Libertarianism and Anarchism

[Wanted Man]

During a discussion on a forum(of some game, that's why I'm wondering if it's even representative) between a "libertarian socialist" and an "anarcho-capitalist", this exchange came up:


Originally posted by Libertarian Socialist+--> (Libertarian Socialist)Nice to know we have support from the opposite end of the economic spectrum! :)[/b]


Originally posted by Anarcho-[email protected]
What did you expect? In my experience, you ansocs tend to think in the same individual-centric terms as us capitalists, and that makes you a hell of a lot more tolerable, and a hell of a lot easier to reason with, than most statists. As an ancap, I'd have no problem with you setting up your communes on your own private land; so long as you didn't try to force that lifestyle on anyone else, I doubt we'd have any problems.


Libertarian Socialist
I wisht here were more ancaps like you. The ones I talk to are bitter and are determined that we are imperialists tryign to shove our bheliefs down their throats. You dont force your lifestyle on us, we dont force ours on you. The world is a better place.

Is this representative of "libertarian socialists"(council communists, anarcho-communists, anarchists, etc.)? Are they willing to tolerate private enterprise in an anarchist society, as long as no "coercion" occurs? Are they willing to give up the anti-capitalist struggle if the capitalists allow them to live in their communes? Does this mean that they are not necessarily anti-capitalist, just as long as they're left alone? How does this affect the credibility of their claim that "Marxism-Leninism is just the left wing of capitalism"?

[Zingu]

Libertarians have this fantasy about capitalism being some system that has potentional to be some individualistic system still based on private property and wage labor.

Pretty much a petty-burgeois dream if you ask me.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Are they willing to tolerate private enterprise in an anarchist society, as long as no "coercion" occurs?

NO. Capitalism with or without a state promotes hierarchy and exploitation. It will not be tolerated.


Does this mean that they are not necessarily anti-capitalist, just as long as they're left alone?

This just seems to be a symptom of an overall "peace and love" bullshit sentiment among the left. Anarchism doesn't mean "whatever you want", it has principles and if you don't uphold them you are not an anarchist.

[Comrade-Z]

Just judging from your excerpt there, it seems to me that that particular libertarian socialist has a tinge of pacifism, which would call into question of whether this libsoc really supported revolution or not. My guess is he/she is a fan of the "evolutionary" mutualist "Proudhon-ist" approach to libertarian socialism, possibly with a bit of "market socialism" thrown into the mix. Don't get me wrong, this libsoc still probably supports workers' councils and workers control (a market distribution mechanism must be differentiated from the capitalist mode of production--they are not entirely the same), but some of his/her other views are rather misguided.

This is not "typical" of libertarian socialism, per se, although it's not an anomaly either, unfortunately. This is actually kind of where I started on my journey towards the revolutionary left, so there's hope.

Oftentimes, cases like this are why the seriously revolutionary "class struggle" non-market anarchists go with the more extreme term "libertarian communism," or "anarcho-communism," to differentiate.

Edit:


What did you expect? In my experience, you ansocs tend to think in the same individual-centric terms as us capitalists, and that makes you a hell of a lot more tolerable, and a hell of a lot easier to reason with, than most statists. As an ancap, I'd have no problem with you setting up your communes on your own private land; so long as you didn't try to force that lifestyle on anyone else, I doubt we'd have any problems.


I wisht here were more ancaps like you. The ones I talk to are bitter and are determined that we are imperialists tryign to shove our bheliefs down their throats. You dont force your lifestyle on us, we dont force ours on you.

These statements are totally divorced from material reality. Does this libsoc honestly think that capitalists will be content to let people freely choose between wage-slavery and freedom? Does this capitalist supporter actually think that there will still be workers who want to be wage-slaves after a revolution?

This is just one example of why anarchism desperately needs to appropriate the best of marxism and historical materialism. It would definitely cut through all of this idealism and misguidedness.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Matthijs+--> (Matthijs)Are they willing to tolerate private enterprise in an anarchist society, as long as no "coercion" occurs?[/b]

Only a pretty dumb "Libertarian Socialist" would think that "anarcho-capitalism" was "non-coercive"....and I don't hold out much hope that the "Libertarian Socialist" you quoted was a particularly bright fella'. Sounds more like a confused social-liberal to me. Which isn't, in and of itself, a "bad" thing....I've heard of one British anarchist group that prides itself on how many working class Liberal Democrats it can get to join the movement.

