Doesn't sound like Libertarian Communism to me. Sounds like liberal keynesianism perhaps?
Results 1 to 20 of 24
Libertarian Communism/Anarcho-Communism
I was just wondering if what I figure is called "Libertarian Communism" is, like, a thing.
Because there are alot of anarcho-communists, and I agree with some of their ideals, but I think that there should still be some sort of state or government for managing things such as taxes, education and the law. I also think that there should be money, and it will simply be distributed in a truly fair way. I think that, at least from what I've read, Anarcho-Communism can only really work in a practical way in small organizations or communities.
In contrast to this, the people are allowed to live extremely free lives, with all groups being allowed marriage (this includes incestuous relationships), legal drugs, legal gambling, etc. The police force would simply focus on the main crimes, actually damaging to other human beings, such theft, rape, murder and corruption.
So, what is this "system" called?
"The Great are only Great because we are on our knees. Let us rise." - Max Stirner
Doesn't sound like Libertarian Communism to me. Sounds like liberal keynesianism perhaps?
there is of course a governance system in libertarian communism, tho it isn't a state. It's a horizontal federation of worker assemblies, neighborhood assemblies, federations of workers in industries, regional federations. It does have the ability to scale up to larger areas.
The issue of money is not a defining feature of libertarian communism. Libertarian communists have historically differed in their opinions on this.
the critical pieces are:
1. ownership of the land & means of production by the whole society
2. some generous system of free provision of social goods such as health care, education and other things the community decides on
3. direct self-management of industry by the people who work in it
4. control of neighborhoods by neighborhood assemblies & elected committees
5. non-profit production for use, not profit-seeking by production organizations
6. federations of workplaces together by industries and by regions
7. federations of neighborhood assemblies over larger areas such as cities or regions
8. replacement of the hiearchical state by a horizontal system of popular power based on the base assemblies in workplaces and neighborhoods and the federations of these over larger areas.
9. replacement of a standing, hierarchical army by a democratic popular miltitia directly accountable to the system of popular power
The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves.
Taxes and the existence of money.
Sounds like a non-communist form of left-libertarianism to me.
I just feel that money simplifies trade, instead of just trading the direct labor. It's better to just put a number on it.
Maybe taxes aren't necessary, I don't know. But the money for the free healthcare and public transportation have to come from somewhere.
"The Great are only Great because we are on our knees. Let us rise." - Max Stirner
The root problem is money.
Like Broletariat elucidated rather helpfully in the Cuba thread, the abolition of currency (and thus value) would dictate that the macro-economy would function on the basis that it was one internal economy. That is, instead of separating the economy into fragmented sectors and industries, businesses and organisations, that trade with each other based on the profit motive (thus trying to exploit their own labour), a moneyless economy, democratically controlled by the working class - and later (or sooner, hopefully!) controlled by direct workers' control of economic and political councils, would allow the entire economy to function without the need for money. This isn't my strong point of Marxian theory, though, so you may want to ask Zanthorus or Broletariat in particular for their knowledge on this subject.
The other problem with money (and this is more my strong point!) is that currency - as we know it in its fiat form - does not inherently represent value. Thus, whilst it might 'simplify' trade for you, it makes it far easier for the working class to be exploited, since the 'market' can be both in equilibrium (thus providing sales and liquidity for business owners) and be paying workers less than the value of their labour. This is the key point.
I agree with that, and I really wish there wasn't anymore money, because I acknowledge how it's a big stimulus for human greed, but wouldn't a country need to have all the resources it needs within itself for everything to work?
What if a country lacks food? If it doesn't have any money, it can't buy the food it needs from other countries. So, wouldn't the abolition of currency have to happen worldwide? Or is it possible for any country to have all the resources it needs within itself, and the current capitalist governments are just lying so we keep thinking no country can be independent?
I'm sorry for anything stupid I might say or might have said. It's still gonna take a while for me to figure out the economics in communism. Man, alot of this shit is gonna be alot easier when the world runs out of oil for good.
"The Great are only Great because we are on our knees. Let us rise." - Max Stirner
There is enough food at the moment being produced to feed everyone, whats stopping it? communism would be able to create the structure needed to provide surplus food to other nations. With money it only limits the social organizational potential of production and distribution.
