Talk:Libertarian socialism/Archive 1

AaronS 11/19/03:

Shouldn't it be made clearler that libertarian socialism is the more traditional form of anarchism (as opposed to anarcho-capitalism), and that terms like left-anarchism and socialist anarchism are used mainly by anarcho-capitalists, and are typically viewed as misnomers?

---

Congratulations on the new version, it's much tighter. But perhaps it could be expanded a bit on some issues, for example on why do anarchists oppose private property but not personal possesions, why do they oppose hierarchy, etc. Daniel

---

From Errico Malatesta:

...an Italian libertarian socialist (anarchist).

Should we do all the libertarian socialists like this, or what? Our options are:

1. libertarian socialist (anarchist)
2. libertarian socialist (aka anarchist)
3. anarchist (more accurately, libertarian socialist)
4. anarchist (link goes to libertarian socialism, but says "anarchist")

Ah, words. -- Sam Francis

I was thinking about this too. What I did for Chomsky was

anarchist (libertarian socialist)

I don't know if that's better than the ones above. I think that "anarchist" should definitely appear before "libertarian socialist" if that's what the person called themselves. DanKeshet

That's probably the best thing: put what they call themselves first. But then, the meaning of the word "anarchist" has changed since the time of many of these people. "Revolutionary Socialist" used to mean "anarchist."

Whichever describes them best should be the link, then, but what they called themselves should come first. But of course, some, like Mikhail Bakunin and Peter Kropotkin really should have a link to the anarchism page, regardless. -- Sam Francis

I've started using [[libertarian socialism|anarchist]]. For Kropotkin and the like I'm going to put see also: anarchism. -- Sam

Sounds good to me. Of course, everybody's welcome to question the organization of the pages into anarchism, l-s, a-c, etc. This is a scheme set before I did any serious work on the pages, but one that made sense to me. DanKeshet

Makes sense to me too. Not that I've ever bothered looking at anarcho-capitalism. --Sam

---

Some libertarian socialists say that theirs is an internally antagonistic philosophy, but that such antagonism is necessary to satisfy both the necessary liberty of the individual and the harmony of the society. Others feel that the two are symbiotic, and that the liberty of the individual guarantees the harmony of the society, and vice-versa.

Graft: Does this mean "Some libertarian socialists believe that individual liberties and societal harmonies are opposing goals that must be balanced, while some believe that they're symbiotic goals that promote one another"? (Not that this wording is better, I just want to rephrase what you said to make sure I understand.) DanKeshet

Yes, you got it. Graft

---

How about some pages on the history of anarchism in various countries/areas; eg. Cuba (see Cuban Anarchism), Africa (see African Anarchism), South Africa, Britain, Japan, the US, Mexico, Spain, France, Russia, etc.... (I'll find the online references for those books later.) -- Sam

---

Moved from anarchism page:

=== Libertarian socialism vs. Direct Democracy ===

what are the commons and the differences?

I hardly think this is an appropriate comparison: libertarian socialism is a tendency that might sometimes encompass direct democracy as an organizing principle (but not even that, necessarily). The two are, I think, orthogonal, not counterposed. Graft 18:02 Oct 16, 2002 (UTC)

---

What do people think about moving "libertarian socialism" to "anarcho-communism"? Personally I think libertarian socialism sounds pretty kludgy and unfamiliar, and the fact that it doesn't contain the word "anarchist" or some derivative is confusing. Furthermore I dislike "left anarchism" because it buys into left/right dichotomies that I don't think are appropriate for characterizing anarchism. So, I say we move this article to "anarcho-communism", where it will get more attention and love. Graft

How about anarchist communism, as Kropotkin would call it? I don't mind particularly; you might be right. Go for it if no one objects :) -- Sam

I only just noticed this: anarcho-communism. Somebody wrote an article on it. The only links to it are from talk pages. I think it needs to be merged into this article.

As for what to call this one: I agree that "libertarian socialism" is an awkward name, because it doesn't contain the word "anarchism", and time was that I argued for it to be moved myself. However, I get the impression that "libertarian socialism" is being increasingly widely used, to the point where it's more common than "anarcho-communism", "left-anarchism", or whatever (Google seems to back this up). That said, I wouldn't really oppose a page move. --Camembert

Suggestion: we improve this page first. The anarcho-communism page is, at present, a very philosophical view. It certainly needs to be integrated, but this page, I think, should be improved first; it needs the history and development of anarchist communism, the political and economic views, major works and movements -- along the way, that page can be integrated. Once we have a good, coherent article, we can change the name.

