Libertarian Socialists [Archive]

Vanguard1917

5th March 2006, 04:49

Libertarians socialists advocate immediate direct control of the means of production by the workers, no "socialist transitory state" shit.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is historically necessary. And, as long long as one class rules over another, the state is also historically necessary.

Yes, a workers' state will be fundamentally different from a bourgeois state. But it is ahistorical to assume that the state is merely a tool for the repression of the people. From a historical materialist perspective, the state is, in fact, a tool of class rule.

Letting counter-revolutionary bourgeois forces destroy the rule of the working class may sound 'libetarian' to you, but, from a working class perspective, it is straight-forward nonsense.

black magick hustla

5th March 2006, 04:58

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 05:17 AM

Libertarians socialists advocate immediate direct control of the means of production by the workers, no "socialist transitory state" shit.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is historically necessary. And, as long long as one class rules over another, the state is also historically necessary.

Yes, a workers' state will be fundamentally different from a bourgeois state. But it is ahistorical to assume that the state is merely a tool for the repression of the people. From a historical materialist perspective, the state is, in fact, a tool of class rule.

Letting counter-revolutionary bourgeois forces destroy the rule of the working class may sound 'libetarian' to you, but, from a working class perspective, it is straight-forward nonsense.
Sure buddy. ;)

Nobody asked here for a debate, I was merely explaining what "libertarian socialism" consists of.

However it is pretty funny how you click on the reply button as fast as you can just to show us anarchists how "utopian" we are. :lol:

obliterate_the_state

5th March 2006, 05:20

The dictatorship of the proletariat is historically necessary. And, as long long as one class rules over another, the state is also historically necessary.

That's because that's what a state is made of- one class ruling over another. The proletariat doesn't have to rely on a state to repress bourgeoisie forces, we sure as hell won't need a state to overthrow one in the first place.

bombeverything

5th March 2006, 05:39

As long long as one class rules over another, the state is also historically necessary.

Why?

From a historical materialist perspective, the state is, in fact, a tool of class rule.

Yes, that of the ruling class. The existence of the state necessitates that a person or a small group of people has control over things, which logically translates to control over people. How can the working class as a whole seize political power in the form of a state? This is impossible.

What you are advocating here is not class rule, but rule by a vanguard. Such a hierarchy can only result decisions being made over and above the heads of the workers. This "workers" state would merely consist of a new controlling class -- consisting of ex-workers, intellectuals and bureaucrats.

Letting counter-revolutionary bourgeois forces destroy the rule of the working class may sound 'libetarian' to you, but, from a working class perspective, it is straight-forward nonsense.

What "working class perspective"?

Ol' Dirty

5th March 2006, 07:06

The dictatorship of the proletariat is historically necessary.

Actually, it has been quite the opposite. It has hindered the proletariat from the primary objective of basic Marxist objectives; a classless, materialy and, thusly, socialy, egalitarian society. It keeps the walls and disparities between the working and owning class, instead of abolishing them. Think of the New Class of the Leninist Soviet Union. Doesn't that obstrust equality?

Vanguard1917

6th March 2006, 20:53

That's because that's what a state is made of- one class ruling over another. The proletariat doesn't have to rely on a state to repress bourgeoisie forces, we sure as hell won't need a state to overthrow one in the first place.

If the state is 'made up of one class ruling over another', then when the working class becomes the ruling class the state becomes an organisation for working class rule.

As long long as one class rules over another, the state is also historically necessary.

Why?

To say that the state is not historically necessary in the transition to communism you would have to give your reasons. The burden of proof is not on Marxists.

How can the working class as a whole seize political power in the form of a state? This is impossible.

[The dictatorship of the proletariat] has hindered the proletariat from the primary objective of basic Marxist objectives; a classless, materialy and, thusly, socialy, egalitarian society. It keeps the walls and disparities between the working and owning class, instead of abolishing them. Think of the New Class of the Leninist Soviet Union. Doesn't that obstrust equality?

Working class control over the forces of production will be the first step towards a truly democratic and accountable state organisation. The state always represents the class in control of the forces of production. When the mass majority of the people (i.e. workers) control those forces, the state already has its base in the majority of the population. This will give way to extremely advanced forms of democratic state organisation.

