A Libertarian Socalist Platform. [Archive]

View Full Version : A Libertarian Socalist Platform.

(A)

30th June 2016, 00:33

While I dont think reformation of our current system is an option using the political mechanism can be a powerful platform. We have seen that more and more people are working against the Neo-Liberal system and rallying around more radical movements. The effect of ignoring the political system will be the rise of Nationalists like trump and Nationalist movements like the "Leave" movement. This rise of far-right politics has to be challenged by the left on more then just forums and Facebook posts. That being said I would like to ask the Libertarian left on this site their opinions of what a Libertarian Socialist Political party or movement would platform on and stand for. How would you run for office being on the Libertarian left? What I am not looking for is people blasting or offering NON-constructive criticism of Libertarian socialism or the idea. Thanks.

Political Platform may include.

Environmental protections or social ownership
Economic freedoms/controls
Immigration reform
Prison Reform
Decriminalization of Drugs
democratic reform
Tax reform
ETC...

What would your stance on these policy's be if you where to stand in front of a crowd and tell them you are running for office as a Libertarian Socialist. How would you present your ideology to the modern day voter?

Again I am not looking for reasons this wont work and just your ideas on how it could.

Konikow

30th June 2016, 00:56

(A)

30th June 2016, 01:29

Thank you for catching my Error. Also thank you for your comment and the thought and effort you put in to provide constructive criticism of the idea and not just post some flaming bullshit non-sence like some may be inclined to.

Konikow

30th June 2016, 04:16

non-sence

Your spelling is better than your politics!

Edit: Again I am not looking for reasons why I am wrong, and just your ideas on how my haphazard parroting of bourgeois propaganda mishmash could "work" as "socalism."

Edit 2: I am making sence!

Edit 3: Libertarian! Woooooooooooo!

(A)

30th June 2016, 05:35

Why are you here fighting me? Does this circle-jerk advance anything or are you just talking shit because you are a Keyboard warrior who has nothing better to do then touch himself while being rude?

I asked for a little conversation and insight from some like minded people and to avoid a pointless argument and you see this as a sign that I want to fight you?

Kohai

30th June 2016, 20:00

i think that the environmental protections isnt really a libertarian-socialist type of thing. i mean, being an environmentalist is one thing, but a government enforcing environmental regulations isnt a principle of American Libertarianism. As far as economic freedoms and control over your job is very important to Libertarian Socialism and i think it's the main, pivoting point to this system. immigration would obviously not have borders and make immigration free and open. prisons would also probably not get a reform since those are private facilities and American Libertarianism is mainly for privacy, but mass-incrceration could be decreased by eliminating many non-violent laws. the freedom of drugs is a major point in Libertarian Socialism and the decriminalization would also lead to a major decrease in racism in the police force(imo). democracy would definitely be reformed to end the superdelegates system and the electoral college. and taxes would begin on the rich and the tax rate on middle class americans would either stay the same or decrease, depends on the revenue from the Bourgeoisie tax collections. that's all i can think of for a Libertarian Socialist Party Platform, but i am not a Libertarian Socialist, im a Marxist-Leninist but i do study economics. so hopefully this helps

(A)

1st July 2016, 00:22

Thank you for your reply Kohai.

Firstly for the Environment I am thinking more along the lines of Social Ownership of the land and its conservation by its owners (the people). From a reform point of view this might mean Increasing property tax (While ending other unfair taxes) and some form of environmental protection. Capitalist Libertarianism has environmental protections in the form of a legal system where you sue anyone who damages your property. I dont see that working so some form of rules about conservation of the "commons" may make sense.

I am not an economist so my ideas are based more on what I have learned and not on actual numbers. You cant run on a platform of reclaiming the property of the capitalist class (and expect any support) so I think other ways of aiding workers take back their power should be looked at.

American Libertarianism is not a model I agree with. Privatizing Prisons I think is a recipe for disaster. I think the whole Criminal Justice system needs reform. In canada we have a decent court system and Judiciary but the laws that the cops enforce over burden our system and waste so much money. Decriminalization of drugs and looking at what crimes need prison and what crimes need other means of rehabilitation. Also we have some pretty shitty prisons that dont help rehabilitate anyone.

This part I will defer to you but I want to see an end to Sales Tax as it targets those who have less unfairly and end the deduction system that benefits the rich. Increase the tax exemption (In canada from 11'000 to 33'000) and more. Of course this would also need a cut in government spending.

Reduction in elected officials wage to match the average income. (60 something thousand in canada)
Large Reduction of military spending
End to any corporate welfare
Reduction in funding to federal police forces to coincide with the decriminalization of Drugs and other non harmful acts (squatting)

Their is a lot to think about so thank you again for any help brainstorming with me!

The Garbage Disposal Unit

1st July 2016, 06:50

Your spelling is better than your politics!

Edit: Again I am not looking for reasons why I am wrong, and just your ideas on how my haphazard parroting of bourgeois propaganda mishmash could "work" as "socalism."

Edit 2: I am making sence!

Edit 3: Libertarian! Woooooooooooo!

Another flaming, unconstructive post like this will result in an infraction. You've been warned.

The Garbage Disposal Unit

1st July 2016, 06:58

@op I don't think your platform proposals go neatly far enough. As the saying goes, "Don't ask for what you don't want - you might get it."

If we want prison abolition, we shouldn't call for prison reform (except in situations where we are specifically amplifying the demands of prisoners - and then ought to say as much). Similarly, as much as I may disagree with them on a host of issues, I think the way that the CPC(ML) talked about taxes in their election work was really spot on: they said, basically, "We believe in social ownership and democratic control of the economy, not in taxing individuals." That sort of shift - really saying, "Hey! Something else is possible!" is really what the left has to offer.
I think it's crucial that we not abandon our political imagination in the name of expedience. In any case, I'm not convinced it's a thing that works.

(A)

1st July 2016, 10:09

Thank you^^. I get what you are saying. I have seen the CPC run but never get anywhere. I want a Progressive Libertarian party that will provide a platform for people closer to Anarchism then Communism (Marxist Leninist party of Canada) We have 3 large party's of varying leftness but none are very Libertarian. The greens, NDP and Libs are all quite authoritarian. Ban this ban that, Tax TAx Tax.

I agree that we cant abandon our political imagination; hell I am the king of out there thinking, but people dont like communists. I want communism but I need Libertarianism. Their are laws in this country that are afflicting me and my life and I can see a future in Libertarian Socialism in my life more then the CPC.

Fucking Quebec have outlawed Pit-bulls and there are calls for the same across the provinces. I will kill before anyone takes my dog and I would rather it not come to that.
Capitalism I can live with (begrudgingly); fascism I cant.

ckaihatsu

1st July 2016, 14:50

You should be a Democrat.

Edit: So your imperialist war pig president Trudeau is, evidently, a "Libertarian Socialist."

Second edit: I am so sorry, I thought you wrote "socialist" but you wrote "socalist," which is obviously something unrelated. What is socalist? Is it some kind of asbestos-like insulating material?

Obviously a 'socalist' is someone who upholds Southern California as a model for all of society.

= D

'Decriminalization of drugs' is probably the most *concrete* policy item of all of them -- my question would be why the 'mix-and-match' approach to policy, in having *social ownership* for matters of the environmental expanse, but for nothing else -- ?

