[ComradeTim]

A continuation of the debate in the "Are there any self-identified Libertarians left?"

[Truth To Power]

A continuation of the debate in the "Are there any self-identified Libertarians left?"

Maybe we need a definition of "libertarian" that allows us to understand what different people who consider themselves libertarian have in common. It's gotta have something to do with liberty, surely.

[Technology]

Is Libertarian Socialism Truly Libertarian?

I would say that is is, yes, because libertarianism only pertains to your primary concern being maximizing individual liberty. If your entire philosophy couches the fulfillment of liberty in the preconditions of some particular kind of economic structure that is socialist, it doesn't suddenly not become libertarian. Libertarian Socialism is where the word "libertarian" originates from, anyway, though I also believe right-libertarians to be libertarian by the reasoning I already gave.

There's no reason why philosophies can't have one thing in common in one sense (in this case: primary focus on expanding individual choice), and be utterly alienated from each other in every other sense (in this case: how to achieve it, what means are justified, property issues etc), to the point of war in practice.

Clearly there are breaking points to the concept of "libertarian", but I see these as being measured against the status quo (libertarians are trying to increase choice relative to the now). If you wanted to legally increase the number of restrictions on people in general compared to now, then you are not a libertarian.

However, revolutionary libertarianism seeks to use violence to overthrow the current order. Engels called this act authoritarian. He was right, but libertarianism (in any form) supposes to present a framework in which liberty is increased. If that framework is not yet extant and the current framework is defended by force (private property is), then force will be used to achieve the new framework. A society can be violently created or forcefully defended and still rest upon formal norms that increase liberty within the framework of that society. The trick is not to internalize the idea of force to achieve any odd outcome within society, as this could lead to a framework that decreases liberty, and if force is needed every day on the individual level to police a new framework by restricting choice, then this framework has defeated itself, lost its libertarian ends through the application of its means, and has become a totalitarian society.

Ron Paul libertarianism becomes an authoritarian state propped up by a Pinochet like character. Anarcho-capitalism becomes a full on corporate dictatorship. Anarcho-syndicalism becomes a fascist like National-Syndicalism. Anarcho-communism/collectivism becomes State Socialism. These are available failure modes.

[anticlimacus]

Not only yes, but it is the original kind of libertarianism. American libertarianism developed in the 40s and 50s stemming from Hayek and then Murray Rothbard and popular writers like Ayn Rand.

I understand libertarianism to be a political worldview that seeks to increase relations of autonomy and self-determination and deconstruct systems of authority, "liberty" here being conceptualized in terms of "autonomy" and "self-determination."

[Truth To Power]

I understand libertarianism to be a political worldview that seeks to increase relations of autonomy and self-determination and deconstruct systems of authority, "liberty" here being conceptualized in terms of "autonomy" and "self-determination."

But socialism rejects autonomy and self-determination in favor of group authority exercised by (nominally elected) Commissars, as Tim has explained.

Under the criterion of autonomy and self-determination, only the geolibertarian ideal makes the grade. Feudal libertarians like Rothbard and the Randroids remove autonomy by sanctioning appropriation of land as private property, enabling the enslavement of the population by landowners and (indirectly) capital-owning employers. We've seen how that one turns out.

Socialists remove autonomy by taking both land and capital under collective ownership, requiring obedience to the Commissars as a condition of access to the means of existence. We also know how that one turns out.

The geolibertarian system, by contrast, enables autonomy by ensuring everyone has free, secure access to enough of the available productive natural resources to provide for themselves, and then has the right to use what they produce as they will, for consumption, in further production and trade, or whatever. It also maximizes opportunity by requiring those who want to monopolize more than the basic quantum of resources to make just compensation to the community of those who are thus deprived of them, enabling the community to provide the public goods and services -- including security of rights -- that make using those natural resources more advantageous.

[Technology]

But socialism rejects autonomy and self-determination in favor of group authority exercised by (nominally elected) Commissars, as Tim has explained.