The problem with the Soviet Union, just to note, was precisely that the working class did not have control of the productive forces. These forces were not socialised and they were not subject to workers' planning. This allowed state and society to be 'controlled' by a bureacratic caste - which could never have happened in a dynamic society of workers' rule.

Ol' Dirty

6th March 2006, 21:34

Vanguard1917

7th March 2006, 01:34

It's a fine theory, but it has holes. There will always be oportunists and authoritarians who would vye for power in a marxist society, especially after the rule of a capitalist state.

That's exactly why we need a workers' state!

What needs to happen is the aboliton of hierarchy (in socio-economic terms).

This is a completely abstract idea if we do not take into account the historical and material conditions that give way to social and economic hierarchy in the first place. In order to destroy those conditions, the dictatorship of the proletariat is historically necessary.

Everyday Anarchy

7th March 2006, 01:51

QUOTE
It's a fine theory, but it has holes. There will always be oportunists and authoritarians who would vye for power in a marxist society, especially after the rule of a capitalist state.

That's exactly why we need a workers' state!
Being apart of the working class doesn't make you an angel. I can think of many proletarians who are authoritarian and would love to take advantage of a "worker's" state.

When the proletarians seize power and form a Worker's State, they are creating a new ruling class. So much for liberty and freedom when anything resembling free-thought is deemed "counter-revolutionary" and is punished. This creates a new oppressor and a new oppressed.

Establishing a Worker's State simply replaces the old state. Only real difference is the name that they take. An entire state is going to simply 'wither away' when the time is right. Those who hold government positions will want to hold on to their power.
Thus leading to an entirely new revolution.

obliterate_the_state

7th March 2006, 06:21

If the state is 'made up of one class ruling over another', then when the working class becomes the ruling class the state becomes an organisation for working class rule.

Oh, you see, I'm for the abolition of all ruling classes. Hell, if you give the state and democracy so much credit, why not vote capitalism out? Authoritarian methods have always been inefficient because it is authority that drives people to inefficiency. You give the state too much credit. You treat the state as a flawless device, but this is because it serves the interest of the few. No state can serve the interest of the masses, and I will be against any state that tries to step foot in my life. If my community needs to repress post-capitalist bourgeoisie we can organize under methods that we will continue to organize with after the revolution and used during the revolution- if it is inefficient then the revolution should never have happened.

How do you expect the "dictatorship of the proletariat" to be carried out? Who is going to tell power when to step down?

Much Commie Love

7th March 2006, 06:59

I guess you -COULD- call me "libertarian socialist", but only in the original sense of the word. I don't care about the terms, I care about the results.. I won't strive to be exactly that if something else will serve the cause better ;)

It is, quite frankly, Socialism without a state...or at worst, a Socialism with little state...as Soviet intended, foolishly...but was only "Union", not "Soviet-Union" :D - So aslong as it's decentralized, you could say it is. That's as simple as possible..plain spoken. Now, you got the gist of that?

Ol' Dirty

8th March 2006, 21:38

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 01:54 AM

QUOTE
It's a fine theory, but it has holes. There will always be oportunists and authoritarians who would vye for power in a marxist society, especially after the rule of a capitalist state.

That's exactly why we need a workers' state!

Being apart of the working class doesn't make you an angel. I can think of many proletarians who are authoritarian and would love to take advantage of a "worker's" state.

When the proletarians seize power and form a Worker's State, they are creating a new ruling class. So much for liberty and freedom when anything resembling free-thought is deemed "counter-revolutionary" and is punished. This creates a new oppressor and a new oppressed.

Establishing a Worker's State simply replaces the old state. Only real difference is the name that they take. An entire state is going to simply 'wither away' when the time is right. Those who hold government positions will want to hold on to their power.
Thus leading to an entirely new revolution.

Yes! Exactly my point!

That's exactly why we need a workers' state!

Statism is statism, proletarian or bourgoise.

This is a completely abstract idea if we do not take into account the historical and material conditions that give way to social and economic hierarchy in the first place.

I suppose you're not an Anarchist. -_-

Hierarchy isn't going to destroy itself, man. That's why we've got to destroy it!

In order to destroy those conditions, the dictatorship of the proletariat is historically necessary.

Whoa! Déjà vu! You said the same thing twice! :lol: You must have very diverse arguments. :rolleyes:

Seriously, I'd like to get back to Libertarian Socialism.