If social ownership is being used as a reasonable strategy for the administration of the natural environment, why not also for the other issues on the list, like the economy, freedom of movement (migration), and sanctions against individuals for social transgressions ('crime') -- ?

Ultimately libertarian proposals are *reforms* and so can only take place within the constraints of the existing nation-state system -- they're decidedly *nationalist*, in other words. (And why should workers' movements be limited by national borders while *capital* has no such constrictions in its worldwide quest for profits -- ? -- !)

Full Metal Bolshevik

1st July 2016, 17:09

ckaihatsu

1st July 2016, 17:50

Limit land owned per person to X but allow bigger for groups, to encourage cooperatives, or go further and only allow cooperatives for private property, or at least 50% must belong to the workers or something if people don't accept big change quickly.
Legal expropriation of unused land.

There are rarely talked about in current society, but I think a considerable chunk of people can somewhat agree with them even in a capitalist perspective.

Sorry, but I don't see what the improvement is in saying 'Just collectivize the land into cooperatives, which will still be private property' -- how is this supposedly 'libertarian socialist' formulation any different from present-day *joint-stock corporations* -- ? -- !

A joint-stock company is a business entity where different stocks can be bought and owned by shareholders. Each shareholder owns company stock in proportion, evidenced by his or her shares (certificates of ownership).[1] This allows for the unequal ownership of a business with some shareholders owning a bigger proportion of a company than others do. Shareholders are able to transfer their shares to others without any effects to the continued existence of the company.[2]

In modern-day corporate law, the existence of a joint-stock company is often synonymous with incorporation (i.e. possession of legal personality separate from shareholders) and limited liability (meaning that the shareholders are only liable for the company's debts to the value of the money they invested in the company). As a consequence, joint-stock companies are commonly known as corporations or limited companies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint-stock_company

---

I'd always be interested in how these 'cooperatives' would *interact* with each other -- 'private property', even internally collective, would mean that *finance* would continue to be a necessity, with all of the inherent contradictions between exchange-values and use-values.

Here's from a recent thread on the same topic:

[N]othing would preclude regular mergers-and-acquisitions, meaning that larger-scale organizations could / would benefit from efficiencies of scale and would buy out numerous mom-and-pop *small-scale* [...] operations, thus -- again -- becoming like today's corporations.

The Site's View of Mutualism

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/195753-The-Site-s-View-of-Mutualism

---

I'll remind that the libertarian approach is unable to address matters of *labor* and how it should be valuated -- what would the *worker* get in this scenario of patchwork-lateral-relations-among-communes -- ? What if the worker wanted to partake from the production of *other communes* -- ? It really seems as though the use of some kind of currency would be inescapable, which again just begs the question of how to reconcile exchange values with use values, including the use-value of labor. Any market-based approach for inter-communal exchanges would be inappropriate and even counter-revolutionary.

Full Metal Bolshevik

1st July 2016, 18:26

Considering what he writes in his first post, it seems he wants reforms under a capitalist system that can take us closer to socialism, not go socialism.

ckaihatsu

1st July 2016, 19:47

Considering what he writes in his first post, it seems he wants reforms under a capitalist system that can take us closer to socialism, not go socialism.

Yup, definitely -- and, f.y.i., I have libertarians as 'left nationalists' in my take on the left-right political spectrum:

[3] Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

http://s6.postimg.org/6omx9zh81/3_Ideologies_Operations_Fundamentals.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/cpkm723u5/full/)

(A)

2nd July 2016, 02:44

So it looks like their are a couple of takes on my idea it appears.

There is no point because communism is the only way.
The Platform has to be radical as to stay true to the ideology.
Its still nationalist and therefore bad.

I somewhat agree with most of what people have said with a few notable exceptions. I agree that it is nationalistic in the sense that it would be Libertarianism in one state. I agree it is not radical enough to be anything truly revolutionary.
However I am not looking to start a revolution I am looking to create a platform that is far enough to the left to make a real difference but centrist enough to actually be taken seriously by more then the fringe element. Their is a growing number of people who identify with Libertarians but who are on the left; Who represents them?

ckaihatsu: How would you sell social ownership of the economy, prisons and border to the average westerner who has been conditioned to hate communists and think socialism is a bad word? I have the idea that basically the platform would run on the idea that the land belongs to the people of the country (Yes I get that that is nationalist but its the wording people understand at the moment.) and that it should be protected from exploitation and damage for the continued use of the people. This morally justifies a tax on land use (I think all taxes need to be justified beyond 'we need money') and provides for its furthered protection.

As for borders I think opening them up to faster and easier immigration would be not only beneficial but moral. I agree with what Marx and Engels wrote; "The working men have no country."

As for the value for labor; I believe that the product of an individuals labors should belong to him. Not stolen by the capitalist class nor the state mechanism. The community owns the land and its resources; I own the products of my labors. This may not be the thread to discuss my ideas of Collective property and Private property. Here we are starting from Capitalism and building a platform for community ownership of the land and its resources within the context of a free market and Capitalist world. It is not meant to be Ideal; just realistic.

Full Metal Bolshevik: That is a big open area in my workings; The idea of collectivizing workplaces. You cant do it by force or your not Libertarian. You just have to give people the power to do it themselves. An Idea I had was to remove the barriers for individuals and collectives to get into industry. I have a Janitorial service with no employees, only myself and it was no easy task to start this service. I would want to make everyone able to find paths away from wage labor and to self employment or worker owned industry. Elimination of sales tax, Business license fees, etc. Any ideas on ways to make it easier for people to work and sell the product of their own labor without using force?

LeftistsAreRadical

2nd July 2016, 06:26

However I am not looking to start a revolution I am looking to create a platform that is far enough to the left to make a real difference but centrist enough to actually be taken seriously by more then the fringe element.

The way that I understand what it seems to be you're asking for/trying to do is mix democratic socialism and libertarianism, because true socialism and capitalism cannot exist side by side, which seems to defunct the "libertarian socialist" label of your platform. We understand that you're not trying to start a revolution with this proposed "platform" because you're posing the question from a highly reformist point of view. That's where the opposition that you're getting on this subject is coming from, that you're trying to "make a real difference" by reforming capitalism, when capitalism itself is the reason a difference is needed. Capitalism cannot reconcile nor repair itself, but is a system of constant crisis, no matter how many "socialistic" programs are implemented alongside it.

How would you sell social ownership of the economy, prisons and border to the average westerner who has been conditioned to hate communists and think socialism is a bad word?

In this case, you are missing an essential piece in the development of the class struggle and the eventual steps to socialism, and that is class consciousness. Nothing can be done to make real change until enough of the proletarians realize their oppression at the hand of the bourgeoisie and recognize that socialism is necessary in order to liberate the proletariat. Socialism cannot just happen upon a society. In the words of El Che, "The revolution is not an apple that falls when it is ripe. You have to make it fall." As leftists and intellectuals, we cannot just stand idly by and await the realization of the horrors of capitalism to dawn upon the workers all across the world. As leftists and intellectuals, it is not only our obligation, but it is our duty to educate the masses, as education is the very base and foundation in the progression to communism.

As for the value for labor; I believe that the product of an individuals labors should belong to him. Not stolen by the capitalist class nor the state mechanism. The community owns the land and its resources; I own the products of my labors.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. When you say that the product of your labors should not be taken by the state mechanism, do you mean under current state conditions or under a socialist state? And when you say that you own the products of your labors, do you mean in an individualistic way or communally everyone owns the product of their labors?

ckaihatsu

2nd July 2016, 19:35

Libertarianism in one state

Could you elaborate on this -- ?

