I know many here must despise this, but what are you opinions on it? Just looking for some insight.
Thanks!
Anything voluntary is fine, but then you run into the economic and societal issues of socialism and realize it can't be voluntary for long.
Socialism = any system which puts the collective before the individual. Contradictor b/c a collective is made of individuals.
Socialism has only caused statism. It's an economically and philosophically illiterate ideology.
These are more or less my thoughts on the matter.
If I had a cake and ate it, it can be concluded that I do not have it anymore. HHH
This theory is anti-statism. Libertarianism only means government here in America. So when I say the term "Libertarian Socialism" what I am saying is a stateless society that runs on no private property and has organizational structure.
What I don't understand from the concept is how the proponents of this theory wish to realize this ambition. Basically, how do they propose to enforce the abolition of private property on a large scale? It just doesn't come together.
I was tempted to say that it's a contradiction of terms, but I then realized that the term "liberatirianism" is, in itself, entirely meaningless. It's a buzzword.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
OldBenjaminNOMORE:Basically, how do they propose to enforce the abolition of private property on a large scale? It just doesn't come together.
Because ... forget logic. My body is my private property; at the ultimate, private property cannot be abolished without aggression.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxbeyn2xMQE
Esuric, It is not a contradictory term. Why do you consider "Libertarianism" to be meaningless? Around the world it is synonymous with Anarchism, not the Minarchism we know it to be associated with here in America.
Anyways, the link provided is Noam Chomsky's view on it.
Why do you consider "Libertarianism" to be meaningless? Around the world it is synonymous with Anarchism, not the Minarchism we know it to be associated with here in America.
Well that's precisely my point. Its meaning varies from individual to individual. The term is used to describe anti-market anarchists, syndicalists, anarcho-capitalists, minarchists (classical liberals), and even neo-cons in many cases.
Interesting viewpoint!
"What I don't understand from the concept is how the proponents of this theory wish to realize this ambition. Basically, how do they propose to enforce the abolition of private property on a large scale? It just doesn't come together."
This is why inevitably the refusal of anarchists on both sides of the table is the stupidest thing ever. Inevitably the only way to bring the theory to life is to have ideological support, and for this reasons both sides should be attempting merely to spread anarchism, and take control of the new worldview.
At any rate, the fact is that if the vast majority of people were against private property then steps would be taken to ensure that private property didn't exist. Indeed, it's far more believable than if someone, if you were in a neutral state, argued that people would accept not having access to huge amounts of both the means and the products of production, and allowed it to be controlled by the few instead of by "the community" then I think that you'd feel as though they were a little wack. The existence of private property at all is surprisingly paradoxical when we consider the communitarian nature of primitive man, although this can still describe much aout some of the reasons why states are so popular
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
Freedom4Me73986: Socialism = any system which puts the collective before the individual. Contradictor b/c a collective is made of individuals. Socialism has only caused statism. It's an economically and philosophically illiterate ideology.
No. This is fundamentally incorrect. Even capitalism puts the collective before the individual as I cannot use my justly gained property over a gun to shoot you with. (I know, the person shot is an individual too. The fact remains, without assuming non aggression as a right, that the shooter's individual desires are subsumed by collective stability).
Socialism categorized by the primacy of labor, an intrinsic function of humanity, which is social, ie, socialism. This is as opposed to capitalism, the primacy of capitl, or feudalism, the primacy of feudal land.
By this metric Capitalism has only caused statism. By this metric the only anarchistic ideology would be primitivism (hunter-gathererism).
Neodoxy: "What I don't understand from the concept is how the proponents of this theory wish to realize this ambition. Basically, how do they propose to enforce the abolition of private property on a large scale? It just doesn't come together." This is why inevitably the refusal of anarchists on both sides of the table is the stupidest thing ever. Inevitably the only way to bring the theory to life is to have ideological support, and for this reasons both sides should be attempting merely to spread anarchism, and take control of the new worldview. At any rate, the fact is that if the vast majority of people were against private property then steps would be taken to ensure that private property didn't exist. Indeed, it's far more believable than if someone, if you were in a neutral state, argued that people would accept not having access to huge amounts of both the means and the products of production, and allowed it to be controlled by the few instead of by "the community" then I think that you'd feel as though they were a little wack. The existence of private property at all is surprisingly paradoxical when we consider the communitarian nature of primitive man, although this can still describe much aout some of the reasons why states are so popular
At any rate, the fact is that if the vast majority of people were against private property then steps would be taken to ensure that private property didn't exist.