By the way, "anarchist communism" gets about 600 more google hits than "anarcho-communism", but "libertarian socialism" gets about 3,400 -- more than twice as much (actually, the 8th hit is this page). --Sam

Anyway, I vote for this article to be at anarchist communism or anarcho-communism -- Sam

---

Nice work, Graft. I think the most important thing to do now is elaborate on and clarify the parts of the word: Libertarian (or anarchist, anarcho-) is the political bit, and socialism (or communism) is the economic bit. We should make this clear, as I think these are the two central part sof the philosophy: as you've begun doing with the headings Anti-capitalism (economic) and Opposition to the state (political). I'll have a look and see what improvements I can do. I think this will be a very good page soon. -- Sam

---

this page seems to imply that anarchists are libertarians.

Only inasmuch as its title has the word "libertarian" in it, surely? There's nothing to suggest that in the article. "Libertarian socialism" does seem to be the most widely used term for this flavour of anarchism (see the discussion just above), and although it might be a little confusing at first, I don't see how anybody reading this article could go away with the impression that "libertarian socialists" are the same as "libertarians". --Camembert

Can we perhaps have at least an opening explanation which clarifies the difference between libertarians and libertarian socialists. All the libertarians I know are adamantly opposed to socialism and all the anarchists I know are adamantly opposed to libertarianism.

Yes, that might be a good idea. I won't write it just now (I'm rather tired), but will get round to it eventually if nobody else does (I hope somebody else does) - a sentence or two should do it. --Camembert

Done. Hope the beginning isn't too verbose. --Sam

The modern usage of libertarian to mean a particular brand of anarcho-capitalist is at odds with the historical tradition of libertarian meaning those who favor liberty - i.e., those who oppose government (restrictions on liberty). I usually distinguish these by calling modern libertarians big-L "Libertarians", and don't use the small-L "libertarian" because it is now too confused in meaning. I think we should avoid the use of "libertarian" and use "Libertarian" or "anarchist" where appropriate. Graft

---

Contrary to popular opinion, libertarian socialism has not traditionally been a utopian movement, tending to avoid dense theoretical analysis or prediction of what a future society would or should look like. The tradition instead has been that such decisions cannot be made now, and must be made through struggle and experimentation, so that the best solution can be arrived at democratically and organically, and to base the direction for struggle on established historical example (with some exceptions, notably Peter Kropotkin). As such, a common critique of anarchism has been that it lacks vision; anarchists would counter that this (i.e., exploration rather than predetermination) is one of its great strengths.

Can someone please explain/justify the highlighted comment above? --Sam

GE Bridger explained it rather well in his 1911 book, "It is not of concern to mesh out the legalistic details of what a future society must look like, we do not have time for such pedantic nonsense, rather we must simply plunge forward - come what may."

In essence, critics of anarchism will ask anarchists to submit a 10,000 page legal code explaining the function of their society and anarchists will avoid such dense theoretical anaylsis as such decisions cannot be made at this time, and it is best to simply trust and have faith in anarchism. Vera Cruz

Sorry, it's the bit about 'except Kropotkin' that I'm questioning. I know he set forward some more detailed visions in his books, but I'm pretty sure he also noted that we shouldn't set forward anything but suggestions for experimentation. -- Sam

I haven't read him in a while, so if that's the case you can ditch the "except Kropotkin", but I don't seem to remember him ever saying anything like that. John Henry McKay (who is not an anarcho-communist) characterizes him as strongly supportive of a planned society. Graft

I've removed the bracketed comment; the following is a quote from The Conquest of Bread, Chapter 6, where Kropotkin is talking of expropriation: "...We have no intention of tracing out the plans of expropriation in their smallest details. We know beforehand that all that any man, or group of men, could suggest today would be far surpassed by the reality when it comes. Man will accomplish greater things, and accomplish them better and by simpler methods than those dictated to him beforehand. Thus we shall merely indicate the manner by which expropriation might be accomplished...". -- Sam

---

libertarians are anarchist socialists? Vera Cruz

NO. "Socialist libertarian" is a name by which many Anarchists like to call themselves. It has nothing to do with "libertarian" at all. Specifically, Anarchists believe in "liberty", meaning absence of restriction, on behavior--but they also believe that the many should be free to sieze the assets of the few; i.e., they do not believe in private property. Libertarians assert that there is no "freedom" without the freedom to enjoy the fruit of one's labor unmolested. --Len.