RedKnight

11th March 2006, 15:07

Wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism)

Revolution 9

11th March 2006, 18:03

When the proletarians seize power and form a Worker's State, they are creating a new ruling class.

Yup... You're absolutely right here... The new ruling class ceases to be the bourgeoisie and starts being the proletariat.

The goal of such a workers' state would be to put the proletarians as the new ruling class and give them the tools to destroy the bourgeoisie once and for all.

So much for liberty and freedom when anything resembling free-thought is deemed "counter-revolutionary" and is punished.

Racism, sexism, homophobia, chauvinism... AHH, the glories of "free-thought"!

This creates a new oppressor and a new oppressed.

Yes, the oppressor is the proletariat and the oppressed are the bourgeoisie. That is the whole goal of a workers' state. Eventually, this state will simply destroy the bourgeois, and at that point, the state will cease to exist and simply "wither away" into a true Communist society.

And no matter what you say about a workers' state not whithering away, I think you're wrong. The proletariat is the ruling class. When the bourgeoisie are completely destroyed and only the ruling (proletarian) class is left, we come upon a classless society. And if there's only the ruling class in the state, it just ceases to be a state.

Simple.

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

12th March 2006, 23:12

The dictatorship of the proletariat is often interpreted in an authoritarian manner. If someone attempts to centralize, it usually leads to authoritarianism. Anarchism and libertarian socialism typically use collectives to accomplish goals. The whole idea of the dictatorship of a proletariat is that it involves a centralization of power for maximum efficiency - like fascism. It requires uncorruptable individuals to lead the working class to victory. Marx was brilliant, but he wasn't flawless - neither are anarchists. It's time people started realizing that libertarianism socialism is far from utopian - it is neccessary.

Centralization also allows for capitalists to regain control of the state. The best way to prevent people from getting hurt is to eliminate the weapon - the state. History has proved anarchist predictions time and time again, and people need to realize that.

piet11111

13th March 2006, 05:40

i oppose a vanguard idea but we do need some poeple that are capable of dealing on the international level.

i posted an idea i had somewhare about unions - citystate- provincial council - national counsil - international counsil

every "-" meaning direct contact where the first decides to send representatives to the latter.
for instance everyone is a member of a union that selects poeple to represent them in the union council.
every city state has a union for farmers factory workers and so on.
the union council members can be directly contacted by the poeple from that union and are obligated to answer them and act on their wishes and suggestions the unioners can also demand a representative to step down if they consider that representative to not act in their interest.
the union sends its representatives to the city counsel where those representatives are in constant contact with the union council and the representatives can be forced to step down aswell.
these city state councils are filled with representatives of all the active unions in the city state and as such they reflect the actual population of the city state.

this process goes on up to the international counsil but nobody is capable of remaining in his/her position if the council below does not aprove of it.
so if poeple at the union level absolutely hate the current "minster of foreign relations" they can replace their representatives with representatives that also opposes the minister of foreign relations and this snowballs on untill the international council is reached and the minister of foreign relations thrown out of office.

at the very least this system is interesting because the shit rolls uphill for a change :lol:

chimx

13th March 2006, 19:09

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 04:52 AM
The dictatorship of the proletariat is historically necessary. And, as long long as one class rules over another, the state is also historically necessary.

Yes, a workers' state will be fundamentally different from a bourgeois state. But it is ahistorical to assume that the state is merely a tool for the repression of the people. From a historical materialist perspective, the state is, in fact, a tool of class rule.

Letting counter-revolutionary bourgeois forces destroy the rule of the working class may sound 'libetarian' to you, but, from a working class perspective, it is straight-forward nonsense.
That is rather vulgar Marxism. Both sides of the Marxist base/superstructure model are allowed significant degrees of autonomy. It is only during extended historical periods of class rule do you see developing patterns of productive forces determining the direction of Marx's superstructure.

Your interpretation of Marx's dictatorship of the proletariat is also extremely one-dimensional--something that Marx was adamently opposed to if you read his speech following the Hague conference in Amsterdam, at which he denounced Blanquists for their refusal to be open to the multiple directions proletarian dictatorship could take.

