Libertarian Socialism

[Never Give In]

As Libertarian Communism is Anarcho-Communism, is there such a thing as Anarcho-Socialism? and if so, how does it work?

[RGacky3]

They call it Social-Anarchism, and its pretty much a broad term (the same way socialism is), encompasing, Anarcho-Syndicallism, Anarcho-Communism, Mutualist Anarchism and all the other types as well.

[Janus]

As Libertarian Communism is Anarcho-Communism, is there such a thing as Anarcho-Socialism?
Bakunin referred to it as stateless socialism.


and if so, how does it work?
It's really just a synonym for anarchism.

[Never Give In]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 12:05 am

As Libertarian Communism is Anarcho-Communism, is there such a thing as Anarcho-Socialism?
Bakunin referred to it as stateless socialism.


and if so, how does it work?
It's really just a synonym for anarchism.
I see.

[Boriznov]

not only anarchism, under libertarian socialism is also autonomous marxists, council communists, ..

[syndicat]

also syndicalists are libertarian socialists.

[Boriznov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 04:06 pm
also syndicalists are libertarian socialists.
Indeed

Libertarian socialism can be described as everything that want to have socialism through revolution without a party leading them to say it in simple terms

[syndicat]

libertarian socialists are not necessarily opposed to political organization. but as anti-state socialists are opposed to the idea of a party controlling the society through a state.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 05:54 pm
libertarian socialists are not necessarily opposed to political organization. but as anti-state socialists are opposed to the idea of a party controlling the society through a state.
So are Trotskyists, just so you knows ;)

[Boriznov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 04:54 pm
libertarian socialists are not necessarily opposed to political organization. but as anti-state socialists are opposed to the idea of a party controlling the society through a state.
Well yes you as a syndicalist and me as a council communist realize there would be organization through the councils and unions but what i mean is there wouldn't be one party leading it all, that is what Libertarian Socialists are opposed to, that's how i see it.

[syndicat]

"leading" is a slippery term with various meanings. in the Spanish revolution the FAI had the dominant influence within the CNT mass unions. it could be said they were the dominant "leadership" of that movement. that wasn't inconsistent with their being libertarian socialists.

the important thing is not concentrating the conceptual and decision-making tasks into the hands of a minority who constitute a decision-making hierarchy, but developing capacity and participation broadly within the mass of the people. libertarian socialism isn't just anti-state but in favor of self-management and against top-down hierarchy. self-management means decisions being directly controlled by the people who are affected by them, such as workers self-managing industries where they work. self-management thus presupposes participatory democracy.

[rebelworker]

Originally posted by bloody_capitalist_sham+July 14, 2007 05:01 pm--> (bloody_capitalist_sham @ July 14, 2007 05:01 pm)
[email protected] 14, 2007 05:54 pm
libertarian socialists are not necessarily opposed to political organization. but as anti-state socialists are opposed to the idea of a party controlling the society through a state.
So are Trotskyists, just so you knows ;) [/b]
:huh:
I think your a little miss informed about the history of your tenancy, Particularly the gut you name your movement after...

I was a misinformed guy in a trotskyist party for many years...

[syndicat]

me: "libertarian socialists are not necessarily opposed to political organization. but as anti-state socialists are opposed to the idea of a party controlling the society through a state."


So are Trotskyists, just so you knows

then why did Trotsky say in 1921: "the birthright of the party to rule takes precedence over the passing whims of the workers democracy" (by way of explaining things like suppression of strikes, suppression of regional autonomy of free soviets in Ukraine, suppressing the Kronstadt soviet). in the spring of 1918 Lenin started talking about the "dictatorship of the party" and this is the "birthright of the party to rule" that Trotsky was referring to.

in the Russian revolution Trotsky and the other Leninists referred to the control of the state by the Bolsheviks as "proletarian power". that's because their concept of worker democracy was electing a particular party leadership to make the decisions. the ability of the Bolehviks to get a temporary majority in the soviet congress in Oct 1917 was used then forever afterward as the justification for party rule through the state.

i don't care what sugar-coating Leninists use nowadays in their writing. as long as they are committeed to defend the Bolshevik legacy, there is a problem.