---

..."Collective ownership of the means of production" applies to industrial settings, not to the workshop in your garage. (Jizzbug)

Wrong. As soon as your garage workshop exceeds a certain level of productivity, it is nationalized. Specifically, observe that you do not have the power to hire employees to work in your garage. (Len)

While there are authoritarian flavors of socialism that advocate imposing socialistic values by force, that by no means makes coercion a fundamental tenant of socialism in theory or anarchism in particular... (Jizzbug)

Wrong again: anarcho-socialism cannot exist without force. If force is not used, then I can set up a factory in my basement, sell the products, and hire workers. Boom! Ipso facto capitalism. Unless "the many" can take it away...or unless the workers can "fire me" by taking my house away and own the factory inside it...In short, anarcho-socialism must either tolerate capitalistic endeavors or it must suppress them forcibly. The nature of your quibble is only that the force is not necessarily directed from a central authority--in other words, it takes the form of mob rule.

The relevance to the article is the question which anarcho-socialists do not, but must, answer: HOW is ownership of the means of production made "public"? In other words, will capitalistic businesses be tolerated within an overall anarchistic society? (Cooperative business certainly are tolerated in a capitalist society.) If not, who will prevent them, and how? Who will seize new businesses? Etc. --Len

This exact debate is the subject of the book "The Anarchists" by John Henry McKay. Different people in the book take different stances, but McKay concludes that the true anarchist would take the stance that everyone is free to do as they like - if someone wishes to create a capitalist enclave within an anarchist society, this is entirely their choice. Anything else would not be compatible with anarchism.

Of course, given the choice, I highly doubt someone would choose to be a wage slave as opposed to participating in ownership of a factory. Especially if the majority of the people aren't using money or markets - you'd have a hard time getting people to accept your worthless currency in exchange for their labor. Graft

Please add to "the importance of force" section under "philosophy" arguments regarding the interaction/relation, if any, of anarcho-communism and force. If some people believe that anarcho-socialism cannot exist without force, then that's a point of view, and we want it in the article, attributed to those who hold that position, preferably with quotes and cites. If that assertion has been rebutted by anarcho-communist philosophers, that's also a matter of interest. -Martin

Note to graft: the comparison between "wage slave" is something of a false dichotomy. Would you rather be a peon in a highly successful company, or part owner of a company running in the red? Advocates of communal ownership of the means of production generally consider the benefits without considering the risks. (If my employer goes under, I go elsewhere while he starves.) --Len

You have a really peverted view of the world, Len. In the real world, the situation is almost exactly the opposite - employers rarely suffer shocks when companies fold, while employees must deal with the difficulties of finding employment without the benefit of a tremendous cushion of capital to tide them over in the meanwhile. Not to mention that employers rarely have their fingers in just one pie. Graft

You are obviously a college student. In the real world, son, employers often suffer shocks when their companies fold. (The vast majority do not run multi-million or -billion dollar companies, BTW.) My old boss is struggling to put food on the table since his company folded; I went on basically unscathed to a new position. My heart aches for him. Your idea of "employers" is straight out of Das Kapital, and bears little relation to the real world. --Len

Len, please take a look at this (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI4.html#seci412). I plan on elaborating the section on violence. Having read the frequently asked question at that link, do you have any further objections/ refutations? -- Sam

Danke. Note that I'm interested in framing the article (though I'm leery of actually touching the article itself), not in refuting anarcho-socialism. It is true that I consider the system to be thoroughly refuted, but I would like to see it make the best, clearest case it can for itself in the context of this article.