From this, in conjunction obviously with what Marx and Engels wrote on the Paris Commune, the dictatorship of the proletariat can come to mean the quick and simple transitorial period of revolution envisioned by most "libertarian socialists" as well as leninist statecraft. What strikes me, however, as being more ahistorical, is to ignore the experiences of the latter, and its inability to utilize the dictatorship of the proletariat to suppress class existance. If history has taught us anything, it is that leninism and its derivations are a farce, incapable of suppressing class stratification. Whereas libertarian socialists can certainly work with the theories posited by Marx, Lenin and his lackey's can collectively suck on my balls.

CubaSocialista

16th March 2006, 02:21

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 04:52 AM

Libertarians socialists advocate immediate direct control of the means of production by the workers, no "socialist transitory state" shit.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is historically necessary. And, as long long as one class rules over another, the state is also historically necessary.

Yes, a workers' state will be fundamentally different from a bourgeois state. But it is ahistorical to assume that the state is merely a tool for the repression of the people. From a historical materialist perspective, the state is, in fact, a tool of class rule.

Letting counter-revolutionary bourgeois forces destroy the rule of the working class may sound 'libetarian' to you, but, from a working class perspective, it is straight-forward nonsense.
Spoken like a true Marxist-Leninist.

Libertarian Socialism is sectarian, and I will not deny their genius, nor Noam Chomsky's political points, but the establishment of a worker's state to permanently incapacitate the bourgeois and their capability to regain power is infinitely important.

violencia.Proletariat

16th March 2006, 02:30

Originally posted by CubaSocialista+Mar 15 2006, 10:24 PM--> (CubaSocialista @ Mar 15 2006, 10:24 PM)
[email protected] 5 2006, 04:52 AM

Libertarians socialists advocate immediate direct control of the means of production by the workers, no "socialist transitory state" shit.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is historically necessary. And, as long long as one class rules over another, the state is also historically necessary.

Yes, a workers' state will be fundamentally different from a bourgeois state. But it is ahistorical to assume that the state is merely a tool for the repression of the people. From a historical materialist perspective, the state is, in fact, a tool of class rule.

Letting counter-revolutionary bourgeois forces destroy the rule of the working class may sound 'libetarian' to you, but, from a working class perspective, it is straight-forward nonsense.
Spoken like a true Marxist-Leninist.

Libertarian Socialism is sectarian, and I will not deny their genius, nor Noam Chomsky's political points, but the establishment of a worker's state to permanently incapacitate the bourgeois and their capability to regain power is infinitely important. [/b]
Since when does the dictatorship of the proletariat require a "state". Since when can libertarian socialists not believe in this idea?

Dean

16th March 2006, 04:21

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus [email protected] 12 2006, 11:15 PM
The dictatorship of the proletariat is often interpreted in an authoritarian manner. If someone attempts to centralize, it usually leads to authoritarianism. Anarchism and libertarian socialism typically use collectives to accomplish goals. The whole idea of the dictatorship of a proletariat is that it involves a centralization of power for maximum efficiency - like fascism. It requires uncorruptable individuals to lead the working class to victory. Marx was brilliant, but he wasn't flawless - neither are anarchists. It's time people started realizing that libertarianism socialism is far from utopian - it is neccessary.

Centralization also allows for capitalists to regain control of the state. The best way to prevent people from getting hurt is to eliminate the weapon - the state. History has proved anarchist predictions time and time again, and people need to realize that.
This is untrue; THe dictatorship of the proletariat is the voice of the proletariat - one class upon another, though the roles turned and the oppressor becoming subsumed into the oppressed, to create one class.

bombeverything

25th March 2006, 08:55

If the state is 'made up of one class ruling over another', then when the working class becomes the ruling class the state becomes an organisation for working class rule.

No, that is all the state can be: the ruling class ruling over the working class. My question was why do the workers need a state to create a classless society?

To say that the state is not historically necessary in the transition to communism you would have to give your reasons.

I can say that the state has historically been destructive to the transition to communism. And as someone else in this post has already mentioned: equality and hierarchy are not the same thing.

Working class control over the forces of production will be the first step towards a truly democratic and accountable state organisation. The state always represents the class in control of the forces of production. When the mass majority of the people (i.e. workers) control those forces, the state already has its base in the majority of the population. This will give way to extremely advanced forms of democratic state organisation.

The first step? No one can 'represent' the working class. The state you are alluding to would be made up of ex-workers who have control over the means of production -- thus taking the power away from the workers themselves. How will strengthing the state lead to "advanced forms of democratic state organisation" when the state itself inhibits such progression?