Those steps are taken, and will continue to be taken (necessarily) as long as the "worker" status remains in society. This is the basics of class struggle. Every time a union strikes, or some liberal tries to enact unemployment insurance, or worker's compensation, the 8hr workday, etc... every tme one of these happens it is an instance of people "taking steps to ensure private property doesn't exist" in its current sense. These steps are combatted at every turn by the ownership class, and its lackeys in the state (not to say workers dont have their lackeys too.. but come on..), and will continue to be as the interests of laborers and capitalist run directly opposed to each other.
Indeed, it's far more believable than if someone, argued that people would accept not having access to huge amounts of both the means and the products of production, and allowed it to be controlled by the few instead of by "the community" then I think that you'd feel as though they were a little wack
Yet feudalism persisted for a thousand years or more.
Socialism requires coercion. Hitlers socialism which is largely what we use in the west is incompatible with libertarianism.
During the 1920s, Hitler urged disparate Nazi factions to unite in opposition to "Jewish Marxism."[156] Hitler asserted that the "three vices" of "Jewish Marxism" were democracy, pacifism and internationalism.[157] Hitler believed that private ownership was useful in that it encouraged creative competition and technical innovation, but insisted that it had to conform to national interests and be "productive" rather than "parasitical".[158] In 1930, Hitler said: "Our adopted term ‘Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not."[159] In 1931, during a confidential interview with influential editor Richard Breiting of the Leipziger Neueste Nachrichten, a pro-business newspaper, Hitler said: I want everyone to keep what he has earned, subject to the principle that the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State ... The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners.[160] During the late 1930s and the 1940s, anti-communist regimes and groups that supported Nazism included the Falange in Spain; the Vichy regime and the 33rd Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS Charlemagne (1st French) in France; and the Cliveden Set, Lord Halifax, and associates of Neville Chamberlain in Britain.[161]
I take the stance that Einstein takes on intelligence, "if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it's going to look pretty stupid." I just try to approach things honestly. Whether I succeed at that is another matter, but I'm willing to admit my preconceived bias.
But I know when to take a compliment. Thank you kindly friend I must say that this site, as well, holds some of the finest minds amongst the right, imo... even if I vehemently disagree with much of your politics.
What constitutes a laborer is "subjective." What constitutes a worker, in marxist terms anyway, is a specific role of a person with nothing (or not anything of consequence) to offer the market but his labor; who is coerced, not by people, but by property, into a position of subservience based on nothing more than pieces of paper (titles and deeds).
If there is a position of alienation and exploitation between these classes, yes this is true. If different races just exist (in harmony so to speak) there is no dialectic, no struggle for dignity. Watch Undercover Boss sometime and see how happy it makes a worker when the CEO personally compliments them for a job well done. Dignity means worth, and without worth we are useless. I would be willing to make the claim that it is one of our prime motivations, in fact.
As a socialist, I am well aware of this
Yet, many of the lackeys for feudalism were serfs, merchants, and capitalists, and this did nothing to stop the collapse of the feudal system.
"What constitutes a laborer is "subjective." What constitutes a worker, in marxist terms anyway, is a specific role of a person with nothing (or not anything of consequence) to offer the market but his labor; who is coerced, not by people, but by property, into a position of subservience based on nothing more than pieces of paper (titles and deeds)."
This still need not result in any sort of conflict, and, if we entirely follow your definition then I might add that both the state and actually just about any other state of affairs could make one a laborer, although could you clarify what you mean by being coerced "not by people but by property".
"If there is a position of alienation and exploitation between these classes, yes this is true."
The very existence of differences leads to alienation, and exploitation is a one hundred percent subjective term. I could argue with a great deal of success that the relationship between men and women is inherently exploitative, but so what? It means nothing and results in no ultimate resolution. What matters is not the relationship itself, not the unchanging nature of the state of affairs, but of the changing aspects of it, and, fundumentally, how people percieve the realtionship.
"Dignity means worth, and without worth we are useless. I would be willing to make the claim that it is one of our prime motivations, in fact."
I wouldn't disagree with you, but I would argue that this has very limited implications from the political realm, and is certainly not necessarily anti-capitalism as such.
"As a socialist, I am well aware of this
Yet, many of the lackeys for feudalism were serfs, merchants, and capitalists, and this did nothing to stop the collapse of the feudal system."