I know this, but I thought you might want to argue it out further here. -- Sam

Sam, the question whether forcible suppression of capitalism is necessary does not resolve into the question of which is more efficient. The argument can of course be made that management by committee is inherently less efficient than management by specialized experts--but that isn't the issue driving this question. The question is: Will capitalistic endeavors spring up naturally unless actively suppressed? The answer (POV) is yes, but the reason is not that capitalism is inherently more efficient: the reason is that individuals will continue to believe that they personally can do better by pursuing some individual endeavor--and some individuals indisputably can. So they will. Anarchism defines this as immoral (whereas libertarians define this as the engine of progress), and face the question: should it be suppressed? If the answer is no, then anarcho-socialists are fundamentally free-market libertarians with a personal preference for co-ops. If it is yes, then they are actually authoritarian socialists. (I am interested in pursuing this further, because I think it's relevant but I haven't the faintest how best to fold it into the article). --Len

I disagree with Sam (below). I would not consider most libertarian socialists to be "free market libertarians with a preference for co-ops". If you read the works describing participatory economics, a theoretical economic system currently popular with many libertarian socialists, it goes into great lengths about how markets themselves are undesirable and describing other methods of non-hierarchical exchange. DanKeshet

P.S. Also, please don't call anybody "son" as you called Graft above. It's highly condescending and offensive.

I don't feel particularly apologetic, under the circumstances: Mr. Graft allowed ideological generalities to drive the ridiculous conclusion that employers are unaffected by the failure of their ventures--which, to me, translates into the human terms of those employers I've watched lose everything. While innocent enough, the effect of Graft's naive views is highly offensive to ME. --Len

If that's how you want to look at it, then, yes, libertarian socialists are free market libertarians with a preference for co-ops. We advocate freedom, and we believe that that freedom would lead to people working cooperatively (not necessarily in cooperatives, but using cooperation as opposed to competition. I don't agree that capitalist enterprises will naturally spring up, and I have arguments to explain that view (though I haven't yet articulated them here!). -- Sam

No offense was meant, Sam. My point is this: if I'm allowed to build a workshop on land I own; hire people as long as they're willing, or hire out my services to anyone who wishes to buy them; sell my posessions or buy those of others, both parties being willing; give away my posessions both while living and at the time of death; then the system we're describing *is* capitalism. Nothing about capitalism forbids cooperative ownership if it is preferred.

But on the other hand: if my workshop can be taken away because it's too big; if I can't give my posessions to my heirs; if some posessions are deemed non-transferrable by law; if employing others' labor is outlawed; then we're describing an authoritarian economy--because somebody has to administer those restrictions, and oversee the use of things that individuals aren't allowed to own.

So if you really advocate capitalism, together with a belief that cooperative ownership is beneficial, then you might find that you are genuinely a free-market libertarian. Conversely, if you actually believe in certain forcible restrictions, like those mentioned above, then I think it's worth realizing that your philosophy inescapably implies the existence of a command structure--whether local or centralized--which overrides individual freedom. In short, socialism.

(Which raises the off-topic question whether anarcho-socialism actually exists, or whether it really is a variation of socialism whose adherents refuse to admit the role of command structure in their desired economic order.) --Len

I didn't take any offence, sorry if it came across that way! Don't worry, I think you'll find it difficult to offend me; it's not as if I haven't been through these arguments countless times...

You mention law and the basis of your arguments is on possessions. Neither of these exist in an anarchist society -- at least, not as we know them! Now, I think your view of this system is tainted by the fact that it has socialism in its title: as Kropotkin predicted in a letter to Lenin, authoritarian socialism has given socialism a bad name. You share a view of society with Milton Friedman, among many others. Please see User:Sam_Francis/Socialism.

Perhaps there's some insight I'm lacking, but I fail to see any possibility that the concept of "posessions" could disappear. That would mean that people actually stopped thinking in terms of meum and tuum--in other words, that they would stop wanting things. Only one person can wear a jacket at one time, so the act of posessing will persist, at least in the transient sense...but in your vision, nobody would ever say to another, "Hey, you're wearing my jacket!", or "Hey, you're eating my cake!" For this to happen would require a fundamental change in human nature. Do the anarchists have a secret which can turn everyone into monks (or at least ascetics), when 2,000 years of church effort could only draw a small minority to that viewpoint? --Len

As for possesions, this is addressed in the text of the article. Most anarchists draw a distinction between personal property ("my jacket") and shared, productive property ("this steel factory", "this 20-person farm"). Clearly, there are gray lines ("this fancy saw", "this little vegetable garden", etc.), but most anarchists don't address the gray areas in theory, preferring to leave it to the people involved to decide. (This too is addressed in the article, as theoretical vs. practical.)

