instead of a real possibility, and second, capitalism can't be nice. Even in the Scandinavian states that some people in the US like to idealise, the boot of the bourgeoisie is firmly on the neck of the proletariat. Everything else is mostly window-dressing - or the result of struggles won by workers striving to overthrow the bourgeoisie.

Second, your bullet points seem to imply that there is still a state, with the police, laws, borders and the possibility of war between states etc. etc.

[Rev0lutionary]

I see some of my points are contradicting, so here I created a modified list

Taxation on the rich is temporarily used to eliminate inequality and provide social services.

-no social classes
-Religion, jobs, & marriage are up to the individual. Free, equal access to healthcare, education, housing
- full employment is realized for everyone who wants to work for the community, if they do not work they will still be provided with basic needs (food, shelter, education, housing.)
- The State is abolished. Voluntary horizontal citizens councils, trade unions, and workers councils to act in place of the state are created (confederal)
- enterprises controlled through councils and direct democracy
- promotes secularism
-Money and all forms of currency would be abolished in favor of a gift economy where people produce goods to be consumed freely by the rest of their community under the guiding principle "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"
- no corporate dictatorship/control
-production made to benefit all humanity, not for private profit and corporations
- anti war
- decriminalize drug use. Addicts are provided rehabilitation housing instead of prison.
- citizens vote for laws at citizens councils
- workers can create unions, strike and engage in other forms of job actions
- freedom of the press
- laws against discrimination

I don't understand what you mean by "your bullet points seem to imply that there is still a state, with the police, laws, borders and the possibility of war between states etc."

Under an libertarian socialist system couldn't a civilian police force controlled by citizens councils exist? What keeps people from committing crimes if there are no laws?

[StromboliFucker666]

Under an libertarian socialist system couldn't a civilian police force controlled by citizens councils exist? What keeps people from committing crimes if there are no laws?


We would try to get rid of the root cause of crime. Because that will not always be enough, there are 2 popular solutions to this within libertarian socialism.

1. Everyone is taught to protect themselves and others. Basically, everyone is a cop. (I've heard this numerous times on /r/anarchism)

or

2. Some kind of egalitarian, democratically run people's militia. The more experienced soldiers would teach the younger ones. Generals could be elected by the soldiers to give orders IF they want to. The people would vote on who is allowed to join. It would act as a military (that exists to defend it from like a group of fascists that want to invade) and a police force.


Almost all libertarian socialists advocate laws on the local level. (Meaning everyone in the community decides the laws)

2.Some kind of people's militia. They would be run in an egalitarian and democratic manner with the elder soldiers training the younger ones. The people would have a vote in who is allowed to join. They would act like a military and a police force. (I've heard that on here, numerous subreddits, and another leftist forum)



Laws would exist on the local level in almost all libertarian socialist "sects"

[ckaihatsu]

( Looks like a duplicate of this thread: )


Which system best describes my beliefs?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/which-system-best-t193597/index.html

[G4b3n]

Don't worry yourself beyond "anarchist", the rest is tedious and inconsequential.

[BIXX]

We would try to get rid of the root cause of crime. Because that will not always be enough, there are 2 popular solutions to this within libertarian socialism.

1. Everyone is taught to protect themselves and others. Basically, everyone is a cop. (I've heard this numerous times on /r/anarchism)

or

2. Some kind of egalitarian, democratically run people's militia. The more experienced soldiers would teach the younger ones. Generals could be elected by the soldiers to give orders IF they want to. The people would vote on who is allowed to join. It would act as a military (that exists to defend it from like a group of fascists that want to invade) and a police force.


Almost all libertarian socialists advocate laws on the local level. (Meaning everyone in the community decides the laws)

2.Some kind of people's militia. They would be run in an egalitarian and democratic manner with the elder soldiers training the younger ones. The people would have a vote in who is allowed to join. They would act like a military and a police force. (I've heard that on here, numerous subreddits, and another leftist forum)



Laws would exist on the local level in almost all libertarian socialist "sects"

So either everyone is a police officer, or we have just the police? Seems legit, obviously worth waging revolution for.


By making everyone a vop you make everyone an enemy.

[ckaihatsu]

So either everyone is a police officer, or we have just the police? Seems legit, obviously worth waging revolution for.


By making everyone a vop you make everyone an enemy.


The general idea here is to *de*-specialize -- a post-class society wouldn't need a professional corps of soldiers or police, so, if you like, we can say that 'everyone' is the police, just as everyone could / would be whatever else as well.

[Cliff Paul]

The general idea here is to *de*-specialize -- a post-class society wouldn't need a professional corps of soldiers or police, so, if you like, we can say that 'everyone' is the police, just as everyone could / would be whatever else as well.

Why would you want to be a cop?

[BIXX]

Well, ckaihatsu is a leftist after all.

[ckaihatsu]

Why would you want to be a cop?


This isn't personal, I *don't* want to be a cop, and you're missing the point -- the point is that *all* social roles would be a matter of collectivism, or massive co-participation, so that knowledge and activity would *never* be the special purview of any one group.

We can talk here in the present about formal work roles like 'cop' or 'politician', but in a post-class context all work duties would only exist formally / temporally for the sake of the production itself, and not as a fixed commodified set-identity, as we're used to seeing today. (Consider how even today all of us are 'politicians' in a broad-based way, because of not wanting to leave such power to the bourgeoisie.)