Comrade Tim is quite able to claim, in a libertarian manner, that the fulfillment of a needs based economy allows more autonomy and self-determination in every day life because such a socialist economic order would create the economic conditions that enable people to exercise more choice, and any other economic conditions will always fall short in practice. The authority of the boss and the material conditions of capitalist society constrain people's free expression in this view far more than any re-callable delegate directing within a system where everyone has their needs fulfilled.

Of course, I don't agree because I think that the integrated nature of a 100% public economy stifles aberrant intentions to a far greater degree than having free food and water gives them expression outside the constraints of survival, and having the collective vote on what my needs are isn't any more conducive to freedom, but that's a point of contention in terms of outcome, not in terms of philosophical devotion to autonomy and self-determination.

Additionally, "socialism" in general is kind of fluid in regards to what it collectivizes (it was much more various in the 19th Century before Marxism became dominant). It's quite possible to socialize all workplaces, but marketize all relations between workplaces, for example. This can be considered to be "free market socialism". No group authority over all aspects of production every (in order to plan needs and set quotas). Only the bosses authority in each workplace is replaced by the group authority of the respective workers, and all inside the framework of a state which could be variously liberal.

[anticlimacus]

But socialism rejects autonomy and self-determination in favor of group authority exercised by (nominally elected) Commissars, as Tim has explained.

I don't agree with Tim--and I don't think you should either. This is actually a very old debate going back, most famously, to Marx and Bakunin, where Marx felt that socialism must come about through a vanguard authoritarian revolution and Bakunin was a committed anarchist. Both, however, were socialists. The left libertarians, anarchists, hold the position that power ought to be decentralized. This goes both for social organization and for the workplace. Part of that decentralization is the socialization of the means of production so that all share in ownership of capital. Democratizing ownership of capital (which is socially produced in the first place and therefore should be socially owned) and democratizing the workplace in no way necessitates "group authority" or "commissars" as you have erroneously suggested. It's a cooperative system which allows individuals to equally share in public life and to realize their own individual potential.

From my perspective a federated system of syndicates within a market socialism is actually a realistic form of libertarianism that would do best in ensuring autonomy and self-determination (combining David Schweickart's "economic democracy" and Rudolph Rocker's "anarcho-syndicalism") . When you have no say over production and over your working life, you are controlled and your autonomy is greatly diminished. I don't see how "geolibertarianism" overcomes this.

[ComradeTim]

I will do a much longer reply when I have some time, but for the moment, can I just say that when I speak of "Commissars", I mean only democratically elected advisors to the Workers' counicils as was implemented in the Spanish Lib-Soc revolution to great effect.

Anti-climactus: What use is collectivising the means of production, if workplaces still engage in competition, which wastes resources and creates animosity. Would it not be better to have the delegates direct economy, increasing efficiency? A good example of this kind of thing during the Spanish Revolution would be the situations described here

[anticlimacus]

Anti-climactus: What use is collectivising the means of production, if workplaces still engage in competition, which wastes resources and creates animosity. Would it not be better to have the delegates direct economy, increasing efficiency? A good example of this kind of thing during the Spanish Revolution would be the situations described here

Sure, I think something like the Spanish anarchist revolution is possible--I make many references to it on PoFo. Although, we'd also have to keep in mind that was not an authoritarian regime, as Truth To Power was suggesting all socialist regimes become. Rather it was an anarchist revolution. And reading your post above, I think we are somewhat on the same page with that and Truth To Power just misunderstood you.

However, I don't think it is something quite realistic for a place like the US, or really most of the advanced capitalistic nations of the world today. There is much more mobility, and the economy is much more thoroughly globalized. On top of that the service sector in advanced capitalist nations have become the core of their economic production.

I don't necessarily see the cutthroat competition you envision simply by having markets, particularly if nobody is alienated from production. You also have to keep in mind that in a Federated system there can still be planning. For instance, I would assume that certain basic institutions, such as healthcare and education, would be guaranteed. Moreover there should be a commitment to full-employment and communal capital funds could be put towards those ends as well as investment in new syndicates, which individuals could apply for. In the workplace, however, there is no wage labor. Every member is a full voting member within a syndicate. In this system, in fact, competition exists but not nearly at the level of capitalist systems--neither is growth an endless monster that consumes all.

This, or something like it, seems to me to be one of the most conducive socialist prospects in advanced capitalist nations.