Geographically what is this, in relation to the whole globe -- ?

ckaihatsu: How would you sell social ownership of the economy, prisons and border to the average westerner who has been conditioned to hate communists and think socialism is a bad word?

Strictly speaking, there *is no* 'sell' involved -- those who become class conscious, by whatever process, realize that prisons, borders, and, yes, even the economy, are all instruments of power in the service of those who presently control society, far disproportionately to their actual numbers -- the bourgeoisie.

But to address your point at face value, I'd have to ask the person how *they're* personally benefitting from any of these political-power-based restrictions -- does this person get a 'bonus' for every person put behind bars -- ? Are they cut a check for every immigrant prevented from entering a First World / Western country -- ?

Then perhaps note that prisons and borders do more to shift society *to the right*, basically to an apartheid-type system, since the wealthy are never affected by these punishments.

More in line with *your own* politics, maybe suggest that these governmental policies of socioeconomic favoritism are *backward* and need to be done away with, on the grounds of class bias. Here's the principle / question, from a recent post at another thread:

This is *another* litmus-test -- would any given person show *favoritism* based on *money* / exchange-values, or would they *discount* such monetary-possession considerations in favor of equal-access-for-all -- ?

(In other words do people show *class bias*, or not -- ? This issue differentiates leftward-moving politics versus any conservatism -- based on using exchange values for any given good or service.)

Alienating non-communist proletarians and petit bourgeoisie

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/195848-Alienating-non-communist-proletarians-and-petit-bourgeoisie

---

I have the idea that basically the platform would run on the idea that the land belongs to the people of the country (Yes I get that that is nationalist but its the wording people understand at the moment.)

Okay, using 'country' as a convenience, there's still the question of 'Who gets which lands, and for what?'.

(In other words as soon as the 'invisible hand' is removed, society is taken off of 'autopilot' and has to have *concrete methods* for dealing with the socio-material world, as for the use of labor and the fruits of its production.)

You're only addressing *land* -- which *varies*, btw, and is not all the same in use-value all over the globe, per unit. Those who have been used to managing factories could very well argue that *they* know everything about how to run factories, and so should remain in specialized, managerial positions, controlling such factories, entirely.

and that it should be protected from exploitation and damage for the continued use of the people. This morally justifies a tax on land use (I think all taxes need to be justified beyond 'we need money') and provides for its furthered protection.

This, though, is more than using 'country' as a convenience -- you're implicitly acknowledging that some kind of *state* (bureaucracy) would be required for the thorough, standardized oversight of how land is to be 'protected' and 'taxed'.

You're saying that it's for the use of the people, but you're not saying how the people's use of land would 'win-out' over present-day corporate control. (How would 'the people' get from here to there -- ?)

As for borders I think opening them up to faster and easier immigration would be not only beneficial but moral. I agree with what Marx and Engels wrote; "The working men have no country."

'Easier immigration', too, is a *reform*, and is not revolutionary -- if working people have no country then shouldn't they be able to go to whatever country has a better economy, to potentially find better prospects compared to wherever they happened to be born -- ?

As for the value for labor; I believe that the product of an individuals labors should belong to him. Not stolen by the capitalist class nor the state mechanism. The community owns the land and its resources; I own the products of my labors.

This, unfortunately, is too facile -- how would a *landscaper's* labor be valuated here -- ? They added value to the land itself but it's 'the community' that owns the land, and presumably any means of production on the land as well, like factories. (With this setup the laborer *couldn't* retain the products of their labor if they worked on infrastructure of any sort.)

This may not be the thread to discuss my ideas of Collective property and Private property. Here we are starting from Capitalism and building a platform for community ownership of the land and its resources within the context of a free market and Capitalist world. It is not meant to be Ideal; just realistic.

Sorry but it's not realistic *or* ideal -- how would a resource-sourcer like a worker in the timber industry hang onto the product of their labor, exactly -- ? Would they take a bunch of logs home with themselves every day -- ? (Obviously a contemporary economy has to be more sophisticated than some exercise of simple 'barter', especially when it comes to complex, supply-chain-production goods and services.)

Full Metal Bolshevik: That is a big open area in my workings; The idea of collectivizing workplaces. You cant do it by force or your not Libertarian. You just have to give people the power to do it themselves. An Idea I had was to remove the barriers for individuals and collectives to get into industry. I have a Janitorial service with no employees, only myself and it was no easy task to start this service. I would want to make everyone able to find paths away from wage labor and to self employment or worker owned industry. Elimination of sales tax, Business license fees, etc. Any ideas on ways to make it easier for people to work and sell the product of their own labor without using force?

If you don't mind I'll jump in on this one, too -- there's nothing *comprehensive* about suggesting owner-operator situations for everyone: As soon as some tangible *product* is made, most likely from several 'steps' of work-role inputs (as for a computer, for example), society would have to have a standard, consistent way of valuating each laborer's proportionate labor input into the final product, as for some kind of formal recognition and possible compensation.

And services could actually be *even trickier*: How would we determine / quantify all of the historical prior inputs that feed-into a teacher's *teaching*, for example -- ?

(A)

2nd July 2016, 19:41

The way that I understand what it seems to be you're asking for/trying to do is mix democratic socialism and libertarianism, because true socialism and capitalism cannot exist side by side, which seems to defunct the "libertarian socialist" label of your platform. We understand that you're not trying to start a revolution with this proposed "platform" because you're posing the question from a highly reformist point of view. That's where the opposition that you're getting on this subject is coming from, that you're trying to "make a real difference" by reforming capitalism, when capitalism itself is the reason a difference is needed. Capitalism cannot reconcile nor repair itself, but is a system of constant crisis, no matter how many "socialistic" programs are implemented alongside it.

I have to look at this from a reformist view because that is what our system currently looks like. I live in a country where we vote for representatives to change the rules for us. I dont like it but their is no revolution on the horizon because those who would want a revolution dont have a voice save for the internet. No one cares about Keyboard Commies. If their is a fight to be had where I am I will fight it but no one wants a fight. I dont want to reform capitalism; I want to create a place for Progressive libertarians to have a voice in our government. I dont want the only Libertarian party to be a American one or a laissez-faire one.

In this case, you are missing an essential piece in the development of the class struggle and the eventual steps to socialism, and that is class consciousness. Nothing can be done to make real change until enough of the proletarians realize their oppression at the hand of the bourgeoisie and recognize that socialism is necessary in order to liberate the proletariat. Socialism cannot just happen upon a society. In the words of El Che, "The revolution is not an apple that falls when it is ripe. You have to make it fall." As leftists and intellectuals, we cannot just stand idly by and await the realization of the horrors of capitalism to dawn upon the workers all across the world. As leftists and intellectuals, it is not only our obligation, but it is our duty to educate the masses, as education is the very base and foundation in the progression to communism.

No I get class struggle; and I want their to be a voice for the working class where people will actually listen. I can stand on the street and scream till I am blue; I can type till my fingers bleed and no one will read. We live in an age where no one cares about your opinion unless it affects them directly. I would love to hear about your attempts to awaken the sleeping masses. Have you printed literature, run protests, etc. I would join in on that but where I live no one cares. I would have to be protesting butt ass naked for anyone to take note and even then the line would read "Naked man protests something or other in small city. Arrested soon after."

