Libertarian Socialism (for the leftists)

I was wondering if we have any adherrents to it. I have been researching it lately, because I'm an actual progressive, i don't want a scab or band aid, i want the country to evolve over time into something better. As we did from laissez-faire capitalism,based upon slave labor, to a pseudo welfare state. One main conflict i am having is do would they have one police force, which is suppose to be the sole purpose of government under the system, or would it be more of what the objectivists had in mind, with various ones. Once the law enforcement plan is feasible everything else should fall in line. I am however a scientific lefitists, and denigrate utopians.



Here are some articles that go in depth on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism


http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/libsoc.html

I disagree with their economic policies, but practically everything else in the platform is awesome. Individual rights...100% freedom on every social issuue, etc. I'm seriously going to give them a look this year. I'm probably with them on 80% of the issues, and with the greens/dems on the rest. The dems just lack the backbone to really stand up to the fundies and the libertarians do it consitently, which really pisses the pubs off (See Ron Paul's anti war, anti neocon speech from a few months ago...great stuff).

but the economic stuff gives me the heeby jeebies.

...these recycled gilded agers can't possibly be serious about human/civil/individual rights while promoting an economic system that creates a small, unbelievabley powerful elite and a huge pool of wage slaves..

On edit, I remember reading something about libertarians that summed it all up perfectly. Libertarians are the spoiled rotten ten year old boys of the political world.

so many go into the republican party or vote republican.

Check this out it is hillarious i have to read it over every week
http://www.geocities.com/donaldjhagen/humoroustest.html

'so we might as well leave *everything* to the free market mechanism'

that's what i gather from libertarian talking points.

-----------------------------------------------------
Libertarian socialists differentiate between the idea of authority based on power, and authority based on knowledge or skills. The term "power", in this instance, refers to the social or physical dominance of one individual over another. They oppose "illegitimate" authority based on economic and political power, and social hierarchy -- some believe that all authority based on political and economic power, and hierarchy is illegitimate.

Libertarian socialists believe that all social bonds should be developed by individuals who have an equal amount of bargaining power. This means that an accumulation of economic power in the hands of a few is no different than the centralization of political power, since both reduce the bargaining power, and thus the freedom of the other individuals in society. If freedom is valued, then society must work towards a system in which individuals have the power to decide economic issues along with political issues. They seek to replace illegitimate authority and hierarchy with direct democracy and voluntary federation in all aspects of life, including physical communities and economic enterprises.

Libertarian socialists believe that productive property should be held communally and controlled democratically. For them, the only moral private properties are personal possessions.

Unlike anarcho-capitalists, anarchists believe there is little to no difference between threat of physical violence as a means of coercion and political or economic coercion. Thus the libertarian socialist argues that the anarcho-capitalist distiction between economic coercion, which they allow by the centralized accumulation of productive property and wealth, and physical coercion is an untenable dichotomy. Freedom only comes from a society in which all have equal bargaining power.
Within the socialist libertarian movement there is much debate about the exact delineation between moral "personal" possesions and immoral "productive" property. Most agree that hard capital such as real estate, machinery, etc., should be considered "productive" property, while one's lodging and clothing should be considered "personal" property. Disagreement arises about the proper way to characterize property such as one's home when it is used to carry out business, for example

When you get down to it they have a big fear of democracy, which they call mob rule.

When you really get down to what they are about its the freedom to smoke pot, do drugs, etc, but also the freedom from any sort of economic regulation....and also the modification of governance to make that regulation impossible via democratic means.

So, if you should go on strike theres nothing to stop the corporation to hire a private army to shoot you down on the picket line, or to actually have the army or national gaurd shoot you down as you are intefering with "economic freedom" and property rights.

So, yeah, getting seriously high would be legal in a libertarian society, and one would really need to be stoned all the time to put up with such a society.

The concept of property "rights" is much different than under libertarian capitalism, which is what you are thinking of. In libertarian socialism your example of a property owner being justified and shooting down strikers would be invalid, because in such a society industry would be collectively owned and operated by the workers themselves.

Although mouse7 thinks libertarian socialism is a contradiction in terms, I do not, and there are many others who subscribe, more or less, to this political philosophy. Check out the links provided by others in this thread. You might like the idea, you might not, but you should at least know more about it.

A picket line doesn't make it impossible for a person to cross a picket line. It simply forces them to make a choice between crossing it, and possibly risking injury, losing all respect, and not crossing it. The choice is theirs. In a true anarchist society, there woudn't be picket lines because those who didn't like their working conditions could simply leave, and start their own enterprise, and all workers would be payed the same anyways. This has effectively been made impossible under capitalism.

It is also debatable whether or not anarchist action has to hold completely with anarchist ideas. The use of violence does deny people freedom, but many anarchists are not completely opposed to it. Causing change requires some sacrifice of principles.

