Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Libertarian Socialism. Bollocks or What?

Baldy. As others have said Libertarian Socialism is a label that can be attached to anti-statist movements that grew out of the split between Marx and Bakunin in the First International. As long as socialism has existed there always has been a split between those who want to gain political power and change society through the state be it the existing states (in the case of old style social democrats) or creating a "workers state" in the case of stalinists, trotskyists, maoists et al. The difference is also one of tactics of how to rid the world of capitalism. Authoratarians believed it had to be done through a party that would be the vanguard (in Lenin's term) of the working class. The similarity all the authoratarian philosophies have is that they believe that the working class has to be led towards socialism by the enlightened few. Libertarians generally speaking, believe that capitalism can be destroyed by working class self activity and working class control of workplaces and communities through mass democracy. Authoratarians believe in the state running everything. A perfect example of this is the way the soviet state operated with the state running the economy and attempting to direct society as well. In the end the choice facing people is a simple one. Do you believe that working class people can liberate themselves or do you believe that they have to be led (by you).
 
ViolentPanda said:
IMHO it's the case that balders likes the idea of "top-down" rule, but wants people to love him too.
So he's invented his own definition of "authoritarian socialism" where he gets to tell people what's good for them, but won't take responsibility for it, hence the "I'm against top-down rule" line.
Basically he's trying to rewrite the dictionary definitions of both words to mean something they don't. :)

Aye, there is an inherent contradiction to his brand of socialism, yet he expects us all to take him seriously. :D
 
nino_savatte said:
Aye, there is an inherent contradiction to his brand of socialism, yet he expects us all to take him seriously. :D


Nino.. A contradiction in my Socialism eh....Crikey that would make me unique on the left.......
 
In Bloom said:
Quite.

You can only argue that socialism/communism are inherently authoritarian if you buy into the argument that the violence of the oppressor and the violence of the oppressed in resistance to oppression are morally equivalent. In which case, one has to wonder why you'd consider yourself a socialist at all, what with lacking a class analysis and all.


What i am arguing against is the idea that you can have Socialism without upsetting anyone..Decisions that will upset some people will have to be IMPOSED.
Socialism has to be authoritarian. Not is a shit stalinist way But Liberalism and Anarchism are not Socialism...It seems to me that people calling themselves Libertarian Socialists do so to distance themselves from the likes of the SWP and Stalinism.....
Socialism should be both very democratic and authoritarian. If the majority decision/view is not carried out....Its not really Socialism is it?
 
tbaldwin said:
What i am arguing against is the idea that you can have Socialism without upsetting anyone..Decisions that will upset some people will have to be IMPOSED.
Socialism has to be authoritarian. Not is a shit stalinist way But Liberalism and Anarchism are not Socialism...It seems to me that people calling themselves Libertarian Socialists do so to distance themselves from the likes of the SWP and Stalinism.....
Socialism should be both very democratic and authoritarian. If the majority decision/view is not carried out....Its not really Socialism is it?

I answered this waaay back in post 21.
As ever you are caricaturing people's politics and creating straw men.
The more serious point is that the last sentence appears to try and cover over one of the most elementary questions facing any democratic and socialist society - at what level and in what forms does democracy operate and at what level and on what matters does local automomy operate? Are all micro-decisions to be mandated from a national (international even?) level? (Despite not being anything other than 'formally' democratic, the centralisation and bureaucratisation of the former "socialist" states have something to tell us about excessive centralisation of decision making) Are you arguing for direct and participatory democracy or representative democracy? (It is argued by some on the left that the latter is nothing more than "bourgeois" democracy.) It is all very well to deal in broad brush "definitive statements" and caricatures, but reality and the real debate among socialists of different hues is something else. Take a look at the Spanish revolution and civil war for where these very questions above were thrown into the centre of the struggle - they taught harsh lessons about both authoritarianism and lack of co-ordination and unity. Neither authoritarians nor libertarians can be smug about those lessons.
 
greenman said:
Are you arguing for direct and participatory democracy or representative democracy? .


Crucial point here..Its for people as a whole to decide how Socialism and Democracy can best work.
Revolutionaries,Anarchos,Trots whatever want to impose there view of how both should work.....But we (er me) in the Tommy Baldwin is right about everything party. Want the people themselves to decide......
 
tbaldwin said:
What i am arguing against is the idea that you can have Socialism without upsetting anyone..Decisions that will upset some people will have to be IMPOSED.
me said:
You can only argue that socialism/communism are inherently authoritarian if you buy into the argument that the violence of the oppressor and the violence of the oppressed in resistance to oppression are morally equivalent. In which case, one has to wonder why you'd consider yourself a socialist at all, what with lacking a class analysis and all.
What can I say, I'm never wrong :p

Edit: If it makes you feel any better about getting owned like that, I did it with my 13,000th post. Go me!!!!11
 
tbaldwin said:
Crucial point here..Its for people as a whole to decide how Socialism and Democracy can best work.
Revolutionaries,Anarchos,Trots whatever want to impose there view of how both should work.....But we (er me) in the Tommy Baldwin is right about everything party. Want the people themselves to decide......
Don't you think 'persuade people' might be more accurate than 'impose their view'? Since there are a whole lot of paid crooks spending their time on conning the peasantry that 'democracy' means voting against taxes on the rich and 'socialism' means a sort of glum bossy madness, I think that your worries about these other groups are just a wee bit premature.
 
rhys gethin said:
Don't you think 'persuade people' might be more accurate than 'impose their view'? Since there are a whole lot of paid crooks spending their time on conning the peasantry that 'democracy' means voting against taxes on the rich and 'socialism' means a sort of glum bossy madness, I think that your worries about these other groups are just a wee bit premature.