Maybe party uniforms would be an idea. When the Party marches into a town, it should look like a military occupation is on the way.
-Azula
^for proof all leftists are just roleplaying
people want more than food.
money does not necessarily imply market relations. and talking about all workplaces being united into a single organization doesn't eliminate the need to have information about preferences of people for products and information about relative costs. hence the need for a social accounting unit.
the root of the problem isn't money. it is subordination and exploitation of one class by another.
The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves.
Money facilitates exchange and trade, but in a communist society there is no exchange and trade--it's abolished.
Rather than individuals appropriating goods they are shared amongst the community for free.
You planning on making everything you want for yourself? If not, there will be exchange. you make things for others, others make things for you. that's an exchange. doesn't have to be mediated by markets.
why do you think free sharing will work? if people don't have to work for anything you'll get numerous free riders who will drag down the community, and people will perceive that as unjust. that's just the beginnings of the problem with free sharing.
The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves.
Don't apologise, nothing you say is 'stupid', there's no right or wrong answer, there is only coming at stuff from a different POV. So just relax, comrade
But yeah, on the currency thing, it's not a matter of 'wishing' money away. There is a clear framework for it to happen. It can only happen when there has been revolution in enough countries to form an autarkical trading bloc at least, better still a world revolution, but let's not get too utopian.
The abolition of money is not the first step of revolution, in fact it requires several ambitious pre-requisites:
1) The expropriation of the political and economic power of the bourgeoisie
2a) The defence of the revolution against any counter-revolution through the institution of mass, extreme democracy.
2b) The entrenchment of the revolution as a worker-led, worker-controlled process.
3. The process of demolishing the state:
- its security apparatus, by replacing them with local, democratic militias.
- its political apparatus, by replacing the top-down, national representative system with a bottom-up system of neighbourhood, district, town, city, county and regional councils.
- its economic power, by moving any assets that became state-controlled (during expropriation) into the hands of local economic councils, into the hands of workers in their factories, offices and shop floors.
Only when these tasks have been completed: the bourgeoisie expropriated from economic and political power and thoroughly defeated, the establishment of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and the destruction of the state, and only when this takes place within the framework of an autarkical trading bloc of countries, can we begin to abolish currency.
To be nit pickifully specific, money is an expression of value, not the other way around. If you and I traded a hamburger for a pencil, there's a value relationship there, but no money.
Value is an ideal quality, the fact that fiat currency exists is a statement to this fact. It DOES represent value, because we say so essentially. Fiat money doesn't make it easier to exploit the working class at the point of production, but it does make it easier to cheat them at other areas I believe.
I accept the nitpicking.
On the second point, you're wrong. Fiat money's main purpose is NOT to represent value. Its main purpose is to provide a lot of liquidity, so that supply/demand equilibria can be met. It's much like the stock market, actually. There is a difference between exchange value (the value relationship), and inherent value, which is what we should aim to find a way of representing in terms of wages and valuing goods/services.
To use your hamburger and pencil example: there is a value relationship there, but it is exchange value, not inherent value. It may well be that (if I cooked it), the burger would hold more inherent value than the pencil, or vice versa (if it was shitty McDonalds burger).
Therein lies my criticism of your 'abolition of value = Socialism' equation. If you were to say 'abolition of exchange value = Socialism', then your point might make more sense, though i'd still say that at the point where workers' ownership of the MoP has been solidified, the revolution has taken society from Capitalism or post-Capitalism into the lowest stage of Socialism.