If libertarian socialism is impossible, what do you call a society in which there is no government, but the distribution of wages is equal, or at least decided on by everybody's input. The fact also remains that there HAVE BEEN libertarian socialist societies throughout history, during the Spanish Revolution, and societies of Jews in Palestine before the establishment of Israel. In both of these cases, everything was shared, and people were completely free from heirarchical coercion.

Anarchism is not necessarily against all forms of coercion. It simply rejects the idea that coercion should come from the top down. Decisions should be made at the lowest possible level.

Say good bye to the social safety net. They don't believe government many roles beyond defense, law and contract enforcement. They have a dogmatic view that the free market can deal with all problems and many would abolish most taxes... including the progressive income tax. Are we going to leave worker/product safety and cleaning up the environment to the market?

While I try to gather the best ideas from all political tradistions... I also realize that modern libertarianism have been reduced to corporate apologists.

... if it weren't for those pesky ideas being applied to the economic sphere, I'd BE a libertarian.

The government has no business passing half the laws we now have. But IMHO libertarian theories applied to economics and distribution of wealth is even worse than Repugs.

im definitely not one.

i definitely believe in the government.
unfortunately humans arent anywhere near the mental and emotional intelligence it takes to be completely self governing, so there will always be a need for some form of government if people are going to co-exsist by each other.

i like libertarians for their beliefs in keeping the government out of our homes and out of our private lifes, but when it comes to government aid and things like social security, i just couldnt live with myself if i didnt think we should have even MORE of these forms of help. I believe thats the governments job. Take care of us while letting us lead our lifes as we choose. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and all that jazz...lol.

i just hope one day we all can see past this thing called 'money'. for a supposed 'God Fearing' country, we should do idolise the crap out of money.

I tend to think a socialist economy and democratic government are the best way to go next. of course that means being called a commie, a red, a pinko, and/or crazy for thinking that way if you tell anyone. hehe.

The oldest legal code, the Code of Hammurabi 1700 BC said, "The first duty of government is to protect the powerless against the powerful." Theodore Roosevelt said, "The limitation of governmental power means the enslavement of the people by the great corporations."
It seems to me that a democracy means that when a majority of the people see a need for a program (Social Security, public schools, interstate highway system, help for GI's to attend college, rural electrification) and we insist on it, then it is absurd to allow some theory or ism to overrule the people's choice.

that government implies corruption, and do not trust the state. I consider myself a strong civil libertarian and would consider myself an economic socialist.

I would say I fall somewhere close to a LibSoc.

at heart i will always remain a grocho marxist

have been having it in with marxists for a long time. Noam Chomsky was at the head of the anti communist left. The main difference and most important to me, is marxism relies to much on the power of teh state, while libertarian socialism is the exact opposite, the social/political hierarchy needs to go.

all borrow elements of Marxism. We believe Marx had some important things to say, but unlike the Leninists, we don't regard him as a God.

lib socialists and marxists are so far apart on core concepts.

but in his later years he moved to the right and in many ways was the father of the present day neo-conservative movement

can be just as oppressive as capitalism .

"If the left is understood to include 'Bolshevism,' then I would flatly dissociate myself from the left. Lenin was one of the greatest enemies of socialism"

The rich afford all the police, get roads where they want, and control health care. Hmmm...doesn't really matter about their social stances, as we'll have an oligarchy that can pretty much run the government.

Another case of the word "liberty" being misused. In my opinion, the most civilized governments are in Western Europe, where there exists more social freedom while still caring more about citizens than corporations.

You don't know what you're talking about. He said Libertarian SOCIALISM-- check out his links or read my post.

When citizens are not allowed to arm themselves against criminals and rapists they are not free. Gun control means hitting your target.

Civil liberties don't exist there. In fact internet service providers are obligated by law to keep track of all their customers surfing habits and site svisted for seven years, and mi6 can review them. Not to mention no fifth amendment, no gun ownership. I am a believer int eh second amendment,

A big NO to more gun control from this corner. Let the assault weapons ban expire.

a lot ofpolcies come back to bite repubs in the ass, and soon this issue will too.

It's not laisses faire capitalism and it's nothing like objectivism.

It's bascially anarchism or anarchosyndicalism. The great thing about it is that's it's not as dogmatic as Marxism. There is no single definition of "Libertarian Socialism" or exactly what such a society would look like. I like to call the idea "Total Democracy" or "Total Freedom". The idea being that both society and the economy would be managed by democratic means. The reason our government is so undemocractic is that its run by dictatorships-- corporations. To make things worse, you have to spend most of your waking life working in these dictatorships only receiving a pittance of what you are actually producing.

