libertarian socialism

[spartan]

my question is simple on this site stalinists, authoritarian communists, etc are looked down upon and are usually restricted but my question is what is the general view on revleft of libertarian socialism and guys like mikhail bakunin? are they looked favourably upon or are people who say they are libertarian socialists restricted? its a stupid question but it says you can ask no matter how stupid you think your question is so.

[Rawthentic]

On 'libertarian socialism' rejects the state and all the necessary structures to protect a worker's state in favor of decentralization and such notions.

And 'authoritarian socialism' is a false term coined by anarchists, 'libertarians' to describe the outlook and ideology of Marxists and Leninists.

In other words, people who use such terms favor notions of 'libertarianism' and reject a materialist standpoint of society.

[Black Cross]

Anarchists, or "libertarian socialists" as you referred to them, are not restricted just for being anarchists. I think most of the people on this site, who aren't anarchists, understand that it is a more-than-somewhat (for lack of a better word) accepted political ideology. In fact, some of the people in the commie club are anarchists.

You will find, though, that anarchists and marxists get into quite a few ideological arguments on this site.

I hope that answered your question.

[spartan]

thanks comrades! the reason i asked the question was ive recently researched libertarian socialism/anarchism and mikhail bakunin and found all subjects to be very appealing to me personally. i was just worried that with all the different groupings and factions of the left this would be a less accepted one here. though im glad this is not the case.

[Rawthentic]

Go to the Marxists Internet Archive (http://marxists.org) and just study Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao, and others, then go study Durruti, Malatesta, Makhno, etc., and form your own conclusions.

This will take a lot of time, and chances are your outlook will change for a while until it solidifies.

[More Fire for the People]

I would continue along with Voz's criticism and argue that we are not monoliths on the issue of libertarian or authoritarian organization. I personally argue for the most libertarian organization of the working class possible but in dealing with the defense of these organizations I am an authoritarian. So some could be labeled authoritarians on all issues, and some libertarian on all issues but I would say most people are a mix.

[co-op]

On 'libertarian socialism' rejects the state and all the necessary structures to protect a worker's state in favor of decentralization and such notions.

The naivety and arrogance of that sentence is stunning. Can you tell me what the "workers state" is? And can you tell me why decentralisation is so frowned upon? Cannot you see the clear message the history of the USSR screams at communists: Leninism = state capitalism and the subjugation of the proletariat.


And 'authoritarian socialism' is a false term coined by anarchists, 'libertarians' to describe the outlook and ideology of Marxists and Leninists.

By "false" you actually mean 'true'. Put simply Marxists and Leninists wish to keep the state to protect the authority of the party and its introduction of state capitalism. These idealogies cannot be described as anything other than authoritarian.


In other words, people who use such terms favor notions of 'libertarianism' and reject a materialist standpoint of society.

Could you explain that statement in more detail please.

[rebelworker]

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 23, 2007 10:23 pm

In other words, people who use such terms favor notions of 'libertarianism' and reject a materialist standpoint of society.
Ahhh, pardon my french but thats bullshit...

you believe a "state" is nessesary in order to acheive communism.

I believe that all past efforts to build such a state, no matter how well intentioned or "realist" has lead to a new ruling class with contradictory goals to the working class.

I think history has pretty clearly backed up my point of view, you disagree.

Period, end of discussion.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by co-[email protected] 24, 2007 06:03 pm
Put simply Marxists and Leninists wish to keep the state to protect the authority of the party and its introduction of state capitalism. These idealogies cannot be described as anything other than authoritarian.

Oversimplified, but true in one hand (considering "Marxism" as one coined by Plekhanov, Kautsky and Bernstein, and continued by Lenin). Allthough, you have to leave out a huge section of Marxist thinkers and doers to make this proposition correct - including Marx himself.

We have to remember Pannekoek, Gorter, Mattick, Luxemburg, Liebknecht, Ruhle, Rubel, Korsch, Debord (not an actual 'Marxist', but he comes from that "school"), Pankhurst, Miasnikov, Castoriadis, and thousands of people who identify themselves as "Libertarian Marxists".

[RedKnight]

One may be both a marxist as well as a libertarian socialist. Autonomist Marxism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomist_Marxism), for example, is a form of libertarian socialism.

[Rawthentic]

Period, end of discussion.
I am sick of tired of debating this really. I know I am right, you know you are right, but most of the time we mean the same thing. It sorta makes me wanna throw up.

[Janus]

i was just worried that with all the different groupings and factions of the left this would be a less accepted one here.
Not at all, not only is this board dedicated to all varieties of the radical left but libertarian socialists also happen to make up a large portion of this board's membership.

[spartan]

great because this side of left wing political thought is really appealing to me. i especially like mikhail bakunin and will soon get some of his books.

[rebelworker]

Originally posted by Live for the [email protected] 25, 2007 02:05 am

Period, end of discussion.
I am sick of tired of debating this really. I know I am right, you know you are right, but most of the time we mean the same thing. It sorta makes me wanna throw up.
In my experience this discussion is only useful to have with a very small amount of people face to face, anything less tends to become a big misunderstood dogma match...

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I haven't seen too many people here who are fond of Jong Ill, Stalin, Mao, and other "authoritarian" "socialists."

[Demogorgon]

I reckon the various varieties of Libertarian Socialists here probably make up the majority, so we certainly don't restrict them.

Ideas from people like Bukunin are quite popular here, which is understandable as they are really rather good. Not that I agree with it all, but it is certainly very vaid strain of radical left thought

[Rawthentic]

In the "third world" things are quite different. Many more people uphold Stalin and Mao than Bakunin or any such obscure "libertarians".

[Red Scare]

I have no problem with libertarian socialism, but I do not consider myself one. I am definitely not a stalinist, or an authoritarian, no offense to stalinists

[cenv]

I am sick of tired of debating this really. I know I am right, you know you are right, but most of the time we mean the same thing. It sorta makes me wanna throw up.
Quote for truth.

Anyway, I refer to myself as a "libertarian socialist" to stress the importance I place on the working class emancipating itself and building a self-managed, socialist society independent of any bureaucratic or managerial class.

[Bilan]

And 'authoritarian socialism' is a false term coined by anarchists, 'libertarians' to describe the outlook and ideology of Marxists and Leninists.

Yeah, it's the anarchists fault!
Dem damn @[email protected]!

But seriously, that's rubbish and you know it. Half the time, you admit to it. 'Revolution is authoritarian' remember? 'We're not anti-authoritarianism', etc. You say these things. Leninists say these things!
You bring it on yourself.
Also, I am an anarchist, and I read Marx. And really, I don't think he was authoritarian.
I think RedStar2000 said it really well in one of his articles:


"since Marx was involved in both a political and an organizational struggle with the anarchists of his time--mainly Bakunin--is it surprising that Marx would deliberately use the word "state" in a way that would clearly set his views apart from the "anti-state" Bakunin?"

Link. (http://rs2k.revleft.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1114735057&archive=&start_from=&ucat=&)



In other words, people who use such terms favor notions of 'libertarianism' and reject a materialist standpoint of society.

No. People who reject authoritarian socialism in favor of Libertarian socialism reject the bullshit party line put forward by Leninists.
We reject Lenin's ideas on the Vanguard party, and others who share these ideas.