Three people, two contribute to the "social product", the other one doesn't while he is perfectly capable of doing so. The two contributers decide to share the social product amongst each other for free. No free riding, no exchange, only sharing.
if A makes shoes for you and you fix A's car, there is an exchange you have exchanged car fixing for shoes. and if you exclude people from free sharing if they haven't "contributed", you've tied what a person receives as share of the social product to their work. in a society with millions of people, people are going to want to know how much of the social product it is reasonable, fair for them to have. if "contribution" is required, how much contribution?
eliminating money is certainly not the first thing in a revolution. first thing is workers taking over the means of production, building new organizations to run production and to control the society, to replace the state. that's because the basic problem is class power.
you can talk about "abolishing money" but money exists as a reflection of, a requirement for, a kind of organization of production where the production units are fairly autonomous...the kind of autonomy that gets expressed in market relations. you have that kind of social arrangement, you will have money...even if it is inititally "abolished."
in Spain in Aragon in the '30s the villages sometimes "abolished money." but they discovered that caused all kinds of problems. they had no way to coordinate with factories in cities that produced things for them. they needed a common unit of social value, that is, a social accounting unit.
things being free didn't work out so well either. farmers started feeding bread to their pigs...a complete waste of the labor & energy to make the bread.
The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves.
I'm going to preface by saying your disagreement with me reminds me a lot of DNZ. You've picked up a little touch of Marxism good, but now you're integrating that into your own current views without thinking about the fact that they don't really mesh well. You haven't actually read Das Kapital, so your usage of the word value here is incredibly confusing, you're obviously not talking about a Marxist conception of Value, yet you continue to use it in that way.
Money in general is meant to be the embodiment of Value, you can see Chapter three of Das Kapital on this.
Money IS the expression of value, fiat or not.Originally Posted by Das Kapital Chapter 3
Libertarian communism is a theory of libertarianism which advocates the abolition of the state and private property, and capitalism in favor of common ownership of the means of production, a direct democracy and self-governance.[1]
According to the anarchist historian Max Nettlau, the first use of the term libertarian communism was in November 1880, when a French anarchist congress employed it to more clearly identify its doctrines.[2] The French anarchist journalist Sébastien Faure, later founder and editor of the four-volume Anarchist Encyclopedia, started the weekly paper Le Libertaire (The Libertarian) in 1895.[3]
- Wikipedia, Libertarian Communism
Indeed, that's exchange but that's not what I advocate. I advocate sharing of the social product amongst those who contribute to the social product and those unable to contribute to the social product.
No, because the only precondition is socially recognised contribution to the social product. It does not remunerate according to effort, contribution, or exchange value as is the case in parecon, anarcho-collectivism and inclusive democracy respectively. The social product is pooled together and each consumes according to needs.
This is specified by the distributive union (producer and consumer council). A coordinative body (i.e. a federation) is still necessary.
me:you:you contradicted yourself. if A, B, C, D work in a shoe factory and make shoes and these are then worn by X, Y, Z, and X, Y, Z work in a market gardening operation that raises various kinds of vegetables and A, B, C, D consume these vegetables, then A, B, C, D have exchanged their shoe-making work for the food growing work of X, Y, Z. An exchange doesn't have to be mediated by a market. An exchange just means that certain people do things for others with the understanding those others do things for them.
i asked:but you didn't answer the question. that is, you didn't provide any principle that would say how much should be required. If you say that things are provided to those who "contribute" to their consumption and then go on to say that things are provided also to people that haven't, then you've contradicted yourself.
what does "each consumes according to needs" mean? what is a "need"? is some collective body going to determine what you "need"? that sounds tyrannical or paternalistic. but if each determines their own "needs", then to talk about distribution according to "needs" means "you take whatever you want." but that is not a viable proposal nor will people view that as just.
this comes back to the point that you need a principle of how much of the social product is fair or reasonable for people to consume. if we have decided on a system of social provision to provide people with free education or free health care, then some may consume more than others because in the case of medical care people don't want to consume this for its own sake but only if they need it. Both education and health care sustain and develop people's abilities which is part of their freedom, their ability to be self-governing.
but this is different with many other things a person might consume...how much residential space should they have? how much land to control? expensive clothing? a closet full of leather jackets? a large boat to go fishing? expensive model building kits for their hobby? there are tens of thousands of products that are produced. how much is to be produced of each? what is the principle that determines allocation of resources to the production of these things?
moreover, you can't say that in all cases people only receive things if they've contributed to production of social product, because we don't require this of children, people who old enough we no longer require work, or people who are infirm or severely disabled. and there may occur situations where people are unable to contribute because there aren't enough job slots.
The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves.