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. When you say that the product of your labors should not be taken by the state mechanism, do you mean under current state conditions or under a socialist state? And when you say that you own the products of your labors, do you mean in an individualistic way or communally everyone owns the product of their labors?

I dont believe theft in any society; collectivized or individualist is acceptable. I believe in an economy where workers are able to work without anyone taking the product of their labors by force. I would fight against any state; socialist or otherwise that stole the product of my labors. I will give my product freely if others will do the same but I will not abide the tyranny of anyone. My argument against capitalism is not that it does not work (which it does not); it is that it facilitates and requires theft of the workers product.

I am a Janitor, The product of my labor is a clean office. I should be free to sell or give that product as I see fit. I should not hold a monopoly on the ability to clean nor steal the cleaning that other janitors produce along side me.

If I am a Socialist I am a VERY libertarian one; or else I am not one at all.

(A)

2nd July 2016, 20:37

Could you elaborate on this -- ?

Geographically what is this, in relation to the whole globe -- ?

I meant it as a joke about Stalin and Trotsky. You know; socialism on one country. I dont think anyone save the Canadians on this fourm would consider voting to close canada. While I am an anarchist in principle I am a Minarchist pragmatically. I see the use in a state for my foreseeable future. I just want a state that is bound to the same rules as its people. No state murder, No state theft (Hence a tax on land being justifiable)

Strictly speaking, there *is no* 'sell' involved -- those who become class conscious, by whatever process, realize that prisons, borders, and, yes, even the economy, are all instruments of power in the service of those who presently control society, far disproportionately to their actual numbers -- the bourgeoisie.

But to address your point at face value, I'd have to ask the person how *they're* personally benefitting from any of these political-power-based restrictions -- does this person get a 'bonus' for every person put behind bars -- ? Are they cut a check for every immigrant prevented from entering a First World / Western country -- ?

Then perhaps note that prisons and borders do more to shift society *to the right*, basically to an apartheid-type system, since the wealthy are never affected by these punishments.

And they would probably answer: Prisons keep rapists away from my daughter, Borders keep terrorists away from my street and so on and so on till it devolves back into the same left / right argument. Remember this is a platform for Libertarians not for Communist or Vangardists. they already have a platform. Actually a few. Their are many communist party's in canada. Maoist, Trotskyist, Leninist. No Libertarian Socialist party or Progressive Libertarian party. Our Anarchist party is Literally a Joke (the pie to the face kind.)

Canada is shockingly centrist.

Okay, using 'country' as a convenience, there's still the question of 'Who gets which lands, and for what?'.

(In other words as soon as the 'invisible hand' is removed, society is taken off of 'autopilot' and has to have *concrete methods* for dealing with the socio-material world, as for the use of labor and the fruits of its production.)

You're only addressing *land* -- which *varies*, btw, and is not all the same in use-value all over the globe, per unit. Those who have been used to managing factories could very well argue that *they* know everything about how to run factories, and so should remain in specialized, managerial positions, controlling such factories, entirely.

Again this sounds a lot like communism. I am not advocating the removal of the state but a neutering of it. I doubt humanity will make it more than a 1000 years or so but if we do eventually we will reach communism; I have no doubt. But today we have to deal with roads and all this shit. The one edge reform has over revolution is we dont need an iron clad planned economy in place. Just weaken the state and embolden the worker.

Oh I like that. weaken the state and embolden the worker.

This, though, is more than using 'country' as a convenience -- you're implicitly acknowledging that some kind of *state* (bureaucracy) would be required for the thorough, standardized oversight of how land is to be 'protected' and 'taxed'.

You're saying that it's for the use of the people, but you're not saying how the people's use of land would 'win-out' over present-day corporate control. (How would 'the people' get from here to there -- ?)

I actually have something for this. In canada at least the government owns most of the land with the rest "belonging" to individuals or corporations. I say Belonging because they are still taxed and ruled over by the state.
This mechanism actually somewhat works in a sense. If a community owns the land (collectivized property) and the individual wanted to use the land to make a living then you could effectively eliminate all taxes save for the fees involved with using the land. The Collective community benefits from the value raised the individual benefits because he is able to use the land to create more value. No Capitalist involved. As long as the state is democratically run and bound to the laws shared by its people (no Tyranny of the Majority) This would fall under socialism I think. Then again this is my thinking not necessarily a concrete plan.

'Easier immigration', too, is a *reform*, and is not revolutionary -- if working people have no country then shouldn't they be able to go to whatever country has a better economy, to potentially find better prospects compared to wherever they happened to be born -- ? Again I am not planning a revolution myself. But yes they should be allowed to come and work but their is an argument to be made in our current national context for immigration and not purely open borders. I am pro immigration but if we where to just open the borders today canada would probably not survive the influx. People fleeing Brittan, the U.S. the middle east, china.

This was the point about Libertarianism in one state. You cant open the borders if every other country has theirs closed. The criminal element alone would cause untold problems. I am not looking more then 5 years in the future.

This, unfortunately, is too facile -- how would a *landscaper's* labor be valuated here -- ? They added value to the land itself but it's 'the community' that owns the land, and presumably any means of production on the land as well, like factories. (With this setup the laborer *couldn't* retain the products of their labor if they worked on infrastructure of any sort.)

I am a Janitor. The product of my labor is a clean office. I agree to clean an office for a set amount of value. I agree to sell the product of my labors for a per-agreed upon price.

Sorry but it's not realistic *or* ideal -- how would a resource-sourcer like a worker in the timber industry hang onto the product of their labor, exactly -- ? Would they take a bunch of logs home with themselves every day -- ? (Obviously a contemporary economy has to be more sophisticated than some exercise of simple 'barter', especially when it comes to complex, supply-chain-production goods and services.)

A tree has limited value until it is cut down. The community sells said trees to the individual. The individual cuts down the trees and sells the trees for what he paid plus his labor to a Mill. The mill workers ready the lumber for use and sell the lumber to whom ever will buy for their cost + their labor. Free market socialism. We have a complex system in place. The problem with said system is that that individuals can own land and that they can buy an individuals labor. If the capitalist cant own land, then he cant exploit it. If the capitalist cant buy a workers labor and only the product of it then he cant exploit the worker. Again tho I think this discussion (one I want to have) would be better located under theory and not under this thread. If you would like I would love to start a new thread with you and we can back and fourth my ideas of free market socialism.

If you don't mind I'll jump in on this one, too -- there's nothing *comprehensive* about suggesting owner-operator situations for everyone: As soon as some tangible *product* is made, most likely from several 'steps' of work-role inputs (as for a computer, for example), society would have to have a standard, consistent way of valuating each laborer's proportionate labor input into the final product, as for some kind of formal recognition and possible compensation.

And services could actually be *even trickier*: How would we determine / quantify all of the historical prior inputs that feed-into a teacher's *teaching*, for example -- ? This is basically why I support Market Socialism. The world will never be utopian in my life time. As Jigoro Kano said; "Worrying is a waste of energy". I dont want to destroy the system; I just want to make it one little bit more free and give a place in our government to those who want the same.

Konikow

2nd July 2016, 20:46

Welcome to the home of the Revolutionary Left!!!!!!!!!

