Lately I have been curious to know about libertarian socialism. The two terms seem to contradict each other, as I have absolutely no clue how a socialist society could exist without government coercion. The same goes for libertarian communism.
Could someone give me a simple breakdown of how this could possibly work?
stsoc:Being that you think that there are no correct meanings of words, and seem to think that it's ok to define words in any way one wants, firstly- I can't know what are you saying, you're typing symbols that are latin letters and are using their sequences that are words in english, but I can't know what you want to represent by them, but, if I do assume that in this case you use English as I and other people with common sense [sic] do, I don't have anything to talk about with someone with a different reality paradigm [sic], much like I have nothing to talk about with a racists who defines words "man" or "human" as encompassing only white race. When you come to some sort of realist view of language [sic], we can talk.
No one ever truly knows what someone else is saying, because he's not inside the other person's head. Aside from that, it seems to me like what you're really saying here is an elaborate version of "I don't talk to people who use certain words in ways I don't like". That's entirely up to you, of course, but it tells me that you're not interested in analyzing things logically.
Oh and could you please give me your definition of "hierarchy"? Thanks in advance.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Consumariat:Socialism doesn't mean 'sharing' everything like a big happy family of stoners, it is about holding to account those who wield power because of their ownership of the means of production.
That's an interesting definition of "socialism" you have. It's clearly different from e.g. the Marxian definition, wouldn't you say?
At any rate, what do you mean by "holding to account"?
Well that was a load of semantic vomit in my opinion.
I had an argument with a load of anarcho communist on reddit and they said that communism that we had in europe in the 20th century was not communism. This i would imagine is the same type of western academic distortions that you agree with.
The word libertarian is not used in europe to signify anarcho-communists. Anarcho communists is a contradiction so why would europeans be calling libertarians a contradiction in terms. If anyone realy knows what communism is, it is europeans that lived under it. Not some self righteous western academic with an iphone in his pocket.
Proudhon although invented the term did not invent the concept. The concept had obviously been around long before that. Proudhon also did not define it as no hierarchy but no authority or no rulers. Big difference, especially when you try and say that term anarchism is not compatible with capitalism due to this ridiculous notion that one man invented the concept of a society without hierarchy.
So you are saying that what people in history called socialism was not actually socialism it was "state-capitalism" (new term just heard first time) well actually what you described is known as fascism, another term which people are often confused about its definition. The idea that workers are "free" to organise according to collectivism and communism is a contradiction that is at the root of the non sequitur of the libertarian socialism misunderstanding. It is very easy to claim that you have the correct meaning of words but when history and millions of people lived under these systems with the same names, to be honest you look kind of foolish claiming a different definition.
Although I do personally hold the opinion that we lack the terminology in language to accurately discribe the modern day complex technological socio-economic systems. I am of the opinion that we do have socialism, fascism, capitalism, anarchism and so on all existing at the same time in modern day societies.
Problem with equating roomates sharing a bathroom is that there is far less people sharing that bathroom, and they are constantly with each other. How is this categorically similar to many people sharing one thing in communism.
Where do you get the idea that there would be many people sharing on thing in communism?
There is a difference between people working for a boss because both parties want this
When someone sells himself into slavery, according to Propertarians, he wanted that, being that he wasn't coerced by someone else's direct actions. Just like in socialism slavery would be banned no matter if someone would really happen to wanted to sell himself into slavery, likewise feudalism and capitalism would be banned no matter if someone would want to become a serf or an employee.
The problem with this is that it isn't clear how you are trying to categorize systems that have no master/no hiearchy, which is why Autolykos is asking you to define it. It might be better to instead categorize what is and isn't anarchy.
I have defined it. If you support hierarchy, you're not an anarchist. I'm pretty sure that's not why he's asking, I don't believe that there are capitalists that don't understand what hierarchy and the notion of boss are.
But, slavery and feudalism aren't things that, by definition, both parties choose to do voluntarily.
Maybe according to your redifinition of the terms. A slave is just a person that is being held as property by another person; and one can sell oneself into slavery, it is not necessary for coersion to be involved, likewise it was not necessary for a freeman to be forced into serfhood, any life shock situation could make him decide to bond himself to a feudalist.
