Libertarian Socialism, Greed, and Leftist Causes

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I am a Libertarian Socialist who believes the ideal society will result from the elimination of capitalism and the state. I have heard arguments that both reformism and violent revolutionary tactics fail. What are other solutions?

Furthermore, I have been debating with classmates about the possibility of Libetarian Socialism. Most are against me, saying that Libertarian Socalism is not possible because all people are not equal. They say capitalism will rise again because greed is a natural human quality and inequality is a reality. How does a leftist deal with such questions? The nature of greed is usually the first criticism against anti-capitalist philosophy, and, as I am also anti-statist, I do not know how to counter the claim. I assume it can be countered and there are explanations on either why greed emerges or how to deal with it, but I am wondering what everyone here thinks.

I have hypothesized that greed is natural, but, by removing capital, can be channeled it in another way? I suggested using greed as a motivation and, instead of earning capital, one would earn the right to use. Someone countered the claim saying it would lead to capitalist though - I am inclined to agree. Some people have mentioned that differences in ability will produce class structure. Furthermore, I have been told that marginalizing capitalists (denying their freedoms), creates a hierarchy (socialism is superior to capitalism) and opens up the door for capitalism to return.

Basically, those who I debate with generally disagree with communism. One supports Libertarian Socialism as the direction, through reformism, that should be taken; however, they think it will only succeed with eugenics.

Any clarification on these issues would help. I am quite confused. Since I was previously a Democratic Socialist, I did not have to think in such a complex way, but, as Libertarian Socialism has many more variables, I have much more to defend.

[ReD_ReBeL]

hmm yes i am a left wing-populist/socialist, so i have to agree with them i dont believe communism can happen man will always want more thn he is given, even if everyone is equal there will still be people who have capitalist views and want more and this will result in a 'black market' type scenario going on in my opinion. I believe there have to be some sort of a state to keep order among people, but not repressive order like that of the USSR Stalin era. Just mild Laws so people aren't running around causeing chaos and taking agvantage of No Laws. No state will result in revengeful murder against people who they do not get along with(i dont mean the majority of people just a handful like there is at the moment). Economy of capitalism isn't to blame for absolutely everything, people are only human and humans make mistakes.

[DisIllusion]

i dont believe communism can happen man will always want more thn he is given,

Of course people want more than they are given, it's why we're disatisfied with our current capitalist world. As for Communism, what more could you want when you can already have it all communally?


I believe there have to be some sort of a state to keep order among people, but not repressive order like that of the USSR Stalin era. Just mild Laws so people aren't running around causeing chaos and taking agvantage of No Laws.

Anarchists believe that the State should be dissolved right away, Marxists believe that the State should be dissolved gradually when we enter the phase of Socialism and dissolve all social classes.


No state will result in revengeful murder against people who they do not get along with(i dont mean the majority of people just a handful like there is at the moment). Economy of capitalism isn't to blame for absolutely everything, people are only human and humans make mistakes.

That is a common capitalist argument against Anarchism and Marxism, basing it in "human nature". Most of the violence and vices that people commit are based in capitalist shortcomings, (i.e. frustration at a social hierarchy, majority of the wealth going to the bourgeoisie etc)

Read up on your theory, and don't hesistate to ask questions if you're unsure. Capitalism goes hand in hand with ignorance, so education is a comrade's greatest weapon.

[barista.marxista]

This is a common counter-argument to anarchism/socialism/communism, with a very simple answer: there is no evidence, upon a material study of the history of man, that man's human nature is greed; quite the contrary, all evidence supports the notion that man has no concrete nature, but rather his nature evolves with his material environment. Here are two short readings in which Marx explains this:

Marx, from The German Ideology, 1845
"First Premises of Material Method" (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm#a2)

Marx, from Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844
Estranged Labour (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/labour.htm)

This comes to about 11 pages, and even all of "Estranged Labour" isn't exactly on point, though it explains the relationship between human nature and capitalism. Hope it helps.

[Craig]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus [email protected] 6 2005, 08:25 PM

I am a Libertarian Socialist who believes the ideal society will result from the elimination of capitalism and the state. I have heard arguments that both reformism and violent revolutionary tactics fail. What are other solutions?
A tactic must be suited to the goal, and therefore there is no single one that can be right in all sitations.

Reformism (grovelling, begging, and pleading the state to change on its own accord) can't result in anything more than cosmetic or minor changes, because, by definition, it means working within the system and playing by the state's rules. That doesn't mean it is worthless; it is just extremely limited.

It is my personal view that violence should always be a last resort. It is an admission that intellect and rationality have failed. It may sometimes be necessary, but it is always unfortunate.

There are a wide range of revolutionary and non-violent (or at least less than violent tactics) available, and throught history they have been quite successful: Strikes, sit-ins, protests, disobedience, and property destruction... The list could go on and on.


Most are against me, saying that Libertarian Socalism is not possible because all people are not equal.
To leftists of almost every tendency, "equality" means equality of condition and equality of opportunity, not equality of intellect or capabilities. Don't let idiots play semantic games with you.


They say capitalism will rise again because greed is a natural human quality and inequality is a reality. How does a leftist deal with such questions?
That is just another variation on the old "human nature" argument. I have an extended rant on that subject here (http://www.twolegsbad.org/room101/2004/12/07.php#a96), if you are interested. Many of our notions about how the world works are not based on scientific fact and empirical logic but on personal prejudices and inherited traditions. It is these notions that shape and often warp our perception of "human nature." We live such short lives that we can easily delude ourselves into believing that things are as they have always been. Any idea which contradicts our narrow view of the world is instantly dismissed as being contrary to our understanding of humanity. I believe that people, when properly informed, are capable of putting aside selfish, short-term satisfaction for long-term gain.

[Martyr]

I'am a Minhist(I made the name up) who follows the ideas of Ho Chi Minh. No matter what the people are told Communism will never succeed. My father lived in a communist country and says it was worse than hell since the communists try to destroy your thinking spirit and everyhting so you can subject yourself to them. Plus yes people will want more and more. When I say I'am a Minhist and it would seem hypocritical since I object to Communism but a mixed society would be way better than just straight socialist or a straight Capitalist. With people wanting to have that ambition to succeed in whatever and with a responsible governemnt controlling how much the managers give to there workrs and that rich people pay a certain amount of money more than the poor to provide for the society its how I think a good society is built upon Ambition(Right wing Capitalism) and discipline and control (Socialism).

Now I say I'am a Minhist because I believe that although Ho Chi Minh wasn't a full communist he did wonders for the people. Except some of the people in his government took advatage however they were fired later on for this. Not a lot is said about how Ho Chi Minh rule changed the lives of the people but what is said in his biography is that the rich Imperialist land was taken way and given to the peasant tenants the rice also taken from the imperialist was given to the villagers and no one was very rich and all the previous money that was left behind by the Imperialist was given to the people. There was no party that had more power or money and there no people who had special previlages.

That is all that was said about his rule and also that he gave free education and health and that people were to practie religion freely. And people were allowed to speak their minds.

So thats why I sort of study his teachings however I'am mostly in the middle. So you can disgree with what I just wrote.

[against all authority]

"rise again because greed is a natural human quality and inequality is a reality. How does a leftist deal with such questions?" i find that the best way around this arguement isnt to use scientific facts, but to simply explain that "if us leftists believe it would work, therefore us not being greedy, that shows that the human nature can allow for selflessness. if we leftists aren't greedy, doesnt that show that humans have the potential capicity not to be selfish? unless of course were not human lol :P