LeftistsAreRadical

2nd July 2016, 23:10

I have to look at this from a reformist view because that is what our system currently looks like. I live in a country where we vote for representatives to change the rules for us. I dont like it but their is no revolution on the horizon because those who would want a revolution dont have a voice save for the internet. No one cares about Keyboard Commies. If their is a fight to be had where I am I will fight it but no one wants a fight. I dont want to reform capitalism; I want to create a place for Progressive libertarians to have a voice in our government. I dont want the only Libertarian party to be a American one or a laissez-faire one.

That's part of agitation and organization though, is saying "look at how horrible things are, socialism is how we can fix it, join me!" If no one is paying attention to you on the internet, find alternate ways to get your message out. Put up flyers in your city, leave copies of socialist works in popular places, etc. Just don't give up on it. During his presidency, Richard Nixon said, "The Cold War isn't thawing; it is burning with a deadly heat. Communism isn't sleeping; it is, as always, plotting, scheming, working, fighting." Keep persevering, don't give up just because the internet is unfriendly toward leftists. And like the quote I referenced earlier from Che, just because there is no revolution ready to be had now doesn't mean you should wait for one to appear, leftists should be constantly working toward the revolution, making the apple fall. The way I see it, the only thing governments can do across the "Free World" is reform capitalism. Even if there is a major socialist presence in governments, I don't think at this point socialism can actually be reached by reform.

No I get class struggle; and I want their to be a voice for the working class where people will actually listen. I can stand on the street and scream till I am blue; I can type till my fingers bleed and no one will read. We live in an age where no one cares about your opinion unless it affects them directly. I would love to hear about your attempts to awaken the sleeping masses. Have you printed literature, run protests, etc. I would join in on that but where I live no one cares. I would have to be protesting butt ass naked for anyone to take note and even then the line would read "Naked man protests something or other in small city. Arrested soon after."

I put up flyers around my city and I hold discussions with people online, where I've actually had quite some success in spreading class consciousness.

I dont believe theft in any society; collectivized or individualist is acceptable. I believe in an economy where workers are able to work without anyone takingthe product of their labors by force. I would fight against any state; socialist or otherwise that stole the product of my labors. I will give my product freely if others will do the same but I will not abide the tyranny of anyone. My argument against capitalism is not that it does not work (which it does not); it is that it facilitates and requires theft of the workers product.

I am a Janitor, The product of my labor is a clean office. I should be free to sell or give that product as I see fit. I should not hold a monopoly on the ability to clean nor steal the cleaning that other janitors produce along side me.

So what do you think of taxes in a socialist society? And if you are free to sell off your labor, is that not a free/capitalistic market?

(A)

3rd July 2016, 00:01

That's part of agitation and organization though, is saying "look at how horrible things are, socialism is how we can fix it, join me!" If no one is paying attention to you on the internet, find alternate ways to get your message out. Put up flyers in your city, leave copies of socialist works in popular places, etc. Just don't give up on it. During his presidency, Richard Nixon said, "The Cold War isn't thawing; it is burning with a deadly heat. Communism isn't sleeping; it is, as always, plotting, scheming, working, fighting." Keep persevering, don't give up just because the internet is unfriendly toward leftists. And like the quote I referenced earlier from Che, just because there is no revolution ready to be had now doesn't mean you should wait for one to appear, leftists should be constantly working toward the revolution, making the apple fall. The way I see it, the only thing governments can do across the "Free World" is reform capitalism. Even if there is a major socialist presence in governments, I don't think at this point socialism can actually be reached by reform.

This would be my agitation and organization. My first fight is with the state. I can Abide capitalism; I cannot abide fascism. I wont live in an authoritarian state without action. This seems to me the best action. Speaking against Noe-liberalism, Conservatism and the authoritarian laws they pass. If we never see Socialism in my life I can live with that. I can not live in a state that bans pit-bulls.

I put up flyers around my city and I hold discussions with people online, where I've actually had quite some success in spreading class consciousness.

I am glad to hear it. I hate when people talk big and dont follow it up. But see how many people did Bernie reach? How about Trump? Regardless of their message they use politics to get their ideas out their. What if the CPC was a party with actual merit. What if they won a few elections. People would know more about their cause. What if You had a Party? How many more people could you reach during a national debate?

So what do you think of taxes in a socialist society? And if you are free to sell off your labor, is that not a free/capitalistic market?

I think any "tax" would have to be justified on the basis of Ownership. I.E. if the community owns the land and her resources (wood, water, oil, etc.) then property tax is justifiable. Where as a sales tax is not as the state should hold no claim on what is bought and sold. As for the sale of labor I said
I am a Janitor, The product of my labor is a clean office. I should be free to sell or give that product as I see fit. My argument against capitalism is that it prevents individuals from selling the PRODUCT of their labor and forces them to sell their Labor itself. Selling ones labor is tantamount to Slavery; hence the term wage slavery. The capitalist steals the product and pays you for your efforts preventing you from gaining the full value for your efforts. That is theft of Property. I believe in private property; shit that is my entire argument against capitalism. Private property is anything you are given freely, trade without coercion or create by your own labors. Thats my idea of Market Socialism.

LeftistsAreRadical

3rd July 2016, 00:24

Okay, your stance makes more sense now, thank you. I agree with you on the sales tax, and I can respect your view on market socialism.

(A)

3rd July 2016, 00:40

Wow someone on the internet agreed with me. Mark the date lol.

I am horrible at explaining my ideas. I feel my idea is Libertarian Socialism; or at least in that realm.

Right now I am just working out the kinks in the ideas that will eventually form a platform that maybe people could get behind. Personal freedoms; social ownership.

LeftistsAreRadical

3rd July 2016, 01:06

Well I wish you luck in your endeavors

ckaihatsu

3rd July 2016, 13:52

I meant it as a joke about Stalin and Trotsky. You know; socialism on one country. I dont think anyone save the Canadians on this fourm would consider voting to close canada.

While I am an anarchist in principle I am a Minarchist pragmatically. I see the use in a state for my foreseeable future. I just want a state that is bound to the same rules as its people. No state murder, No state theft (Hence a tax on land being justifiable)

Anyone who argues for a state-type apparatus (bureaucracy) is basically arguing for *specialization* of one kind or another, or 'substitutionism' -- remember *this* part...?

I agree with what Marx and Engels wrote; "The working men have no country."

If workers 'have no country' that's because the interests of the nation-state are separate and *different* from the interests of workers. If a state continues to exist, however 'minimal', it will be carrying out functions that are *not* worker-related, things like taxation, security, administration of land, etc., and the carrying-out of these functions are *different, specialized tasks* compared to the work done by workers -- 'productive', as distinct from what the state is doing, which is 'non-productive' since it's just taking from the labors of those who *are* doing productive work.

Politically this is *substitutionism* since the state is implicitly *substituting* itself to do society-wide-type tasks (as with the generalization of products from labor, through taxation), instead of allowing *workers* to do those society-wide-type tasks themselves, collectively, as a regular additional social component to whatever their regular jobs are.

---

And they would probably answer: Prisons keep rapists away from my daughter, Borders keep terrorists away from my street and so on and so on till it devolves back into the same left / right argument.

Now instead of calling for the *abolition* of such ruling-class-sided institutions like prisons and borders, you're actually playing devil's advocate and arguing *from the right*, in *favor* of such policies. Why don't you help your own position and maybe say what *your responses* would be to these kinds of right-wing knee-jerk arguments -- ?