[ComradeTim]

Hmm. Our opinions seem practically the same, when it comes down to it. I do think you overstate the role of globalism however, (a much overstated phenomenon in our capitalism induced consumerist society) and the rise of the service sector, (which has only come about by the artificial degrading of secondary industry by liberal capitalist traitors and can be reversed by emphasising quality over mass production). I also don't see the need for marketising the relations between collectives, could you explain that?

[ingliz]

Every member is a full voting member within a syndicate.

Every member may have the vote but the average shop floor worker couldn't give a toss when it comes to managing the factory. From my experience working in heavy industry, all they want to do is get through the day, make their quota, get out, get paid at the end of the week and get pissed. Because nobody gives a shit your system will fall down and revert back to hierarchy.in practice.

Work for most people is just something you do so you can do something else.

[anticlimacus]

Work for most people is just something you do so you can do something else

I think you are absolutely right. From my perspective, an anarchist society (a libertarian socialist society) does not place work at the epicenter of existence. The capacity to exercise one's full potential--whether that be being with family or leading an artistic life--is central. To this end leisure is just as important as work. Cooperative enterprises only gives more people say about their working conditions, and therefore how much leisure, for instance, they should be afforded in relation to their work. Moreover, work is not cutthroat. Loss of work is not nearly as traumatic is in capitalist societies, and one is not threatened with poverty by it. Work thus become much less onerous on multiple levels.

I also don't see the need for marketising the relations between collectives, could you explain that?

I think there is something to be said for a little bit of competition and the general utility of money as a pricing mechanism: I buy what I am willing to pay for. So syndicates produce and put their products on the market. Capital is collectively controlled, but syndicates and production is controlled entirely by workers themselves who also buy and sell goods.

[ComradeTim]

Because nobody gives a shit your system will fall down

What an apt description of the end result of Marxism. Our system works and worked fine, which is why marxists feel they have to smash it.

[ingliz]

Our system works and worked fine,

Where and when?

[ComradeTim]

Where and when?

European Russia-1917, East Ukraine, 1917-20, Korea and Manchuria-1929-31, Spain (Catalonia, Aragon, Castile, Andalusia), 1936-38.

[ingliz]

European Russia-1917

No

East Ukraine, 1917-20

No

Korea and Manchuria-1929-31

No

Spain (Catalonia, Aragon, Castile, Andalusia), 1936-38

No

[ComradeTim]

European Russia-1917
No

East Ukraine, 1917-20
No

Korea and Manchuria-1929-31
No

Spain (Catalonia, Aragon, Castile, Andalusia), 1936-38
No

No.

[ingliz]

European Russia:

Russian Provisional Government

Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic

East Ukraine:

Ukrainian Soviet Republic

Odessa and Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Soviet Republics

Korea and Manchuria:

Protectorate of Japan

Spain (Catalonia, Aragon, Castile, Andalusia):

Second Spanish Republic


Try again.

[ComradeTim]

European Russia: Peasent and Worker controlled syndicalist system.

East Ukraine: Anarcho-Communist Free Terratory

Korea and Manchuria: Anarcho-Communist Free Territory

Spain: Anarcho-syndicalist Free Terratory

Please try to history.

[ingliz]

European Russia: Peasent and Worker controlled syndicalist system.

East Ukraine: Anarcho-Communist Free Terratory

No

Your geography needs work. Disregarding that small point, it is a strange anarchy when leaders in the Free Territory, rather than being elected democratically, were appointed by Makhno's military clique.

Korea and Manchuria: Anarcho-Communist Free Territory

No

Again, a strange anarchy. We would expect that the organisation would start at village level and then federate upwards. No, the EAPM appointed the staffs and appointed them from the top down.

Spain: Anarcho-syndicalist Free Terratory

No

Public records provide ample documentation of the Anarchist's collaboration with the central and regional governments throughout Spain.

works fine

"Lacking training in economic matters, the union leaders, with more good will than success, began to issue directives that spread confusion in the factory committees and enormous chaos in production. This was aggravated by the fact that each union... gave different and often contradictory instruction."

CNT member Albert Pérez-Baró