Probably not....I think that Left groups by and large do want to impose there views...Just look at the lack of internal democracy in these groups over the years? Does anyone know how many groups came out of the SWP?
I can think of at least 4....

And its not just the organised groups but a load of people in the general pop..Possibly millions who believe in a kind of benevolent top down socialism....
 
A "benevolent" "authoritarian" socialism :confused:

Why do you think that the working class are always right, even if initiating a terroristic regime?
 
I see the role of those of us who believe in socialism as a matter of persuading through intelligent arguments rather than "imposing" beliefs through party structures. Benovelent top down socialism as you put it was what the labour left was all about and look what happened to them.
 
As I understood it, Socialism is about that we can do better. Not just shifting around oppression so that mmigrants are the one's that suffer the most. Starting from scratch, or something.
 
Hawkeye Pearce said:
I see the role of those of us who believe in socialism as a matter of persuading through intelligent arguments rather than "imposing" beliefs through party structures. Benovelent top down socialism as you put it was what the labour left was all about and look what happened to them.


But what they believed in was a lot less top down than what most revolutionaries anarchos and trots believe in...

Most of them actually wanted to win a majority for change at the ballot box.
The Revolutionary left decided that was irrelevant and that once there Vanguard had come to power the people would fall in line...
 
118118 said:
As I understood it, Socialism is about that we can do better. Not just shifting around oppression so that mmigrants are the one's that suffer the most. Starting from scratch, or something.

Nice arguement......Not sure who its with?
 
Erm, tbaldwin: How do you see this benevolent authoritarian socialism: like the USSR but less bureaucracy, or...
 
118118 said:
Erm, tbaldwin: How do you see this benevolent authoritarian socialism: like the USSR but less bureaucracy, or...


I think a lot of people want to think of themselves as basically good fair minded people......." Socialistic to a degree" But not really Socialist because they have been taught that the rabble.....The Sun and Mail readers are not really fit to be trusted........The country should be run by more educated people......People like themselves...........

A great man.....

Me i think it was,

once described these people as LIBERAL SUPREMACISTS(C)
 
I think that the rabble are definetly to be trusted. But couldn't you say that thats what libsoc is all about? But, I do have to say, that terror, is not nice, tbaldwin. And terror can be started by the people, I would have thought.

:)
 
118118 said:
I think that the rabble are definetly to be trusted. But couldn't you say that thats what libsoc is all about? But, I do have to say, that terror, is not nice, tbaldwin. And terror can be started by the people, I would have thought.

:)

OK....There are 2 paths to go down. You can either go down the path of putting your faith in the majority.......Sometimes that might not end up the way you/we would like or you can go down the other path.....putting your faith in clever people,experts,people who really care about things......
If you think politics is best left to the experts.....It might not always go the way you want either...

I prefer option 1....Socialism for everyone not just the clever people.....
 
I would not place my faith in the majority under any citcumstances :p

But then again, I am not an authoritarian socialist, either. You just seem to dislike swpers, dunno why that means your not a libertarian.
 
The Revolutionary left decided that was irrelevant and that once there Vanguard had come to power the people would fall in line..

True to a certain degree in regard to stalinist/maoist & trot organisations. But we anarchists don't believe in vanguards, its kind of the whole point of the anarchist philosophy that people don't need to be led. That people can organise society without a state directing them is a cornerstone of all anarchist beliefs. This means that libertarianism from my perspective means that people organise without hierarchy in as pure a democratic form as possible.

As for reformist socialism, it was less rabidly authoratarian that stalinism but was still inherently hierarchicial in its assumptions and believed that the working class needed to be led a belief that every labour leader shared, right down to tony blair.
 
greenman said:
This is one conception, (specific to its' historical period, before anyone suggests I am adhering to it as a programme!) from the Zabalaza site detailing the ideas of Abad De Santillan-
Two months before the Saragossa congress Diego Abad de Santillan had published a book, El Organismo Economico de la Revolucion (The Economic Organization of the Revolution). This outline of an economic structure drew a somewhat different inspiration from the Saragossa program.