The question is, what is the difference between capitalism and all these other ways of organization that you think are ok?
In capitalism there is hierarchial organization among people, and the workers don't get the full product of their labor, whereas in socialism these two traits are absent.
"I don't talk to people who use certain words in ways I don't like
I don't talk to people who use certain words in ways I don't.
If anyone realy knows what communism is, it is europeans that lived under it
I don't think anyone who lived in the Free Territory in todays Ukraine is alive, neither those who lived in Revolutionary Catalonia. Maybe we could ask the Zapatistas in today's Chiapas.
Proudhon although invented the term did not invent the concept. The concept had obviously been around long before that. Proudhon also did not define it as no hierarchy but no authority or no rulers.
Which is the same thing. No hierarchy means no boss, no subordination, in civic, economic, military or any organization of men.
So you are saying that what people in history called socialism was not actually socialism it was "state-capitalism" (new term just heard first time)
It maybe new to you. It has existed from when the Soviet Union abolished the worker and peasant councils ("soviets" in Russian) and established state control over the society, when the many who oppossed this authoritarianism used to the term to label system of nationalization- council communists, left communist (Worker's Opposition, Decists, some Menshevik), anarcho-communists, anarcho-collectivists, orthodox marxists (like Kautsky and SPGB), trudoviks, Esers, etc.
I lived in "communist" Yugoslavia (and I still live here, even though it's not called Yugoslavia any more), and there was here a movement called Praxis school, who were persecuted for saying that Yugoslavia is neither communist nor socialist, being that there is no full self-menagement by the workers, but party contol, and there was nationalization, as oppossed to socialization of property.
No it is not the same thing. You can have organisational structure without rulers manifesting in the society. As after all we are discussing societal wide socio-economic systems. Based on what you have said and my experience talking with people who speak like you do. You think that all employment is the same as slavery and that all bosses are slave masters. This is incorrect. When employment is not voluntary then it becomes slavery. They by definition can not be the same thing, as they are two different distinct terms. The very act of banning anything would require a ruler to enforce the ban. Unless you envision some kind of system that will uphold bans on capitalism (free trade) without a ruler. I would be interested to hear the logistics of that sort of system. How do you think that is possible without coercion and a state? The point being that anarcho-communism can not exist because communism in all its forms requires a state in order to enforce the ban on free trade and take over the economy and so on.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&complete=0&q=communism&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=WYl8UIeXKsrftAb96YBQ&ved=0CB4QkQ4&biw=1918&bih=1047
Communism is not known for "full self-management by the workers" and communism is not known for socialising property ownership. The way I always saw it is that communism was sold to the population on the basis of shared means of production and shared property ownership. It was meant to give power to the worker and improve their lives and so on. But was realy just way for the state to own everything and dictate to the population where they work, how much they earn and what property they can own. So realy communism as defined by the dictionary is exactly what they had in history when it was referred to as communism, it is just modern day academics like to try and perpetuate the myth of socialism because it is rooted in class based propaganda and anti-capitalism which realy resonates with a lot of people. (my own opinion)
So, according to your definition of "free", we are allowed to self-organize into mutualism, collectivism, and communism. I agree with this. However, and more importantly, we are disallowed from using our own capital (or, I suppose in your Utopia there's no property, so there's no capital?) to produce goods that others demand? How does the "collective" keep those greed wrought scoundrels in check?
Is there a justification for the use of the term 'state capitalism' that isn't based on weasely doublethink bullshit?
The nation state owns the capital.
stsoc:I don't talk to people who use certain words in ways I don't.
But apparently you do, because you're already talking to me.
Now then, could you please tell me what you mean by "hierarchy"?
No it is not the same thing. You can have organisational structure without rulers manifesting in the society.
I don't see the point of the word "manifesting". Does that mean that you mean a organisational structure that has rulers, but they are hidden? Organizational structure that has any sort of rulers is hierarchical.
Based on what you have said and my experience talking with people who speak like you do. You think that all employment is the same as slavery and that all bosses are slave masters.
Not the same, but similar.
This is incorrect. When employment is not voluntary then it becomes slavery.
Slavery can be voluntary, one can sell oneself into slavery (a state where a person is held as property by another person) without being coerced.