The problem with the Soviet Union, just to note, was precisely that the working class did not have control of the productive forces.

And this is my point. The existence of the state means that workers will not have control over the means of production. Politicians will.

These forces were not socialised and they were not subject to workers' planning. This allowed state and society to be 'controlled' by a bureacratic caste - which could never have happened in a dynamic society of workers' rule.

But the state is the reason for this. How are workers going to plan production and distribution when it is controlled by a centralized body?

DrFreeman09

26th March 2006, 15:30

One of the major arguments against Libertarian Socialism is that without a state, a capitalist society would spontaniously arise. Capitalists argue that capitalism is natural, and some Marxists say that without a state the former capitalist class would take over. However, neither gives support for its claims, and I'm having some trouble understanding their arguments.

Another argument against Libertarian Socialism is that more equality means less freedom, and a society would have to decide which one was more important to them. This argument is only valid if you view equality as everyone being exactly the same. The people making this argument believe that true equality is achieved when everyone is exactly the same, talents and individualistic qualities included, which would require an oppressive government to enforce. However, Marx never intended to make everyone exactly the same; only to make them equal, if you catch my drift. I see no worth in this argument either.

If anyone has any way to validate these arguments, please enlighten me, for I see no way of doing so.

FinnMacCool

26th March 2006, 20:57

If anarchists are more uotpian than communists, then its only because every single attempt by the communists to create a "dictatorship of the prolitariat" has always ended up creating a ridiculously centralized authoritarian government who controls the masses by fear.

BattleOfTheCowshed

26th March 2006, 21:23

Well, it seems obvious that whether or not a transitory state is necessary is a major point of contention, the question has arisen in multiple threads. The more I analyze the need for a transitory state, the more it seems like the idea is a bit antiquated. In a society like Russia of 1917 where the proletariat only existed in a few urban centers and did not consitute the majority of the population, it was necessary for a transitory state to exist because there were so many diverging aspects of society that force was necessary if the proletariat was to establish it's rule. It seems to me that the more advanced capitalism becomes, the less a state is necessary. Increasingly in the first world, the proletariat consitutes the majority of the population. If the proletariat were to take power, it seems like the bourgeoisie will be almost completely destroyed during the revolution. Therefore I don't really see why a state will be necessary. The only established institutions I see necessary are some kind of defense force to prevent foreign invasion, counter-revolutionaries etc., and a state (with all it's authoritarian baggage) does not seem necessary to create such a force.

anomaly

27th March 2006, 00:11

Originally posted by BattleOfTheCowshed
Therefore I don't really see why a state will be necessary.
It won't be.

A revolution cannot simply be the proletariat 'taking over' the state. The state, and everything that goes along with it (the old government, the police, the army, etc. etc.) must be destroyed. So long as we leave hierarchy in place, hierarchy will form. And then, so much for 'proletarian rule'.

Some Marxists on this board have an odd definition for the state. So, let me make clear that when I say 'the state', I mean a centralized, hierarchical enitity.

dannie

27th March 2006, 17:09

The state is a tool of the oppressor to, well ... oppress. If you think about why the proletariat is oppressed by the ruling class, one answer which is spoken about frequently comes up, because it's in their interest. Not because the proletariat needs guidance or needs some sort of father figure because we can't take care of ourselves. But when this reasoning gets applied to a proletarian revolution, all of a sudden, it becomes a flaw. But i refuse to believe that just because you happen to be from a working class origin, and you have seized power of the state (as a class of course), all of a sudden you are going to deny yourself your immediate interests and start building towards a stateless and classless society. When seizing power in a centralised state you become the oppressor and it's in your interest to oppress, because it will make your living-standard better.

Isn't that what we western workers do? Live of workers backs in Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe, ... It's in our interest, we get a better living standard. (tough that's an entirely different discussion)

anomaly

27th March 2006, 21:52

Originally posted by Jannes
When seizing power in a centralised state you become the oppressor and it's in your interest to oppress, because it will make your living-standard better.
Once revolutionary 'attitudes' become more popular, I think most people (excluding the bourgeoisie...it is in their interests to keep the present system) will find that a stateless, classless society is in their best interests. That's why I think all of these Leninists will (thankfully) be most dissapointed when things 'start moving', if you know what I mean. Our message (of anarchism) is just plain better then theirs' is.