As far as police force is concerned, I think you could take the tack of the revolutionaries in Spain, 1936. Armed and unarmed "workers' patrols". They rarely arrested or shot at people. Moral persuasion (and the knowledge that your neighbors knew who you were and would take action) would normally do the trick. But in any case, I think an armed professional police force is unnecessary. Especially because property would be more evenly distributed, and the main role of police historically has been to protect property.

...known as the "Catholic Worker" movement.

---

The Catholic Worker Movement, founded by Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin in 1933, is grounded in a firm belief in the God-given dignity of every human person.

Today over 185 Catholic Worker communities remain committed to nonviolence, voluntary poverty, prayer, and hospitality for the homeless, exiled, hungry, and foresaken. Catholic Workers continue to protest injustice, war, racism, and violence of all forms.

Explore the life and writings of Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin as well as sample contemporary Catholic Worker thought and action

---

http://www.catholicworker.org/index.cfm

She was a "no compromise" Christian in the finest sense.

These people have to be hated by the vatican


Wealth-Producing Maniacs
1. When John Calvin
legalized money-lending at interest,
he made the bank account
the standard of values.

2. When the bank account
became the standard of values,
people ceased to produce for use
and began to produce for profits.

3. When people began to produce for profits
they became
wealth-producing maniacs.

4. When people became wealth-producing maniacs
they produced too much wealth.

5. When people found out
that they had produced too much wealth
they went on an orgy
of wealth-destruction
and destroyed
ten million lives besides

World War - 1914
1. As President Wilson said,
the World War
was a commercial war.

2. But a commercial war
had to be idealized,
so it was called
a War for Democracy.

3. But the War for Democracy
did not bring Democracy:
it brought
Bolshevism in Russia,
Fascism in Italy,
Nazism in Germany.

...I hope that you were able to use the information and, if interested, are near where they have a have a Catholic Worker community where you could get involved.

four monopolies of principal importance:

the money monopoly: .........if the business of banking were made free to all, more and more persons would enter into enter into it until compatition should become sharp enough to reduce the price of lending money to the labor cost, which statistics show to be less than three-quarters of one percent. in that case the thousands of people who are now detered from going into business will find their difficulties removed. .......................

the land monopoly: .........individualists should no longer be protected by their fellows in anything but personal occupancy and cultivation of the land, ground rent would disappear, and so usury would have one less leg to stand on. some today are disposed to modify this claim to the extent of admitting that the very small fraction of ground rent which rests, not on monopoly, but on superiority of soil or site, will continue to exist for a time and perhaps forever, though tending constantly to a minimum under conditions of freedom........

the tariff monopoly: .............the abolition of this monopoly would result in a great reduction in the prices of all articles taxed and this saving to the laborers who consume these articles would be another step tword securing to the laborer his natural wage, his entire production. however, to abolish this monopoly before abolishing the money monopoly would be a cruel and disasterous policy............

the patent monopoly: ..............the abolition of this monopoly would fill its beneficiaries with a wholesome fear of compatition which would cause them to be satisfied with pay for their services equal to that which other laborers get for theirs, and to secure it by placing their products and works on the market at the outset at prices so low that their lines of business would be no more tempting to competitors than any other lines..............

the devlopment of the economic programme which consists in the destruction of these monopolies and the substitution for them of the freest compatition led its authors to a perception of the fact that all their thought reted upon a very fundemental principle, the freedom of the individual, his right of sovereighty over himself, his products, and his affairs, and the rebellion against the dictation of external authority..................

this information was taken from an article by benjamin tucker, he based his information on the work of pierre joseph proudhon and josiah warren

A great blend of the protection of personal freedoms without government interferrence but helping people out when they need it and empowering the community as well. It is something that our platform of my old party the CNP backed. Republican (not the type your thinking of!) Spain's government was based on the principles of Libertarian Socialism and it was working until Franco and the Falangist forces ousted the government in the Civil War. I think it could work again someday in the U.S. or parts of the U.S. like Oregon and Washington.

I do however support the free enterprise concept but not in the current "trickle down" form so popular with the status quo these days. There needs to be a "Capitalism with a human face". There needs to be a happy medium. A cross between civil libertarianism, socialism, and capitalism.

John

A consituent member of the Republican government was libertarian socialist-- the anarcho-syndicalist union CNT (which controlled most of Catalonia and Zaragossa). Socialists, Trotskyists, Communists and Social-Democrats were also in the gov't. In fact Stalin's Communists did as much to wreck the libertarian socialist revolution as the fascists did. Check out George Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia". But the gist of your e-mail is right, the CNT did some awesome shit in Spain before they were crushed by the Communists and Fascists.

Republican Spain. It is truly sad and given a chance it would have flourished. If things really get bad in this country, then maybe there should be movement to revive the Spanish Republicanism in this country. The right can only go so far until the people finally wake up and have had enough.