This is the crux of the issue, Dan. If there is a line, over which my property ceases to be my property and is in some way withdrawn from my control, then we are actually looking at a command economy. Even if we could reset the clock at zero with nobody "owning" any real estate, for example, and all real-estate transfers forbidden, then we have a command economy: some person or group has authority, and hence ownership, of the real estate. No matter how you argue that that group is "everybody", eventually the situation crystalizes such that some subset has de facto control of that asset. Again, we are back to a command economy, or at least a multi-tiered society. The Spanish revolution illustrates this process very nicely. --Len

Also, I think it's wrong to think of libertarian socialism as an economic theory. It simply isn't one. There are economic theories (like participatory economics) that are more and less compatible with libertarian socialism, but there are many different ideas out there, and two people could agree that they're libertarian socialists but disagree on many fundamental questions of economics (like "Should there be prices?"). DanKeshet

No problem here. It is nevertheless a theory with economic implications, which are interesting in their own right. --Len

I did, in fact, start out as something of a free-market libertarian. I cherish liberty, and I want things to work so that human energy and resources are not wasted. But I saw what I gradually came to think was a better way to acheive that. And, like Tolkien, "[m]y political opinions lean more and more to anarchy..."

You are allowed to do whatever you want; whether people will help you do these things or not is another matter. I don't believe that people in this society would work for wages, no matter what you offer them. Why would they? Their needs would be met with minimum effort (after all, that is the first aim; to meet people's needs), they can do whatever kind of work they want. Everything is free. It might seem utopian, but, to be frank, I don't care. That it is utopian implies that it wouldn't 'work', but simply saying that is no argument that proves it wouldn't.

Your last point is certainly not off-topic on this page! We're talking about libertarian socialism, and your asing whether or not that can exist. Certainly an important point to consider.

Thanks for your time, Len, these discussions are definately providing raw material with which we can add to the article. -- Sam

Oh, and I'm pretty sure Kropotkin deals with this question too, somewhere in The Conquest of Bread, perhaps. -- Sam

Note that the FAQ to which you pointed me makes very painful reading: your movement would greatly benefit from a competent writer or two. --Len

I realise this; it is difficult to write an FAQ like that (which is what this is becoming). (But there are some great anarchist writers -- honest!) See me new comments on structure, below.

I've just been reading some of the problems that Len has had about Libertarian Socialism, and a question occured to me. Len seems to believe that force is required to acheive socialism. But what I don't understand is how, on a practical level, can you enforce private property "rights" without the use of force? For instance, if someone is farming a large enough area of land, they would require multiple workers to farm such land. If there is no government enforcement of property laws, what's to stop me from simply moving in to a bit of the land and start farming a portion of it myself, and how would you stop the workers from expecting that they get an equal share of the product? If you didn't give the workers what they diserved they would leave, and without property rights you couldn't possibly maintain the land yourself. On the other hand, if you were living in a particular house, why would I want to take it from you if I easily could obtain my own home. Human history has shown that Human greed only hungers for objects which are considered valuableas social status symbols. Who wants to collect as many limestone rocks as possible? Who wants as much gold as they can get? The only difference between the two is the rarity, and thus the value as percived by others. With a simple change in perspective, force is not required to maintain socialism.

---

Some thoughts: would it be better to have the history/development as a seperate part to the theory and philosophy? The two are intertwined, but there are advantages to seperating them. Following is an outline of the article as it stands.

• Introduction: disambiguation with other philosophies and basic tenets (possibly mention more famous figures and movements).
• Theory
  • Anti-capitalism
  • Opposition to state
  • Conflict with Marxism
• History
  • Pre-"anarchism" period (ancient and pre-19th century)
  • [What I've called] Anarchism: a new word -- 19th/20th century developments
  • Influence: anarchist movements and influence

The problem I'm considering is where to elaborate on the historic background. The 'conflict with Marxism' section is one place to put the relevant history of the First International etc, but it could, of course, become quite a lengthy section (we could get into Russia, Spain, Cuba...).

So: do we definately want a 'theory' section, which will describe the ideas or libertarian socialism, followed by a history section, which will describe the origins of those ideas? Or some other format? -- Sam

This article is quickly developing, with some good input. However, it will be very long, and quite possibly will never be complete. I suggest that once each significant section -- such as the one on violence -- is developed to essay length, it can be summarised here and have its own article (like anarchism and violence). These articles should be sort of capsules -- they will complement this article and make it more succint, but will be easily readable as articles on their own. -- Sam