I mean, unlike the Labour Party rank and file, the Liberal Democrat rank and file, based on my experience, is incredibly libertarian....which should, theoretically, make them good targets for "communist exposure". Socially, there's very little that differentiates them from communists....and their "anti-Statist capitalism" shows a certain disaffection from normal capitalism which could be capitalised on.

So maybe, the "Libertarian Socialist" you quoted, is in a "period of tranisition"....but that's pure speculation on my part.


Originally posted by [email protected]
How does this affect the credibility of their claim that "Marxism-Leninism is just the left wing of capitalism"?

It does very little to their "claim". The objective facts speak for themselves....and whether the whole anarchist movement decided to openly side with capitalism or not, that the old Soviet Union operated under a system of wage-labour and surplus-value extraction for over 70 years speaks for itself. Indeed, the evidence in favour of this evaluation is so strong, that very few people on the "left" actually maintain the position that the old USSR was "socialist" throughout its existence....the dates may vary, but essentially nearly everyone agrees that the old USSR was functionally capitalist before 1991.


Zingu
Pretty much a petty-burgeois dream if you ask me.

People throw around the description "petty-bourgeois" a lot on the "left"; but the description of libertarian capitalism as the capitalism of the small shopkeeper and grocer is a pretty fair one to me. Of course, socially speaking, it's objection to any morality, traditional values and so on, would really make it a capitalist ideology of the big capitalists....and that's likely why fascism is a more popular petty-bourgeois ideology than libertarian capitalism.

Because, essentially, the petty-bourgeois are only "individualist" in an economic sense....socially, they pretty much resent individual liberty and, more often than not, favour some form of "societal unity"; hence the continued relevance of Religion in petty-bourgeois families in the modern-capitalist world.

[Comrade-Z]

Because, essentially, the petty-bourgeois are only "individualist" in an economic sense....socially, they pretty much resent individual liberty and, more often than not, favour some form of "societal unity"; hence the continued relevance of Religion in petty-bourgeois families in the modern-capitalist world.

That's partly why I tend to think that it would even be a tremendous improvement in the U.S. if atheist, individualist, hedonist, neo-liberal capitalism became the dominant strain of thought, not just among the technocracy, petit-bourgeoisie, and ruling class as it is now, but among the working class as well. Not exactly what we are ultimately aiming for, but progress nevertheless.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 02:28 PM
Is this representative of "libertarian socialists"(council communists, anarcho-communists, anarchists, etc.)?
No!


Are they willing to tolerate private enterprise in an anarchist society, as long as no "coercion" occurs?

What does it mean "private enterprise"?


Are they willing to give up the anti-capitalist struggle if the capitalists allow them to live in their communes?

Absolutely not.


Does this mean that they are not necessarily anti-capitalist, just as long as they're left alone?

Class struggle anarchism is about taking control of the means of production, destorying capitalism and creating communism.

We do not want to be "left alone", we want to take control of the means of production and reorganise it, smash the state and create an anarchist communist society.


How does this affect the credibility of their claim that "Marxism-Leninism is just the left wing of capitalism"?

I've never heard that claim made, ever.

[FinnMacCool]

I had a similar exchange with an anarcho capitalist once. The thing is, in an ancap society, freedom is supposed to be guaranteed. So workers can choose to live in an anarchist society where they will do well or a capitalist society where they will suffer. I tend to think they would want to live in an anarchist society. If this happened though, the ancap system would collapse on itself. So I might be able to tolerate the existance of private enterprise since theres a chance of an ancap system collapsing on itself as more and more workers join the anarchists. However, a more likely scenario is that ancaps will force the workers to work for them and we will have to release them or else they will have to release themselves from oppression.


I've never heard that claim made, ever.


You've never heard of people refer to Marxist Leninism as 'State Capitalism'?