Unlike many of his contemporaries, Santillan was not a rigid and sterile disciple of the great anarchists of the nineteenth century. He regretted that anarchist literature of the previous twenty-five or thirty years should have paid so little attention to the concrete problems of a new economy, and that it had not opened up original perspectives on the future. On the other hand, anarchism had produced a superabundance of works, in every language, going over and over an entirely abstract conception of liberty. Santillan compared this indigestible body of work with the reports presented to the national and international congresses of the First International, and the latter seemed to him the more brilliant for the comparison. He thought they had shown a very much better understanding of economic problems than had appeared in subsequent periods.

Santillan was not backward, but a true man of his times. He was aware that "the tremendous development of modern industry has created a whole series of new problems, which it was impossible to foresee at an earlier time." There is no question of going back to the Roman chariot or to primitive forms of artisan production. Economic insularity, a parochial way of thinking, the patria chica (little fatherland) dear to the hearts of rural Spaniards nostalgic for a golden age, the small-scale and medieval "free commune" of Kropotkin - all these must be relegated to a museum of antiquities. They are the vestiges of out-of-date communalist conceptions. No "free communes" can exist from the economic point of view: "Our ideal is the commune which is associated, federated, integrated into the total economy of the country, and of other countries in a state of revolution." To replace the single owner by a hydra-headed owner is not collectivism, is not self-management. The land, the factories, the mines, the means of transport are the product of the work of all and must be at the service of all. Nowadays the economy is neither local, nor even national, but world-wide. The characteristic feature of modern life is the cohesion of all the productive and distributive forces. "A socialized economy, directed and planned, is an imperative necessity and corresponds to the trend of development of the modern economic world."

Santillan foresaw the function of coordinating and planning as being carried out by a federal economic council, which would not be a political authority, but simply an organ of coordination, an economic and administrative regulator. Its directives would come from below, from the factory councils federated into trade union councils for different branches of industry, and into local economic councils. The federal council is thus at the receiving end of two chains of authority, one based on locality and the other on occupation. The organizations at the base provide it with statistics so that it will be aware of the real economic situation at any given moment. In this way it can spot major deficiencies, and determine the sectors in which new industries or crops are most urgently required. "The policemen will no longer be necessary when the supreme authority lies in figures and statistics." In such a system state coercion has no utility, is sterile, even impossible. The federal council sees to the propagation of new norms, the growth of interdependence between the regions and the formation of national solidarity. It stimulates research into new methods of work, new manufacturing processes, new agricultural techniques. It distributes labor from one region to another, from one branch of the economy to another.

There is no doubt that Santillan learned a great deal from the Russian Revolution. On the one hand, it taught him to beware of the danger of a resurgence of the state and bureaucratic apparatus; but, on the other, it taught him that a victorious revolution can not avoid passing through intermediate economic forms, [32] in which there survives for a time what Marx and Lenin call "bourgeois law." For instance, there could be no question of abolishing the banking and monetary system at one fell swoop. These institutions must be transformed and used as a temporary means of exchange to keep social life moving and prepare the way to new economic forms.

Santillan was to play an important part in the Spanish Revolution: he became, in turn, a member of the central committee of the anti-fascist militia (end of July 1936), a member of the Catalonian Economic Council (August 11), and Economics Minister of the Catalonian government (mid-December).

Fantastic Post: I never thought that I would learn anything of relevence on the Uk politics/current affairs site U75 but this was brilliant.
Just off to eat my hat!
Nice One
 
mk12 said:
tbaldwin: are we living in a socialist society now?


A good question mk. My answer is definetely NO.

We are living in a world where millions are still starving. In a country where millions of people are piss poor....
Inequality and Injustice plague both this country and the world..

Power and wealth lie in the hands of the few not the many.

Many people who think they are left wing....Argue that they have the right ideas how to change all this......But there top down Socialism or Anarchism is a dead end....The best idea is to argue for extending democracy into all areas of public life,nationally and internationally...

Its not true to say "voting never changed anything" but it hasnt changed enough...On major issues the masses are not in any sort of control, the judiciary for one.

Real Socialism is about transfering power from minorities to the majority and the majority of posters on urban75 are hostile to that in reality.
 
The problem with benevolent authority is that there is no guarantee on how long it will remain benevolent.

Liberty is sacred and its propagatation and retainment should be the primary objective of any real free government.

That kind of government based on laws protecting liberty a la constitutional republic would have to be backed by a real free economy without debt based currency creation and sensible use of trade barriers to foster local and national economies. The current system of "free trade" (piracy) and leaving money supply in the hands of aristocratic family dynasties are the causes of much of the worlds strife. Upon our heads it lies, our apathy has cost us not only our own nation (industry sold off, public services in disrepair, illegal wars, authoritarian laws etc.) but hundreds of millions of lives around the globe.

Rambling on about socialist government and mass dependence upon the state is ludicrous. We should be fighting for less and less power to the state, not an all encroaching welfare state, not the ability of government to force any changes it wishes upon the people.
There is also the founding principle of a new direction concerning the study of conciousness. If we cannot even understand what makes us be in the first place, how can we expect to build a better society?

That point is moot at the moment however, because erasing the power structure before us is a more pressing issue.
 
Back
Top Bottom