But then doesn't this, at very least, prove that class struggle is not an inevitability? If large fractions of those defending capitalism are the main subjects of "exploitation", that class warfare is not necessarily part of the system, or if it is it is only because of the number of people in society?
To the OP: I would say LibSoc isn't far from the truth at least in terms of exploitation, but it often has problems in terms of economic organization (depending on the thinker who touts the position). But I do want to dispel some nonsensical claims that have been made so far. First, LibSoc is not some form of State Socialism, that notion has to go away before any discussion can continue. Second, some forms of LibSoc are compatible with Agorism, so in many ways one can make the argument Agorism is the most recent iteration of LibSoc for North America. Third, not all of LibSoc is Marxist in origin, in fact many parts pre-date Marx or were conceived by contemporaries.
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
This still need not result in any sort of conflict,
But it does. If we're assuming one is "owner" of the means to produce, and the other hired by him, we have to assume the "worker" will try to better his situation (as will the owner, or anyone for that matter). He may do this by trying to "change his stars." This would still be a class conflict, just with him trying to switch classes. More importantly are the situations where he tries to slack off, take days off, get a raise, better working conditions, less hours, etc. For the first few, his boss is obviously going to crack down, maybe even fire him. For the latter few, his boss will oppose as much as he can (because these cut into profits). The worker has two recourses. One, already mentioned, is to switch classes. Not everybody can do this, either through economic inability, or simply through his own innate functions and their inadequacy. So the other is to garner support amongst his fellow workers and bargain "collectively" against the capitalist (which, even if the boss supports their cause, it doesn't mean they will gain anything because the whole of society is under the coercion of capital). This can be done through strikes, etc. Or through full scale working class revolution.
and, if we entirely follow your definition then I might add that both the state and actually just about any other state of affairs could make one a laborer,
Yes, as long as the state exists, and claims a sort of "ownership" over "property" we're in a position of subservience and class conflict with it. This should come as no surprise on this website
although could you clarify what you mean by being coerced "not by people but by property".
I shall clarify; I did not mean to say that there is not personal coercion. Yes, sometimes bosses use state or hired thugs against their workers (sometimes the workers act like thugs to "scabs." I'm not here to promote workerism and apologize for the working class when they are in the wrong. Merely, I just recognize the antagonisms that lead to these things). Mostly it's just the property system itself. A property system means, regardless of who needs or wants what, this is mine and that yours (if you're lucky enough to have yours).
In a system of "mine and yours" it is only natural that we will both want to accumulate (meaning having things for the sake of having things, regardless of any need for them at the moment, or even a percieved need in the future). And this is, of course, what happens. But populations are not static. So we end up with, historically anyway (theoretically too, imo. Obviously some will disagree), a small "class" of owners, and a large "class" of non-owners." The non-owners possess no legal choice but to work "for" the owners, rather than work "with" them. They are coerced, ie dominated, more by the property system itself than the actual owners of the property.
The very existence of differences leads to alienation, and exploitation is a one hundred percent subjective term.
Exploitation is not a feeling someone has. Many serfs thought it their god-given duty to work for their masters. How the exploited feels about the exploiter confiscating his labor power is irrelevant. What matters is if someone is legally confiscating someone else's labor power. Ultimately, as socialists argue, if you grant access to production and consumption freely to all (at least within reason, this would take more elaboration), there can be no position of exploitation.
I could argue with a great deal of success that the relationship between men and women is inherently exploitative, but so what?
It's not inherently that way. It has been through much of history. That's why most socialists oppose patriarchy as much as capitalism.
It means nothing and results in no ultimate resolution. What matters is not the relationship itself, not the unchanging nature of the state of affairs, but of the changing aspects of it, and, fundumentally, how people percieve the realtionship.
Again, people's perception is irrelevant. Unless, of course, you're willing to say that a slave who enjoys the company of his master is not being exploited. If you are to argue this, I can make no critique; it means you're perfectly fine with serfdom and slavery, and I am not. We can only butt heads after this has been established.
Fair enough. I think the search for dignitiy is at the heart of politics, but ok
Peasant revolts happened constantly. It was only when merchant/capitalist revolts threatened the system that it finally fell. The existence of class struggle doesn't really define when things will reach their tipping point, just that at some point things must come to a head. This will result in either 1) total collapse of the system (think pre-columbian Maya) back to subsistence economy, 2) the putting down of revolt and a change to the status quo (think welfare capitalism and social democracy), or 3) the success of the revolt, and a fundamentally different new status quo (think the American and French revolts).