[rouchambeau]

It would never happen. Libertarians believe in a society where the state has no function other than to defend private property. Anyone who wants to do away with private property (anarchists) would find themselves at odds with libertarians.

[Cult of Reason]

AnCaps are fooling themselves if they think that people would choose to live in functioning Capitalism if functioning Communism also existed. Even if there were some people who had some sort of fetish of working for others, and even if the AnCaps did have areas of "private property" which were respected, both very unlikely, their system would collapse due to the abundance of goods and services produced by the Communist system, causing their prices to crash. How can Capitalism work if you cannot sell anything?

[Raubleaux]

I am not the least bit surprised that an anarchist and an "anarcho-capitalist" would find a lot of common ground. Both ideologies are childish, idealist, petty bourgeois nonsense that will never exist in the real world.

[barista.marxista]

No real socialist would support a capitalist in any terms. Speaking as a Libertarian Marxist, that "libertarian socialist" is full of shit.

Also (just a short rant aimed at no one here): they tried laissez-faire capitalism, remember? It was there for several hundred years, but it collapsed on itself due to crisis. Anarcho-capitalists and Libertarians (of the American variety) are idealistic idiots who have no actual understanding of how economies work.

[apathy maybe]

The problem with "anarcho-capitalists" and real anarchist living together is a different conception of property.

The capitalists believe that a person can obtain an infinite amount of wealth, including land. So in an anarcho-capitalist system communists could set up a commune and would be left alone, so long as they respected the property rights of the capitalists.

In an anarchist society, the capitalists would continually come across the problem that they just 'bought' this house and no one will rent it! Instead after a couple of weeks a family moved in and now refuse it move! And why should they? No one was using the house; they are not disadvantaging anyone by living there (except someone who thinks they can 'own' two houses) and they needed a house.

Individualist anarchists and other anarchists could live and let live. But capitalists believe that their 'right' to an unlimited amount of property is one that if not respected should be enforced by well force.

Which is why they wouldn't be tolerated (unless they just talked about it rather then actually doing something).

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 02:30 AM
I am not the least bit surprised that an anarchist and an "anarcho-capitalist" would find a lot of common ground. Both ideologies are childish, idealist, petty bourgeois nonsense that will never exist in the real world.
Would you like to elaberate on this well thoughout berating?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 08:24 PM
You've never heard of people refer to Marxist Leninism as 'State Capitalism'?
Sure, but saying "left-wing capitalism" implys something different than State Capitalism.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Libertarians believe in a society where the state has no function other than to defend private property.

Thats the modern usage of the word in mainstream politics. Libertarian was a word first used by anarchists to describe individuals freedom.


Anyone who wants to do away with private property (anarchists) would find themselves at odds with libertarians

With those capitalists that call themselves libertarians, yes. But the original meaning of the word fits perfectly with anarchist priniciples.


Individualist anarchists and other anarchists could live and let live.

How? How can a moneyless commune function with one that wants to set up banks? The tension between the two systems would be unbelievable.

[FinnMacCool]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 08:30 PM
I am not the least bit surprised that an anarchist and an "anarcho-capitalist" would find a lot of common ground. Both ideologies are childish, idealist, petty bourgeois nonsense that will never exist in the real world.
Does anyone see the irony in this post?

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 10:30 PM
I am not the least bit surprised that an anarchist and an "anarcho-capitalist" would find a lot of common ground. Both ideologies are childish, idealist, petty bourgeois nonsense that will never exist in the real world.
:lol:

This is, like, the first time I see "ansocs" and "ancaps" (this terms lead me to think that this argument happened in some forum like "market anarchism" or whatever it was called, ie an "anarcho"-capitalist forum) talking in such a friendly way. The closest thing I saw were "anarcho-capitalists" trying to get support from "the ansocs" by promoting "unity" amongst "anarchists". Stop making generalizations out of one case.

[FinnMacCool]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 7 2006, 06:46 AM

Sure, but saying "left-wing capitalism" implys something different than State Capitalism.
I disagree. State capitalism usually implies state ownership, which is essentially what socialism is.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by FinnMacCool+Jun 7 2006, 07:06 PM--> (FinnMacCool @ Jun 7 2006, 07:06 PM)
The Anarchist [email protected] 7 2006, 06:46 AM

Sure, but saying "left-wing capitalism" implys something different than State Capitalism.
I disagree. State capitalism usually implies state ownership, which is essentially what socialism is. [/b]
Socialism is the use of the means of production for the betterment of the whole. The only time socialism means state is if your referring to the Marxist use of the word.