[BIXX]

This isn't personal, I *don't* want to be a cop, and you're missing the point -- the point is that *all* social roles would be a matter of collectivism, or massive co-participation, so that knowledge and activity would *never* be the special purview of any one group.

We can talk here in the present about formal work roles like 'cop' or 'politician', but in a post-class context all work duties would only exist formally / temporally for the sake of the production itself, and not as a fixed commodified set-identity, as we're used to seeing today. (Consider how even today all of us are 'politicians' in a broad-based way, because of not wanting to leave such power to the bourgeoisie.)

But that still leaves the question why do we need cops- all they do is impose a morality that isn't ours upon us.

[ckaihatsu]

But that still leaves the question why do we need cops- all they do is impose a morality that isn't ours upon us.


We (currently) *don't* need cops, we don't need bourgeois morality, and a post-capitalist society wouldn't need cops, either -- for the sake of argument it might be *said* that 'everyone would be a cop', in the sense that everyone would be pro-active over genuine public-safety-type issues, as with all other social issues (as for collective productivity).

[BIXX]

We (currently) *don't* need cops, we don't need bourgeois morality, and a post-capitalist society wouldn't need cops, either -- for the sake of argument it might be *said* that 'everyone would be a cop', in the sense that everyone would be pro-active over genuine public-safety-type issues, as with all other social issues (as for collective productivity).

I'm not just referring to "bourgeois morality", but morality, any sort of ethos at all. They are all examples of false unity- which cops, 100% of time throughout history, have been deployed to maintain. Are you claiming that something that defines cops is suddenly stop existing and suddenly they'll be OK?

[ckaihatsu]

I'm not just referring to "bourgeois morality", but morality, any sort of ethos at all.


Well those are *three* different things -- of course we don't need *bourgeois* morality, in the sense of 'respectability', but some would argue that 'morality' is important, in the sense of 'civil society'. And 'ethos' isn't even necessarily *intentional* -- it's simply the *norms* of a society, whatever they happen to be.





They are all examples of false unity-


No, you're glossing over the distinctions there.





which cops, 100% of time throughout history, have been deployed to maintain.


I hear you on this -- we could call this the 'normative structures' or the 'dominant culture'.





Are you claiming that something that defines cops is suddenly stop existing and suddenly they'll be OK?


Whether cop-functions would have to be mass-consciously *overthrown* or whether they would just 'wither away' isn't a clear-cut thing -- certainly an overthrowing of the world's bourgeoisie would *effectively* (one way or the other) make state-backed policing *unnecessary* and *superfluous*, and non-existent. (If they don't exist then any opinion about them at that point would be irrelevant anyway and just a matter of academic study.)

[BIXX]

Well those are *three* different things -- of course we don't need *bourgeois* morality, in the sense of 'respectability', but some would argue that 'morality' is important, in the sense of 'civil society'.
They're right but why the hell would I want that


And 'ethos' isn't even necessarily *intentional* -- it's simply the *norms* of a society, whatever they happen to be.
Well, an ethos is still inherently moral- which is again, not what I want.


No, you're glossing over the distinctions there.
But that's exactly what morality is for- false unity. It's the ultimate goal of which? Self policing, and the policing of everyone around you. Hence, "everyone being cops". Once again, fuck that, I wanna be free.


Whether cop-functions would have to be mass-consciously *overthrown* or whether they would just 'wither away' isn't a clear-cut thing -- certainly an overthrowing of the world's bourgeoisie would *effectively* (one way or the other) make state-backed policing *unnecessary* and *superfluous*, and non-existent. (If they don't exist then any opinion about them at that point would be irrelevant anyway and just a matter of academic study.)

I don't care if they're state backed or community backed or whatever, I am against anyone who seeks to limit my autonomy.

[ckaihatsu]

They're right but why the hell would I want that


Well, an ethos is still inherently moral- which is again, not what I want.


But that's exactly what morality is for- false unity. It's the ultimate goal of which? Self policing, and the policing of everyone around you. Hence, "everyone being cops". Once again, fuck that, I wanna be free.



I don't care if they're state backed or community backed or whatever, I am against anyone who seeks to limit my autonomy.


I would say that you're talking in *idealistic* terms -- sure, people want to live their own lives, but none of us is, or will ever be, *purely* autonomous, because we're *raised* in a pre-existing society of some kind.

I can't agree that a society's 'ethos' is roughly synonymous with 'morality' -- moralism has to do with dogmatic-type *prescriptions* of how to behave, while a society's ethos could very well be *emergent*, resulting from the complexity of planned and less-than-planned material factors, as we have today.

'Self-policing' is also going to be unavoidable, if society is going to function in a cohesive, interactive way. Your own tagline of 'no escape' is appropriate here, because no one functions purely autonomously.

The *differences* in state-backed vs. community-backed vs. self-policing vs. 'everyone being cops' are wide-ranging:

- There's revolutionary agreement on the futility of 'state-backed' policing, since it simply goes to represent bourgeois (propertied) interests.

- Community-backed policing would be a *reformist* measure to introduce checks-and-balances into the way policing is *controlled*, so that it's not completely a *state* power.

- Self-policing could be seen as 'self-control' so that one is better 'well-adjusted' to society as it is, for whatever that's worth.

- Finally, 'everyone being cops' means something *entirely* different, as I've already described, in the context of a fully egalitarian post-capitalist social order. This would be synonymous with a 'broad-based proactive co-participation in genuine public safety' (and all matters of collective social production).