John

The unemployment rate hits 10%. Or the religious right interferes with the corporate, i.e. fucking with the porn indutry which is about 14 billion a year, more than the 4 major sports combined. With the i-net i think it would be harder to do it. But like general franks said one wmd and america will put the constitution aside. Times like this make me cherish the 2nd amendment. Almost always right wing policy comes back to bite them in the ass, having a multitude of gun shops might not be there favorite thing, in the midst of an uprising. Plus if they try to take em away the dems get the vote.

Libertarianism and socialism are diametrically opposed forms of social organization. They cannot co-exist.

Libertarianism stands for reducing rules and regulations. Socialism stands for increasing rules and regulations to protect the powerless in society. You cannot reduce and increase the exact same social structures at the same time.

Libertarianism and communism are mutually exclusive. Communism and socialism are *not* the same thing.

(note the capitalizations, also)

Socialism isn't as far down the path of increased community oversight as communism, but it's the exact same path.

If it were a compass, Libertarianism is heading west, and socialism is heading east. The end point of that eastbound path would be communism. You don't have to go all the way to the end point to know you can't travel east and west at the same time.

marx preached that we would evolve to communism. In fact here is a great article on it

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2002/11/47515.html

Put the bong down. Sober up. Utopia cannot exist.

Not a perfect one. I seriously doubt society will ever look exactly like what any of the posters on this board envision. However, I am a firm believer that a better society, political and economic system is possible. I don't think we're stuck with either statism or unbridled capitalism. I think we need large-scale structural changes to our economic, political and social system. I don't view Libertarian Socialism or Anarcho-Syndicalism as an infallible religion as many Marxists view Communism, but rather as a good conceptual starting point.

Sweden and Norway show a model that is working.... and is realistic.

i bet everyone gives a respone along the lines of "not right now" reminds me of the civil rights movement. The people there took it upon themselves, shit in sweeden in the north the communists capture 20% easy. Here everyone fears change even so called progressives, it's always osme excuse, good thing Mlk didn't listen.

Scandanavia is dismantling their social welfare states. State interests in SAAB and Volvo have been sold to the big three. Labor protections are being rolled back. Neo-Nazi activity is on the rise. The only thing that kept the Western Democracies in line economically was the threat of Soviet Communism. Now that threat is gone, so is the economic regulations and social programs. They've all been being rolled back in the wake of USSR's collapse. What's the lesson? Without an viable international socialist movement to check it, capitalism, by its voracious and competitive nature, will always revert back to its most brutal form. Getting rid of it altogether seems more reasonable to me.

Also, Sweden's economic system may have been more progressive, but they did not have the same kinds of protected civil liberties we have (or at least are supposed to have). Freedom of Speech in Sweden? Forget it. If the government wants to censor something, it will-- no questions asked.

Best educational system. Highest per capita income.

It works.

Yes, the mega-corporations are encroaching there like they are everywhere. I'm no fan of corporate power. The WTO has to be eliminate. Once that happens, things will return to their proper places.

how would you propose doing so absent an international political and labor movement? Disagree with the particulars of libertarian socialism if you will, but surely you must agree that we need some sort of international socialist movement in order to battle the multinational corporations.

There will NEVER be another "International Socialist Movement" thanks to the baggage that Stalin and Co. piled on the term.

The only chance you have is to change the terms of the discussion.

It's broad enough to encompass what you suggest, and it has neither the baggage of many terms and you don't have to teach the whole planet the ins and outs of a new form of government.

Revolutionary unionism. Democratic unions controlling industry. I tend to associate social democracy with the Western European social democratic parties. Which are, undoubtedly, advocating a better form of capitalism, but capitalism all the same. I would like to see a system fundamentally different than capitalism-- i.e. one where workers have control over production and receive their share of all they produce. I'm more from the Bakunin and Proudhon school-- anarchist collectivism/mutualism. That is, workers get back what they produce, nothing more nothing less. Those unable to work or in non-productive occupations (artists, etc.) would receive collective community assistance (welfare state ex. state minimalism). I think anarcho-communism (from each according to abilities, to each according to needs) is nice but utopian and unrealistic.

I thought the people on this board knew more than the average public. turns out they think stalin was a real marxist. And they think there won't be another socialist movement. I guess every great thinker is wrong. Not mention the leftism thats sweeping latin america. Deep down, the majority of people here are typical follow the party line, status quo, thinking in side the box dems. Most criticize communism, but have never cracked open das kapital or the manifesto.

Seems like have the inherrant traits of right wingers. You do realise communism has never existed, and there are hudnreds of thories, but of course you choose to follow propaganda and speak of utopian ommunism, which intellectual marxists never gave a thought too. Also I'm not a marxist. I'm a socialist.