(Prisons are about after-the-fact *punishment*, with varying degrees of recidivism, rather than being any kind of *preventative* approach, while national borders prevent workers from migrating to find better economic opportunities for themselves as laborers. Most immigrants are not also criminals.)

Remember this is a platform for Libertarians not for Communist or Vangardists. they already have a platform. Actually a few. Their are many communist party's in canada. Maoist, Trotskyist, Leninist. No Libertarian Socialist party or Progressive Libertarian party. Our Anarchist party is Literally a Joke (the pie to the face kind.)

Canada is shockingly centrist.

Again this sounds a lot like communism. I am not advocating the removal of the state but a neutering of it. I doubt humanity will make it more than a 1000 years or so but if we do eventually we will reach communism; I have no doubt. But today we have to deal with roads and all this shit. The one edge reform has over revolution is we dont need an iron clad planned economy in place. Just weaken the state and embolden the worker.

Oh I like that. weaken the state and embolden the worker.

What's so socially difficult about 'roads' -- ?

And why hesitate just because we don't have an 'iron-clad planned economy' ready-to-go -- ?

You're really vacillating between a confidence in workers' own abilities, and a regressive political dependence on the state, to uphold markets:

Here we are starting from Capitalism and building a platform for community ownership of the land and its resources within the context of a free market and Capitalist world.

---

I actually have something for this. In canada at least the government owns most of the land with the rest "belonging" to individuals or corporations. I say Belonging because they are still taxed and ruled over by the state.

This mechanism actually somewhat works in a sense. If a community owns the land (collectivized property) and the individual wanted to use the land to make a living then you could effectively eliminate all taxes save for the fees involved with using the land. The Collective community benefits from the value raised the individual benefits because he is able to use the land to create more value. No Capitalist involved. As long as the state is democratically run and bound to the laws shared by its people (no Tyranny of the Majority) This would fall under socialism I think. Then again this is my thinking not necessarily a concrete plan.

I'll point to the line I spelled-out above, that *any* reliance on a state apparatus is political *substitutionism* and foremostly functions to keep the working class *sublimated* to the power and authority of the (elitist) state.

Haven't you considered that the workers themselves could be *interdependent* and could collectively handle all matters of land and production *themselves* -- ? Workers' power, *without* a necessarily-separatist state apparatus, is the definition of socialism.

Again I am not planning a revolution myself. But yes they should be allowed to come and work but their is an argument to be made in our current national context for immigration and not purely open borders. I am pro immigration but if we where to just open the borders today canada would probably not survive the influx. People fleeing Brittan, the U.S. the middle east, china.

So what -- ?? Now you're backing away from your stated position:

As for borders I think opening them up to faster and easier immigration would be not only beneficial but moral.

---

This was the point about Libertarianism in one state. You cant open the borders if every other country has theirs closed. The criminal element alone would cause untold problems. I am not looking more then 5 years in the future.

Again you're either *conflating* criminality with immigrants, or else you're outright *defending* nationalist border policies, which isn't even reformist, much-less revolutionary.

---

This, unfortunately, is too facile -- how would a *landscaper's* labor be valuated here -- ? They added value to the land itself but it's 'the community' that owns the land, and presumably any means of production on the land as well, like factories. (With this setup the laborer *couldn't* retain the products of their labor if they worked on infrastructure of any sort.)

I am a Janitor. The product of my labor is a clean office. I agree to clean an office for a set amount of value. I agree to sell the product of my labors for a per-agreed upon price.

Yes, but you're not addressing the question -- you yourself can't 'keep' a clean office for yourself, to take home with you at night. So in a post-capitalist context how would a janitor derive social 'compensation' for the cleaning of a room -- ?

A tree has limited value until it is cut down. The community sells said trees to the individual.

This is *more* elitism -- how would 'the community' know what price to charge to the individual -- ? Trees in nature are effectively 'free' by just being there, so what method would the community use to *valuate* such natural resources -- ?

The individual cuts down the trees and sells the trees for what he paid plus his labor to a Mill. The mill workers ready the lumber for use and sell the lumber to whom ever will buy for their cost + their labor. Free market socialism. We have a complex system in place. The problem with said system is that that individuals can own land and that they can buy an individuals labor.

Exactly. You're making my point for me: The 'community' public sector would be setting core raw-materials prices, arbitrarily, while the private sector would still be unleashed to make profits off of private ownership and labor exploitation -- definitely *not* socialist.

If the capitalist cant own land, then he cant exploit it.

You just said that individuals (capitalists) *could* own land, and could also buy individuals' labor -- that's commodity-production.

If the capitalist cant buy a workers labor and only the product of it then he cant exploit the worker.

This isn't true -- the worker has to provide labor-efforts, *without* the power over how the products of his/her labor are used. We know that no capitalist would bother to 'invest' / buy labor-power in the first place if they weren't making a *profit* from it, by selling the products for a higher price than what was paid out for the labor for them -- that's exploitation since the worker (*any* worker) isn't being 'cut-in' on the full revenue from the sale of the products, from their own labor that produced it. (That's also *alienation* of the laborer, and of the labor-product.)

This is the definition of wage-slavery, since this is how the *whole*, monolithic economy operates, with no parallel, alternative economic system to commodity-production.

Also:

[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

http://s6.postimg.org/nzhxfqy9d/11_Labor_Capital_Wages_Dividends.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/f4h3589gt/full/)

---

Again tho I think this discussion (one I want to have) would be better located under theory and not under this thread. If you would like I would love to start a new thread with you and we can back and fourth my ideas of free market socialism.

I don't see anything inappropriate with this thread as it is -- maybe another mod would move it to Theory, though, upon request.

This is basically why I support Market Socialism. The world will never be utopian in my life time. As Jigoro Kano said; "Worrying is a waste of energy". I dont want to destroy the system; I just want to make it one little bit more free and give a place in our government to those who want the same.

Market socialism is a contradiction in terms, and in theory -- it can't reconcile its system of exchange values, with the use-values of the actual goods and services produced.

ckaihatsu

3rd July 2016, 14:04

Btw, you have contradictory positions here:

My argument against capitalism is not that it does not work (which it does not); it is that it facilitates and requires theft of the workers product.

Here we are starting from Capitalism and building a platform for community ownership of the land and its resources within the context of a free market and Capitalist world.

ckaihatsu

3rd July 2016, 14:13

My argument against capitalism is that it prevents individuals from selling the PRODUCT of their labor and forces them to sell their Labor itself. Selling ones labor is tantamount to Slavery; hence the term wage slavery. The capitalist steals the product and pays you for your efforts preventing you from gaining the full value for your efforts. That is theft of Property. I believe in private property; shit that is my entire argument against capitalism. Private property is anything you are given freely, trade without coercion or create by your own labors. Thats my idea of Market Socialism.

But as soon as someone brings something productive into their private possession (an orchard, for example), they will *lay claim* to that ownership as 'private property' and could also buy the labor of others to work on that private property, for the sake of making a profit.

Under your proposed 'libertarian socialism' would people be able to make profits, or not -- ?

(A)

3rd July 2016, 19:42

ckaihatsu

3rd July 2016, 20:31

Who owns the orchard?

In capitalism the individual owns the orchard
In socialism the society owns the orchard

Who makes the profit off of the apples.

In capitalism the land owner makes a profit by stealing the workers product (picked apples) and sells them on the market at market value.
In Market Socialism the worker who picks the apple sells the apple on the open market.