The very act of banning anything would require a ruler to enforce the ban.
No, it can be done by good organization, without any hierarchy.
I would be interested to hear the logistics of that sort of system. How do you think that is possible without coercion and a state?
Read about Revolutionary Catalonia, Free Territory, Zapatista Chiapas. Non hierarchical organizations are possible to be established on large scale.
The point being that anarcho-communism can not exist because communism in all its forms requires a state in order to enforce the ban on free trade and take over the economy and so on.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Communism is not known for "full self-management by the workers"
Socialism is defined by it, and communism is just a type of socialistic economic organization.
and communism is not known for socialising property ownership.
Socialization of property is basically done by establishing mutualism, and then people who don't want to operate using a market would (with their property) establish (Bakuninist) collectives [Moshav Shitufis and Parecon would be modern versions of that] or (Kropotkian) communes.
But was realy just way for the state to own everything
That's state socialism.
So, according to your definition of "free", we are allowed to self-organize into mutualism, collectivism, and communism. I agree with this. However, and more importantly, we are disallowed from using our own capital (or, I suppose in your Utopia there's no property, so there's no capital?) to produce goods that others demand?
Law will ban capitalism just like it now bans slavery and feudalism.
The point I am trying to make is that, for example, just because a business or many businesses have an organisational structure that includes bosses, does not mean that society has to have rulers. They are not mutually exclusive, you can have one without the other. Your argument was that you can not have anarchism and capitalism as capitalism requires hierarchy. While I do agree that capitalism would struggle without the use of organisational structures that included hierarchy. That hierarchy is internal to the organisation and does not inflict or force that hierarchy on to the population of the country. There is no reason that anarchism which is the absence of rulers (as in a political ruling class) could not exist at the same time that organisations within the same society have rulers for internal management of their organisation.
Ok, name me one example where someone voluntarily became the property of someone else. Sure it is technically possible, but very uncommon and unlikely. If someone voluntarily becomes a slave then they are a slave. The point was that if someone voluntarily enters employment then that is employment not slavery. When it is no longer voluntary then it becomes slavery. I did not say that if someone voluntarily becomes a slave they are not a slave.
Well from my perspective this is, how do i say this, wishful thinking. This completely ignore human nature and the fact that everyone is individuals. It would be pragmatically difficult to convince everyone that they should not engage in free trade. All it would do is create a black market, like that existed in the many attempts in history to ban capitalism.
I will read up on these thanks. An cap talks about the spontaneous order of things and how there is a natural order of the world and so on. This natural order is similar to the sort of "Non hierarchical organization" that you are referring to. But the spontaneous order does not account for convincing everyone to ban property ownership and free trade. That would obviously take mass propaganda and coercion because people are not going to give up the luxuries that the free market system can deliver and has delivered over a promise of shared means of production. What about the people that do not want to work or even want to work less and the many that want something for nothing. How does that fit in to the shared means of production? The very act of banning anything is coercive. You can not have a ban without coercion. You can not have coercion without hierarchy.
Please go do some reading on economics outside the socialist echo-chamber so you can get your head right. All this talk about bannind capitalism and establishing mutualism is fallacious on the most basic levels and you need to do your homework :\
I'm sorry to be dismissive and patronizing, but it's just so silly for someone to come to the Mises.org forums, decades, DECADES after socialism/communism's economic fallacies have been exposed and discarded the world 'round, yet you're still holding a candle for a failed ideology.
Here:
If you don't want to spend money and can stand to read ebooks, there's a number of ree econ books available on this very site in the literature section.
Here's the Mises article that destroyed the intellectual foudnation for communism as an economic system:
It seems to me that with all the preoccupation with equating capitalism to slavery, a system where you are stuck in a mutualist or collectivist society and punished for any steps out of line with that society seems...rather slave-like.
In a voluntaryist society, people would still be free to align themselves into either collectivism or mutualism. Unlike your Utopia, there would be no punishment for choice.
The point I am trying to make is that, for example, just because a business or many businesses have an organisational structure that includes bosses, does not mean that society has to have rulers.
Both are hierarchies. Anarachists are against all hierarchies. If you're ok with a hierarchy because people are not coerced into it, basically for any reason, you're not an anarchist.