[FinnMacCool]

Originally posted by violencia.Proletariat+Jun 7 2006, 06:08 PM--> (violencia.Proletariat @ Jun 7 2006, 06:08 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 07:06 PM

The Anarchist [email protected] 7 2006, 06:46 AM

Sure, but saying "left-wing capitalism" implys something different than State Capitalism.
I disagree. State capitalism usually implies state ownership, which is essentially what socialism is.
Socialism is the use of the means of production for the betterment of the whole. The only time socialism means state is if your referring to the Marxist use of the word. [/b]
My how these left wing vocabulary vex me! I'm reffering to state socialism.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by violencia.Proletariat
How? How can a moneyless commune function with one that wants to set up banks? The tension between the two systems would be unbelievable.
I disagree. Anarchist should be let and let live sorts. If the individualists attempted to force the communes to join the bank or if the communes attempted to force the individualists to join the commune, then I would say that the group who were forcing would not be anarchists.

The main difference between the two in a post capitalist post state society would be on the issue of property. But both would agree that if land or property is being used then it "belongs" to the person using it and it wouldn't be taken away.

The two systems would either not interact, no problem. Or they would interact, with individuals from either system trading with the other or working in one or the other.

I can't express very clearly I'm sorry. I think that there would not be a problem.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Anarchist should be let and let live sorts.

Why? First of all the idea that in one region a monetary "anarchist" society existing when moneyless communism is possible is just plain unrealistic.

Why would communists let a commune claim natural resources that they both share as private property?


If the individualists attempted to force the communes to join the bank or if the communes attempted to force the individualists to join the commune, then I would say that the group who were forcing would not be anarchists.

If the communards forced the individualists to give up their claims on land/resources I see no problem with that. The point is not to abolish private property of the rich, its to abolish private property, PERIOD.


But both would agree that if land or property is being used then it "belongs" to the person using it and it wouldn't be taken away.

Why would anarchists agree to that? The rich own the factories and use them. Does that mean that it belongs to them? FUCK NO. Mutual resources will be held in common. NO PRIVATE PROPERTY.


The two systems would either not interact, no problem. Or they would interact, with individuals from either system trading with the other or working in one or the other.

That would mean one would have to give up their economic system in order to trade. Either the mutualists would have to trade resources for resources or the communists would have to adopt a monetary trade system. I don't think the latter will happen.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by violencia.Proletariat+--> ( violencia.Proletariat)Why? First of all the idea that in one region a monetary "anarchist" society existing when moneyless communism is possible is just plain unrealistic.[/b]Whatever.


Originally posted by violencia.Proletariat+--> ( violencia.Proletariat)Why would communists let a commune claim natural resources that they both share as private property?[/b]
I assume you mean why would a commune (of communists) let others claim natural resources that they both have a use for. It depends.
If there is plenty of the resource I do not see a problem. If there is a limited supply I am sure that some arrangement could be come about. The reason why communists would let others have access to a resource is that they are communists. Equality and all that.



Originally posted by violencia.Proletariat
If the communards forced the individualists to give up their claims on land/resources I see no problem with that. The point is not to abolish private property of the rich, its to abolish private property, PERIOD.
Here I was thinking the point was anarchy.
I think you have a problem with the word "property", communists can call it what they want, but if a person is sleeping in a house and using it to store the stuff they use all the time, well then that house is their "property". And I doubt that communists would allow just anyone to come along and go through this persons stuff because they felt like it.

If an individualist is farming a bit of land, and communists came and took it off them, that is not very anarchistic. The land was being used, it was being used productively, it was just not being used by communists. And it was not even a threat to the communists.


[email protected]
Why would anarchists agree to that? The rich own the factories and use them. Does that mean that it belongs to them? FUCK NO. Mutual resources will be held in common. NO PRIVATE PROPERTY.
Individualists have a usage view of property, if you use it, then you 'own' it. If you stop using it, then you stop 'owning' it.