You're sidestepping the issue of public-vs.-private within a so-called 'market socialism' -- could orchards be *privately* owned, if someone saved-up and approached the community with some kind of buy-out offer -- ? (If so, then private property would continue to exist, and people's motivations could very well turn towards individual profit-making instead of attentions given to the upkeep of the 'community property'. If not, how would 'the community' valuate any given work-effort, such as the janitorial cleaning of a public space -- ? What motivation and compensation would there be for any person's performed labor in this direction -- ?)

In communism the use value for the apple is... I honestly dont know.

The 'use value' of anything is simply its tangible, empirical usefulness as an object or material -- an apple has nutritive qualities, etc.

Now before you ask. No the worker does not need to take the apples home.

In communism a worker would implicitly / automatically have 'first dibs' on whatever they themselves produced, because workers would not be alienated from their own labor, and its products.

You asked how I, a janitor, take my cleaned office home with me. That is a very silly question. I agree to preform a service. That service is my product. The product of my labors. The market helps me decide what I will sell my product for.
I sell my product and I pay my costs. What is left after my costs is my profit. My profit buys me Warhammer 40k and Fallout4 DLC.

What if the funds available to 'the community' are *insufficient* for all of the types of upkeep / maintenance that the community collectively would like to have done -- ? Perhaps the market is far more lucrative for any worker looking to do their thing, and so the public sphere winds up being woefully inadequate in providing resources for common-type interests -- ?

Your sustained dependence on the market means that *finance* would have to continue to exist, meaning banking, interest on capital, speculation, market crashes, etc. -- exchange values would be more economically determining than use values.

----

Now for this substitution stuff. The state serves a function. Like the USSR it is a step between one stage to another. The difference would be that where the USSR had power and authority the libertarian state would have very little of that.
Basically it would serve to conserve land and provide necessary services while the workers transition from Capitalism to Market Socialism to eventually Anarchism or Communism.

And how can you ensure that the state / public-sector would be adequately funded -- ?

Instead of a totalitarian dictatorship of the Proletariat and vanguard one party state like has happened with every other attempt at communism; this would be based on the principles of Liberty and freedom.

*Any* attempt at communism is supposed to be *worldwide*, so that means that any 'one party state' is definitely *not* communism -- it's usually termed 'Stalinism', or 'state capitalism'.

Are you suggesting that the transition between Capitalism and Communism will be instantaneous or just saying that you would prefer a more USSR like method of transition?

My take on the 'transition' is that much of how it would look would depend on actual real-world conditions as they play out -- the *point* is to get to full communism as soon as possible, so I'd like the 'transition' to be as *brief* as possible, based on what would be achievable at any given moment.

Also:

[7] Syndicalism-Socialism-Communism Transition Diagram

http://s6.postimg.org/z6qrnuzn5/7_Syndicalism_Socialism_Communism_Transiti.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/jy0ua35yl/full/)

(A)

3rd July 2016, 22:56

So your asking my about the end stage when we we are not even close the a second stage (of four apparently).

As I have said many time I am just looking to create a platform around the first step (Not Syndicalism tho cuss the way it is described their sound horrible).
A party that will give the modern day real worker a hope to unshackle himself from his employer. Protect the land from destruction at the hands of the capitalist
that is occurring every day and work to end the tyranny of the Majority.

You are talking end stages here. If we spend our time looking only at what could be and not acting today on what is then we will never make any difference.
You as a Vanguardist could focus your efforts on creating or join a party of professional revolutionary's.

As A libertarian I just want a little more freedom every day.

ckaihatsu

4th July 2016, 13:21

(A)

4th July 2016, 13:44

ckaihatsu

4th July 2016, 14:14

The point on this thread Is to create a idea of what a political platform would look like. That's why this is under Politics and not theory. If you want to hear my thoughts on Libertarian socialism I can start a new thread under theory.
I am trying to think like a politician because that's what the goal is for this thread. I am sorry If I came off as uninterested. I am just focused on this one topic here and dont want to get to off track.
I will answer an earlier question tho.

[C]ould orchards be *privately* owned, if someone saved-up and approached the community with some kind of buy-out offer -- ?

No. That would be against the principle of Social ownership of the land and its bounty.
I believe everyone has a right to live on and off of the land. No one should own land; just borrow it.

I hope you will continue this conversation related to the Political Platform. Perhaps later tonight I will posit the question in theory on the Ideals of Libertarian Socialism VS Authoritarian Socialism that you will be more interested in Debating with me.

Okay, noted on that issue.

I'd like to hear more about the *layout* of this proposed 'community control' -- my follow-up question to the 'private orchards' issue is this:

If not, how would 'the community' valuate any given work-effort, such as the janitorial cleaning of a public space -- ? What motivation and compensation would there be for any person's performed labor in this direction -- ?)

---

I'm trying to point out that there's an inherent *contradiction* between community-collective control of natural resources, and the *importance* of those finite resources to any particular individual or small-group.

In other words, who gets to use the *best* farming land -- ? If the products of one's labor, from community property, can be sold, then a profit can be accrued and these funds / exchange-values would take on a life of their own, looking for more opportunities for 'investment' -- perhaps seeking-out the *premium* land for another orchard, to organize laborers for further production of apples, and profits. If only the 'designated user' / 'land borrower' can control the use of the orchard -- with the permission of the 'community' -- then that person can conceivably 'hire' workers for the production of apples, but *without* extending co-control of the orchard to them, or even the possession of the resulting apples, as well.

In other words, is the point to build-up *exchange values*, as from the harvest of saleable apples -- ? If so, then every person would have an individualistic *private interest* in this-or-that productive process, which is *antagonistic to* the 'shared' 'community' administration of any given means of production, like an orchard. There would necessarily be *competition* for the better-producing land, which *couldn't* be fairly decided by any 'community' body, because there wouldn't be differentiation among the claimants, as according to their personal wealth or willingness to pay higher prices for outright *private ownership* of the land itself.

How would actual use of the land be decided, among a number of presumably-socially-equal claimants -- ?

This is essentially the 'scarcity' question, for any given proposal / model of a post-capitalist political economy.

(A)

4th July 2016, 15:09

"then that person can conceivably 'hire' workers for the production of apples, but *without* extending co-control of the orchard to them, or even the possession of the resulting apples, as well."

The lack of land ownership should basically eliminate this problem. You cant hire a worker if you have no land for their labor. The worker would simply take his apples and be on his way. Since the apples dont belong to an Individual until Labor is used to harvest them; taking them from the Laborer would be Theft. A crime. An Item can only belong to an individual who has been gifted it freely; Traded it without coercion or has labored to create it.

Lets assume there is a state that provides basic services and therefore needs money. As the Services are for the community and the community owns the land then a fee for using the land can be applied (only after the economy has begun to form can this occur and services be provided.) I want to build a boat for a fisherman. I need wood and tools. I can purchase the Tools from the Tool maker and I can purchase the trees from the Community. Now I was not the only one who wanted the trees. Another man wanted the trees as well. This has created a market that will decide the value. We both make an offer and the winner gets the trees; loser has to find other trees or work with the winner and share the labor and spoils. In this case lets say it was me. The state now has funds to provide its services and I have trees. So I cut down the trees. I own those trees now that my labor labor has been added to them. I need help building this boat so I find a boat builder to help. Now I cant pay him a wage as that would be theft of his labors product so I agree to split the end sale of said boat with him. We build said boat and now sell it on the market.