And what do you think of this whole social security thing? you do know who have to thank for that right? this whole 8 hour workday, end of child labor. Those are movements towards communism, pretty utopian huh? Besides marx said communism has to come from a capitalist society not a country of peasents. But then again heaven forbid you actually read there works (even though i disagree with them, i still beleive in study)

www.marxist.org

I know that pure socialism does not work, because it doesn't account for criminals and greed. Discussing it is a waste of bandwidth because it cannot work.

What happens then the first person in your perfect society steals something? If everyone is equal, nobody has the power to set boundaries. Without boundaries, society crumbles. Once you give someone power to set boundaries, you no longer have a pure communist system. The moment that all in the society no longer have complete all encompassing knowledge of all things in society, you can no longer have equal participation of all members of society in decision-making. So more and more, the people with more access to knowledge make more and more decisions. Groups form among those who have power. Your first elite power structure forms, and once they have power, they never give it up.

So... spare me your rants and holier than thou homilies. You precious "perfect" communist system is just as fucked as the rest of human society.

There is no perfect human society. Human beings are in it. It therefore cannot be perfect.

Take a look at the way they do things in Sweden and Norway. It's a good system. It's proven to work. It's realistic.

Power can be more evenly distributed than it is now. Serious political reforms can be made to increase democratic participation. Industry can be democratized through worker control. Not everyone will have perfect liberty, nor will everyone be perfectly equal, but people will be freer and more equal. I think we can do better than Sweden (even though Sweden, economically speaking, is more progressive than the US). Also, I think the Swedish model is outdated. The welfare state was merely a capitalist reaction to the threat of Communist revolution. That threat's not there. We must rebuild an international labor/socialist movement.

So... spare me your rants and holier than thou homilies. You precious "perfect" communist system is just as fucked as the rest of human society.


Who said i was a communist, as a matter a fact if you read any posts in the thread you would see i'm opposed to it. Who said anythign about it being perfect? you sound like a right winger, there is a such thing as scientific socialism, in fact there are many forms, find me where i said it was perfect. you are just regurgitating utterances you heard, most likely from tv. It was working fine in spain before it was destoryed.




I know that pure socialism does not work, because it doesn't account for criminals and greed. Discussing it is a waste of bandwidth because it cannot work.

It doesn't account for crimnals and greed? First off you are all over the place, in a socialist, even pure socialist state there is the "state" to enforce laws. There are still judges, and laws, this has to be the worst elementry attempt at a point i have ever seen.


Take a look at the way they do things in Sweden and Norway. It's a good system. It's proven to work. It's realistic

you do realise that they are on the road to communism. The goverment controls over half of the industry. If you actually study marx you'll see that it takes capitalism-socialism before a communist society can ever be. And it can't be forced, it must evolve


There is no perfect human society. Human beings are in it. It therefore cannot be perfect.

Now tell me where i said it was perfect. LoL no wonder repubs control the government, people believe everything they are told. Next thing you will be telling me north korea is communist. Yea they are communist like bush is a Christ clone.


What's ironic is I made a point as an intellectual to be honest and point out lies, and misconceptions. But I don't know how many times i have to state i'm opposed to communism and marxism..

And you have a self defeating attitude by the way. a liberal stereotype, just like when they told mlk to stop, and certain things can't happen. Now it's the gays. At the very least learn wsomething about the subjects you attack.

I'll give you another chance...

"What happens then the first person in your perfect society steals something? If everyone is equal, nobody has the power to set boundaries. Without boundaries, society crumbles. Once you give someone power to set boundaries, you no longer have a pure egaitarian system. The moment that all in the society no longer have complete all encompassing knowledge of all things in society, you can no longer have equal participation of all members of society in decision-making. So more and more, the people with more access to knowledge make more and more decisions. Groups form among those who have power. Your first elite power structure forms, and once they have power, they never give it up."

You know that the systems in Norway and Sweden work, and work well. You're only response was to attempt to label them. A label is not a counter-argument.

did you not read my last post? i never said anything about a perfect society. In a socialist system, you still have the judical process. How elementry is your process? People ahve personal property, it's industry that is owned by the people. You know like the police, public schools are now.

The elite structure that always forms has power and control.

The only system that has managed to both hold elites in check for the most part and provide at least decent basic living conditions is the system in Sweden and Norway.

something of which you have no knowledge. Individual liberty does NOT negate collective responsibilty or action (only Ayn Rand types believe that BS). And socialism means social and democratic control and ownership over the means of production and the economy, it DOES NOT NECESSARILY mean State control.

If it isn't owned by individuals and is owned by the social group at large, it's socialism. You cannot have group control of any assets but the most essential infrastructure in a libertarian society.