Sure it is technically possible, but very uncommon and unlikely.
It was very common in ancient world and middle ages. And even if was uncommon and inlikely, it's possibility shows that slavery can be voluntary (according to the definition of not being directly coearced by someone).
The point was that if someone voluntarily enters employment then that is employment not slavery.
I didn't say it was.
Well from my perspective this is, how do i say this, wishful thinking.
Free Territory, Revolutionary Catalonia and Andalusia, Zapatista Chiapas.
This completely ignore human nature and the fact that everyone is individuals
Human customs and habits (being that there is no one fixed human nature in behavioral sense) can be reformed, and customs are always adhered to collectively.
It would be pragmatically difficult to convince everyone that they should not engage in free trade.
Who said that? I said a couple of times that IMO most economic activity in socialism will be conducted according to mutualism.
That would obviously take mass propaganda and coercion because people are not going to give up the luxuries that the free market system can deliver and has delivered over a promise of shared means of production.
It's not coercion when you expropriate illegitimate property, and also, as I already said- socialism will mostly function as a free market system (mutualism).
What about the people that do not want to work or even want to work less and the many that want something for nothing.
What about them?
The very act of banning anything is coercive.
Literally anything? Is banning coercion coercive?
decades, DECADES after socialism/communism's economic fallacies have been exposed.
Market capitalists alsmost exclusively wrote against state capitalism, not about socialism or communism.
And capitalism has been exposed and disprooved by socialist writers from before a century, also the writings of Rothbard and similar propertarians have been answered.
http://www.infoshop.org/AnAnarchistFAQ
That's like saying that not having the "freedom" to become a slave is slave-like. To ban types of organizations that limit people's freedom is not to limit people's freedom, it is the opposite, and to say so would be a contradition.
In a voluntaryist society, people would still be free to align themselves into either collectivism or mutualism.
Also into capitalism, feudalism or slavery. How appealing, a society that tolerates slavery.
Anarachists are against all hierarchies.
I have never seen anarchism defined as against all forms of organisational hierarchy. Hierarchy can make logistical sense and can be very pragmatic in its function. Anarchism even defined by marxists is "...against most forms of hierarchy, specifically political hierarchy, in the form of a government or ruling class". Not sure where you got that definition from.
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&complete=0&q=anarchism&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=tOJ9UMGuAcaC4gTRhYDIBQ&ved=0CB4QkQ4&biw=1918&bih=1047
But I also have to point out that not only do you get to define communism and socialism, which you agree with. You also think that you get to define anarchism which you do not agree with.
I can accept the whole "that [in history] was not real communism or real socialism" even though i don't agree with it. I contrast that to the similar way in which austrian economists say, "we don't have real capitalism". But can you accept that what we have today is not necessarily free market capitalism?
It was very common in ancient world and middle ages. And even if was uncommon and inlikely, it's possibility shows that slavery can be voluntary (according to the definition of not being directly coearced by someone). The point was that if someone voluntarily enters employment then that is employment not slavery. I didn't say it was.
Well you certainly implied that employment was slavery and when asked about it you did confirm it, but added an escape clause.
Just like in socialism slavery would be banned no matter if someone would really happen to wanted to sell himself into slavery, likewise feudalism and capitalism would be banned no matter if someone would want to become a serf or an employee.
I would just like to point out that i am not up for playing silly argumentative games. Don't make arguments then claim you didn't and don't make me re-quote what you said in order to prove what you said. Just a waste of my time. You also lack humility to concede any points. You just ignore those and pick out pointless anecdotes and create tangent arguments, without actually refuting the overall point. This method of picking single sentences out of context and arguing against it, is one of my major forum annoyances. If you have anything worth saying then it will be in more than a single silly sentence.
By "reformed" you mean convinced/manipulate via the means of propaganda and coercion? So Ill take that being we agree to disagree in that i think of human individuality and you think in terms of humans collectively.
aahh mutalism
Mutalism from what I can see is indistinguishable from marxism, they are just the same as your libertarian socialism and anarcho communism, just marxism rebranded. Unless you can show me otherwise ?
This is one of those silly one liners i was referring to. What do you think ?