That is a very vary agrarian take on the idea. But in the end I believe it is moral as I have kept the profits of my labor; I have stolen nothing from anyone and I have provided for both myself and my community.

I have most likely done a horrible job describing my concept but I hope it helps.

ckaihatsu

4th July 2016, 15:41

The lack of land ownership should basically eliminate this problem. You cant hire a worker if you have no land for their labor. The worker would simply take his apples and be on his way. Since the apples dont belong to an Individual until Labor is used to harvest them; taking them from the Laborer would be Theft. A crime. An Item can only belong to an individual who has been gifted it freely; Traded it without coercion or has labored to create it.

Okay.

Lets assume there is a state that provides basic services and therefore needs money. As the Services are for the community and the community owns the land then a fee for using the land can be applied

Okay, but this 'origin' point (community / public property) is problematic regarding pricing -- would various 'communities' be in market-competition as to pricing -- ?

Or would any given 'community' just collectively-subjectively put forth an *arbitrary* fee for the use of community / public property -- ?

If the market is relied on then the dynamic of *patronage* could take hold, where favoritism is shown by the community to particular individuals who can pay relatively higher fees and who may wind up effectively 'privatizing' much of the natural resources in an area, like a whole forest's worth of timber at a time for a particular project that's socially questionable (maybe building an 'escape ark', meant to be launched into outer space).

And if the community just posits *arbitrary* amounts for a 'fee', there's nothing to say that the fees paid will enable sustainability of the underlying natural resources -- maybe a particular community habitually *undercharges* for resources and then finds desert-like conditions resulting on the land due to overconsumption.

Also, I have to reiterate the scarcity-type 'bottlenecking' problematic -- what if a complex production process spans several factories / workplaces, using supply chains over a few continents -- ? Would such a large-scale, timing-dependent project be on the same level of consideration as a single lone producer who wants to use the same facilities somewhere for more artisanal-type one-off production of products (perhaps building materials for finished homes) -- ?

I'll add that if user fees aren't sufficient for what a community wants to do with 'their' common land / resources, then that community might wish to *borrow*, which would then entail all of the complications of *finance*.

(only after the economy has begun to form can this occur and services be provided.) I want to build a boat for a fisherman. I need wood and tools. I can purchase the Tools from the Tool maker and I can purchase the trees from the Community. Now I was not the only one who wanted the trees. Another man wanted the trees as well. This has created a market that will decide the value. We both make an offer and the winner gets the trees; loser has to find other trees or work with the winner and share the labor and spoils. In this case lets say it was me. The state now has funds to provide its services and I have trees. So I cut down the trees. I own those trees now that my labor labor has been added to them. I need help building this boat so I find a boat builder to help. Now I cant pay him a wage as that would be theft of his labors product so I agree to split the end sale of said boat with him. We build said boat and now sell it on the market.

That is a very vary agrarian take on the idea. But in the end I believe it is moral as I have kept the profits of my labor; I have stolen nothing from anyone and I have provided for both myself and my community.

I have most likely done a horrible job describing my concept but I hope it helps.

Okay, yeah, it's helpful -- thanks.

The Idler

5th July 2016, 21:33

The OP is correct that electoral abstentionism tends to empower the ruling class. I’m a proud member of the World Socialist Movement and therefore would regard the Socialist Party of Canada (https://www.worldsocialism.org/canada/) as best embodying a ‘libertarian socialist’ platform democratically.
So the economy would be a calculation in kind with ownership in common including of the environment.
If the vast majority were willing to establish this, then seeking reforms falling short of this, like immigration, prison, drug decriminalisation, democratic would be futile. Utopian schemes planning out details would instead be democratically decided on their merits.
It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it. So the strategy would be no compromise, no political trading. No reform would buy us out. No gradualist stages would postpone our revolution. The ballot rather than the bullet. A society truly of free association (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_association_%28communism_and_anarchism%29) would be our goal. No censorship, no policing, no armies, nobody to defend private (not personal) property of the few. Quite obviously this would necessarily be global in its scope. But as the Diggers once said, ‘the earth is common treasury for all.’
If you agree, you should join the Socialist Party of Canada and respect its long history of over a century (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_of_Canada). If you’re a Benjamin Tucker (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Tucker) mutualist, Proudhonist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon) or follower of Henry George (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George), you are not a ‘Libertarian Socialist’ (or at least not as I understand it) and need not apply . Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice; socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality!

(A)

6th July 2016, 00:24

Thank you for adding to the discussion Idler.

I saw the page for the Socialist party of Canada before and thought it was some relic of the past as it is woefully outdated and not well done. Its platform is socialist to be sure but not representative of many's interests and its lack of political drive is off putting. They have ran in two general elections and one by-election receiving only 1,495 votes. Either only 1495 people are socialist or the party itself is not representative of what Canadian socialists want.

My main complaint would be their Impossibilism platform. I understand that many socialists believe in Impossibilism or at least agree that reform does not work but who in their right mind would support a party that within the context their every day life's offer nothing politically. Why would you vote for a party that wont do anything unless they can first over throw capitalism and achieve socialism?

My platform (As I work on it) at least offers political change that will benefit the people regardless of the state of the Classes movement. A elimination of Sales tax, decriminalization of Drug use, end to Military aggression, end to Corporate welfare, an end to international trade deals and so on.

Any movement that supports the Working class and weakens the Capitalist class is better then no movement at all.

Proteus2

10th July 2016, 02:54

Libertarian socialism is workers power and control over the productive capacity of society and its political and cultural change as a result of that power. Parliaments, the media, law and intellectual opinion are institutions that exist in the absense of aforementioned working class power and not entities that promote it or are a catalylist for it.

(A)

10th July 2016, 03:34

OK so what in absence of trying to create a voice in government for the Libertarian Left would you do?

The Intransigent Faction

11th July 2016, 02:30

"Vote Revolution 2020: Because in hindsight, electoralism doesn't work."

"I" would rather see the left build alternative, democratic institutions which render the functions of capitalist institutions either redundant or absolute. There are already ways for communities to distribute food and water, shelter, cultural items, and more without a need for the profit motive.

I'm not talking about lifestylism or suggesting we all need to move to communes, but direct action and community organization which show at least the kernel of what capitalism can be replaced with, minus the bureaucracy of the state sector, would go a long way.

If the left is going to get anywhere, it needs to stand on its own feet. There's more than enough historical precedents to show that trying to "create a voice for movements in the system" leads to being co-opted by the system.

We need to reject, and actively disprove, the notion that we need to be "pragmatic" (as liberals define it) and "work with the system", in order to effect change. This assumption has been a major barrier for the left.

(A)

11th July 2016, 04:50

Do you live in a commune? I have looked into it but their are none near me and anyone I have found is usually nudist or Anti-Vax nut jobs.

Konikow

11th July 2016, 04:55

Alternative institutions are great. Here in my city there are lots of condo associations, Whole Foods, and Charter Schools. Soon revolution will be inevitable.

On the other hand, if we want alternative institutions for the proletariat, the proletariat has to seize the property of the bourgeoisie and smash its state that defends said property.

You know, the revolution thing. The one thing that the "Revolutionary Left" unconditionally opposes.

Build a revolutionary workers party.