And who are you to declare what I have and haven't read? Zmag is on my favorites list. I have read all about it. It's for precisely that reason that I can call what you are advocating complete and utter bullshit.

The reason is that the only way we will continue to improve our society through scientific advancement is with macro-scale research and development efforts. I'm not saying it has to or even should take the form of what's going on here in the US, but it does have to be a large "state-sized" entity of some kind to do this.

I've just seen some other posters on this thread that are obviously thinking "libertarians? those are bad guys", and I assumed you were one of them. All the same, I respectfully disagree. Taking a syndicalist approach-- having the economy/industries collectively owned by democratic unions accountable to the rank-and-file, building from the bottom up (factory committee to industry committee), it is possible to have decentralized control over the means of production by the producers (workers) themselves.

to the workplace and the economy. Corporations are autocratic. Both employees and consumers must submit to these dictatorships. By giving the workers control over production, you are democratizing the dictatorships. Also, the autocracy of these institutions will no longer be a corrupting influence over public/political affairs. Now what is more libertarian than expanding democracy in industry and reducing the influence of unaccountable, authoritarian institutions in our political system? Libertarian Socialism is not a contradiction in terms.

Libertarian applies to INDIVIDUAL freedoms and individual ownership. Individual liberty is the overriding principle. The well being of the members of society is secondary.

Anything involving group structures is going to be some form of socialism.

This is the old Ayn Rand libertarianism v. collectivism. The two are not always mutually exclusive. Say I load boxes onto a truck in a warehouse (one of my former jobs). Now let's say the warehouse is non-union therefore I am pretty much at the mercy of my boss, because as an individual I don't have much bargaining power-- he can fire me whenever he wants. Now let's say me and my coworkers get together and form a union. Now as an individual I have considerably more personal liberty and power on my job than I did before-- if my boss fucks with me, he has to deal with our union-- but this increase in individual liberty was only possible because of a collective act. The same goes with worker control of industry. In this case collectivism and individual liberty are not at odds. Well, maybe in the case of the individual liberty of the owner being curtailed, but the flip-side is the individual liberty of many workers and consumers will be enhanced through this collective organization.

Libertarian: east. Socialism West. You can't go east and west at the same time.

Increased collective action means less individual action. It requires the group impose actions or participation in activities on member of the group. Time where an individual is required to show up at a group meeting to do some kind of action is time that individual cannot choose to watch cable or go bowling. ANY required group activity reduces individual liberty.

Picket lines reduce a person's personal liberty to cross a picket line.

I personally have no problems with such such sacrifices, but you are not being honest with yourself if you refuse to admit this truth.

More group action = less personal liberty. That's a fact that all the spin in the world can't change.

Please answer this question: If I am in a union (a collective organization) do I or do I not have more individual liberty vis-a-vis my boss in the workplace? If so, wouldn't this increase in individual liberty trump any losses (at least on a day-to-day basis at work) that I may suffer in terms of collective responisbilty to my co-workers?

My disagreement isn't about whether or not collective action is good. It is. My disagreement is in the use of the term "libertarian" in it's description. It's definitely not moving toward more libertarianism to have more group action of any form.

than not having one. In fact, I feel freer with a shitty, corrupt, undemocratic union than without one at all. Anyway, gotta go Mouse. We can pick this up some other time.

You can feel what you want about it, but more group action cannot increase individual freedom. You're gonna confuse and turn off your allies by trying to force people to understand that you are advocating a form of libertarianism that has nothing remotely to do with libertarianism.

without one. I know you disagree, so let's close it by agreeing to disagree on this point.

on this subject, so I thought I would share it:

In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality.
Karl Marx

You can say... if you look from a completely different point of view, then you can define things a completely different way.

Pragmatically, very few people ever bother to ever think about anything in any viewpoint other than their own. Forcing people to completely change their point of view to understand the terminology you are using is a self-defeating behavior.

Just use terms everyone understands and agree on. It makes the work of generating understanding far less difficult.

Your thought is one dimensional while we are discussing a two dimensional topic. Along one axis think of the "economic" with "collectivism" on the Left and neo-liberal capitalism on the Right. On the other axis think of the "social" dimension with authoritarianism (fascism) at the top and libertarianism at the bottom. Visualize the four quadrants (refer to www.politicalcompass.org).

Occupying the extreme collectivist-authoritarian quadrant (upper left corner) are the 'vanguard party' communisms of Lenin and Mao. At the extreme collectivist-libertarian quadrant (lower left corner) are the anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists. The extreme neo-liberal/authoritarian quadrant (upper right corner) are the neo-conservative Strausserites. And at the extreme neo-liberal/libertarian quadrant (lower right) are the Ayn Rand social darwinist. (Bush, btw, occupies the upper right corner of the Strausserites whereas Kerry is nearly smack in the middle.)