The rich cannot use a factory on their own, they would have to 'hire' workers, and no body would work for somebody else. The workers would occupy the factory and use it, thus owning it. Fuck the bugger who thought that they 'owned' it (they were not using it).


violencia.Proletariat
That would mean one would have to give up their economic system in order to trade. Either the mutualists would have to trade resources for resources or the communists would have to adopt a monetary trade system. I don't think the latter will happen.
Communists produce stuff. Individualists (or mutualists if you prefer) produce stuff. Each may produce something different. They trade.

Or the communists are self sufficient and the individualists either have to trade amongst themselves or join the commune.

Either way, no coercion is involved, thus no problem.

[LeninReborn]

I really don't like anarchism, not at all. If anything, I think it's worse than capitalism and almost as bad as fascism. The idea seems completely unworkable and a case of "the strongest survive, everyone else can die" - undermining the basic tenants of socialism.

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 05:46 PM
I really don't like anarchism
:o Understatement of the year.

[AnarchoCommieAviator]

The idea seems completely unworkable and a case of "the strongest survive, everyone else can die

Your mistaking this idea for capitalism. Anarchism is no state, property, classes or rule. The only main difference between it and communism is the means of getting to it. It is not a case of only the strongest survive. The sociolist doctrines of freedom and equality still apply.

[FinnMacCool]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 11:46 AM
I really don't like anarchism, not at all. If anything, I think it's worse than capitalism and almost as bad as fascism. The idea seems completely unworkable and a case of "the strongest survive, everyone else can die" - undermining the basic tenants of socialism.
You should really do some research first before you start spouting off like that. . .

[LeninReborn]

*shrug* I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on it, but the dictionary definition of anarchy is "lawlessness"...to be honest I'd rather live under a dictatorship than live in a society with no rules...

[apathy maybe]

Me thinks that you do not actually know what anarchism is all about. Have a look around the learning section of the board and maybe read An Anarchist FAQ (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/).

Do not assume that just because the mainstream portrays it as an evil chaotic philosophy that it is. Just because there are no rulers do not mean there are no rules. Just because there are no rules does not mean you can do anything you wish.

Also, I find your name funny. Do you actually know a lot about Lenin and what he did? For if you do not you might find yourself wishing to change your name at some future time once you have learnt more.

[LeninReborn]

I know lots about Lenin. He was a good guy. Okay, so the NEP was a bit dodgy but otherwise he was a good guy.

[CCCPneubauten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 01:55 PM
I know lots about Lenin. He was a good guy. Okay, so the NEP was a bit dodgy but otherwise he was a good guy.
The NEP saved the USSR from the brink of economic failure. Ever read The Revolution Betrayed?

[Donnie]

*shrug* I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on it, but the dictionary definition of anarchy is "lawlessness"...to be honest I'd rather live under a dictatorship than live in a society with no rules...

What do you think communism going to be running on, a state, a class? No of course not. As all communists and anarchists know communism is a ‘Classless stateless society organised by the line of from each according to their ability to each according to their need'

A true anarchist society is a communist society whereby there are no forms of oppression and exploitation like property and the state.

Laws in a communist/anarchist society would be guided by free agreement both in industry and the commune.

[ahab]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 04:46 PM
I really don't like anarchism, not at all. If anything, I think it's worse than capitalism and almost as bad as fascism. The idea seems completely unworkable and a case of "the strongest survive, everyone else can die" - undermining the basic tenants of socialism.
thats really not what anarchism is about though, thats probably what would happen if we lived in an anarchist community, but the whole idea is people living in peace and working, not to become better than their neighbor, but to live and survive in their world. If people would stop the hate and love one another for who they are than anarchism could work. Most young anarchists think of anarchy as this crazy society where everyone runs around shooting and stealing, but thats the complete opposite of what it is

[LeninReborn]

Hmm...your defenition of anarchy sounds like Communism but without a leader...

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 04:15 PM
Hmm...your defenition of anarchy sounds like Communism but without a leader...
Did you read the Anarchist FAQ provided for you in this thread?