Your claim seems to be that you cannot be libertarian and espouse collectivist solutions at the same time, but that's not true. You further appear to me to have muddled some thoughts about "liberty", so let me share my conceptions and see if it helps (I admit I am as lost as the next fellow!).

Liberty is a funny animal. We are all always and absolutely "free" – but freedom can be illusory. I am free, for example, to stand in the middle of the highway during the height of rush hour. But the freedom of others to drive home will quickly negate my freedom. On the other hand, I am free to drop a giant barricade up the road to secure my freedom to stand in the middle of the road. This "freedom", it turns out, appears to be a Schopenhaurean Will to Power and is the final adjudication of many competing freedoms. Thus one person's "liberty" can be another person's "tyranny". So something else needs to factor into the equation before "liberty" is a good in itself. What can that be?

It is in our mutual self-interest to come together and agree to exercise our freedoms cooperatively. Using the example above, we can agree to take turns. Perhaps tax ourselves to construct and install a traffic light that alternately stops traffic to allow pedestrians to cross the road and then stops pedestrians so traffic can freely flow. Such is the basis for the Liberal State. But as soon as the rights of one party asymmetrically supercede the rights of another, we introduce strife. For example, if drivers are allowed to speed through a red light without consequences if they feel they need to hurry. Pedestrians will plan sit-ins and obstruct traffic! Even throw rocks through windshields of passing cars! Revolution!!! Instead, to secure the highest liberty for all, a sense of justice and fairness must prevail. Otherwise the system will break down and instead open all up to possible dangers of tyranny. Equality, as in reciprocal fairness and justice for all, serves as the foundation of Liberty -- it is indeed the higher principle.

This, no Liberty without Equality, structures the coalitions and cooperation of those occupying the "libertarian socialist" quadrant of our two dimensional conception. Anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists occupy the most extreme corner of this quadrant, but so did men such as Ghandi and Nelson Mandela -- not a bad crowd to associate with! The Ayn Rand social darwinists instead value Liberty while ignoring Equality; and the Strausserites don't give a hoot about either, with predictable outcomes.

The choice is yours; I know clearly where I stand.

Considering definitions from the American Heritage Dictionary, we find:

LIBERTARIAN: one who believes in freedom of action and thought; one who believes in free will.

SOCIALISM: a social system in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods.

Just taking those two first definitions and fusing them yields:

LIBERTARIAN SOCIALISM: a social system which believes in freedom of action and thought and free will, in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods.

(Although we must add that our usual comments on the lack of political sophistication of dictionaries still holds. We only use these definitions to show that "libertarian" does not imply "free market" capitalism nor "socialism" state ownership. Other dictionaries, obviously, will have different definitions -- particularly for socialism. Those wanting to debate dictionary definitions are free to pursue this unending and politically useless hobby but we will not).

However, due to the creation of the Libertarian Party in the USA, many people now consider the idea of "libertarian socialism" to be a contradiction in terms. Indeed, many "Libertarians" think anarchists are just attempting to associate the "anti-libertarian" ideas of "socialism" (as Libertarians conceive it) with Libertarian ideology in order to make those "socialist" ideas more "acceptable" -- in other words, trying to steal the "libertarian" label from its rightful possessors. ......
Nothing could be further from the truth. Anarchists have been using the term "libertarian" to describe themselves and their ideas since the 1850's. The revolutionary anarchist Joseph Dejacque published Le Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement social in New York between 1858 and 1861 . According to anarchist historian Max Nettlau, the use of the term "libertarian communism" dates from November, 1880 when a French anarchist congress adopted it . The use of the term "Libertarian" by anarchists became more popular from the 1890s onward after it was used in France in an attempt to get round anti-anarchist laws and to avoid the negative associations of the word "anarchy" in the popular mind (Sebastien Faure and Louise Michel published the paper Le Libertaire -- The Libertarian -- in France in 1895, for example). Since then, particularly outside America, it has always been associated with anarchist ideas and movements. Taking a more recent example, in the USA, anarchists organised "The Libertarian League" in July 1954, which had staunch anarcho-syndicalist principles and lasted until 1965. The US-based "Libertarian" Party, on the other hand has only existed since the early 1970's, well over 100 years after anarchists first used the term to describe their political ideas (and 90 years after the expression "libertarian communism" was first adopted). It is that party, not the anarchists, who have "stolen" the word. Later, in Section B, we will discuss why the idea of a "libertarian" capitalism (as desired by the Libertarian Party) is a contradiction in terms.

As we will also explain in Section I, only a libertarian-socialist system of ownership can maximise individual freedom. Needless to say, state ownership -- what is commonly called "socialism" -- is, for anarchists, not socialism at all. In fact, as we will elaborate in Section H, state "socialism" is just a form of capitalism, with no socialist content whatever.
http://infoshop.org/faq/secA1.html#seca13

Thanks to a combination of addictive discussion and my supposed girlfriend flaking out on me tonight (I gotta break up with her-- cute but flaky), I've spent the whole night on this goddamn board. What a fucking loser. Well, I'm gonna exercise some self-control and go to bed, so goodnight CorpWhore, goodnight Jesus, goodnight Mouse.

and have sweet dreams of crushing capitalism

heres a good place to start http://infoshop.org/faq/secA1.html

just be

This is close to what they were talking about but on a national and worldwide scale. Not the whole solution but covers a good part of it.

http://www.prout.org/

I recommend starting with his overview of the various competing "socialisms" in the Manifesto.

Anarchism today has been so overtaken by lifestylism and silly trends like primitivism that it's difficult for me to take it seriously as a political movement.

are somewhat to steeped in european academia. And not enough in labor. I don't lean towards anarcho syndicalism, but somehow brining labor in is a must, but the eonomy must take first, as lenin believed, things must get worse in a country before they get better.

"Anarchism today has been so overtaken by lifestylism and silly trends like primitivism that it's difficult for me to take it seriously as a political movement."

A big Amen to that!

Anarchism and libertarian socialism are basically the same thing, so I'll try to give my perception of what it means. First, I'll start with an anarchist history lesson. Modern day anarchism basically started with Max Striner in the early 19th century. While he never used the word "anarchist" to describe himself, he was advocated liberation from the church and state. Striner would be called an individualist anarchist.

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon took it a step further, when, in 1840, he declared "Property is theft!" Later, in the same essay, he declares the "property is freedom." This apparent contradiction is explained when he differentiates between personal property and private property. Private property is capital which is used to amass profit. This is simply extortion, and is wrong. Personal property is something that you use on a regualar basis in your life. This is necessary for human hapiness. He argued for a society in which the means of production were publicly owned, but the amount those who used them would receive corresponded with how much work they put in.

Next, there is Mikhail Bakunin. He summed up anarchist/libertarian socialist philosiphy by saying that "we are convinced that freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice, and that socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality." He differed from Proudhon in arguing that all workers should receive the same pay. Bakunin was known as a harsh critic of Marx, and argued that the state would ruin socialism.

The next step in the evolution of anarchist thinking came with Peter Kropotkin. He was known mainly for debating Darwin's theory that progress came through competition, instead arguing that cooperation was the way to move forward. In his work The Conquest of Bread, he layed out a plan for an anarcho-communist society. He envisioned that workers would put in however much work they could, and that all products would be taken to public stores where people could take as much as they wanted or needed, regardless of their personal output. He was in direct opposition to any wage system. Kropotkin is also known for his work on Ethics and Morality, as well as his geological discoveries.

Kropotkin's ideas greatly influenced the anarchist pair Alexander Berkman and Emma Goldman. They, along with Voltairine de Clyre, Henry David Thoreau, and Ralph Waldo Emerson carried the ideas of anarchism over to the United States, where it played a huge part in the labor movement. Goldman was also a radical feminist, and served time in prison repeatedly for distributing birth control. Both her and Berkman were eventually deported to Russia, where they witnessed the revolution, the fallout, and eventually enough to realize that the Bolsheviks were not their allies.

May Day commemorates May 1, 1886, a day when a large group of activists, including hundreds, if not thousands of anarchists, demanded an 8 hour day. The cops open fired on the crowd, unprovoked, killed a person, and injured dozens more. The anarchists held a rally three days later to show their solidarity with their fallen comrades, and to take a stand against police oppression. Again, the cops showed up, and this time a bomb was thrown into their lines, killing seven police officers, and wounded countless more. It is unknown who threw the bomb, but 8 anarchists were put on trial, and seven of them were sentenced to death, despite the fact that what little evidence there was suggested overwhelmingly that they were not involved. Three of them were hanged, and one committed suicide before, on June 26th 1893 Governor Altgeld set them free. He made it clear he was not granting the pardon because he thought the men had suffered enough, but because they were innocent of the crime for which they had been tried. They and the hanged men had ben the victims of “hysteria, packed juries and a biased judge.”

Anarchism faded in and out of the world's political landscape from then on. It resurfaced later during the Mexican revolution, the great depression, the Spanish Revolution, the 60's and finally in the anti-globalization movement of today. Anarchism is a philosiphy based on freedom, and it will never go away. Wherever people realize their oppression, they will start looking for alternatives to the state.


****Here are some links for more on anarchism*****
www.infoshop.org
www.anarchyarchives.org
www.anarchistfaq.org