Libertarian Socialism?

Economics Economics Questions
21

I don’t find it fully satisfactory or convincing, but there’s an interesting essay from Rothbard (Left and Right) concerning this. He wrote that a key difference between the conservatives versus the classical liberals and the socialists that diverged from them, (which did not necessarily make these socialists polar opposites of the liberals on any kind of spectrum), was that while liberals sought liberal ends by liberal means, the socialists sought liberal ends by conservative means.

Conservatism is defined here in the historical context as one in favor of the absolutism, serfdom and hierarchy the old ruling class needed to retain power. It was a reactionary movement against the developments leading to the Industrial Revolution.

The socialists, like the liberals, accepted the new order of scientific progress, reason and advancement of the living standard of mankind as a whole (which the conservatives opposed), but unlike them, they embraced the State and the top-down organization that the conservatives favored, and opposed the revolutionary economic freedom and capitalism that was bitterly hated by the ruling class and that so utterly destroyed the Old Order of the conservatives.

They believed that taking control of the monopoly institutions, the power structure of the conservatives, with the right enlightened men in charge, would realize their liberal ends: the State can and ought to plan and organize society, if not realize that it is society and that society will inevitably reach an ideal state of social evolution (Social Darwinism).

The socialists then were the offspring of the liberals. It could be argued that among socialists there were left and right branches. Saint-Simon was among the right wing which was openly authoritarian and “a projection of conservatism trying to accept and dominate the new industrial civilization” in Rothbard’s words. See Bismarck.

Marx was representing the ‘libertarian left’ of the socialists, in that he sought a sort of third way where he believed the instruments of State power as they were understood (protection of the ruling class) could be used against itself and that the old order of economic exploitation would ‘wither away’. Yet the monopoly powers of the old power structure (economic planning) would be preserved under a new dictatorship of the proletariat in an interim phase as society ‘evolved’ into the final ideal stage of communism.

What defines the ‘left’ as we know it today then is its desire for liberal ends by enforcement of an aggressive monopoly. Their means for change and strategy to realize their liberal ends is essentially political, not economic. They want to change society by embracing and then transforming the power structure and the status quo.

22

For the ‘left’ to be defined as such, everyone identifying as a ‘leftist’ must have that desire, not all ‘leftists’ desire “liberal ends by enforcement of an aggressive monopoly”, therefore the ‘left’ can’t be defined as you propose.

23

I’m just attempting to summarize Rothbard’s conclusions from that essay.

I’m not agreeing with it completely, but I have yet to see any form of ‘left-anarchist’ syndicalism or mutualism that does not ultimately endorse an aggressive insitution to bring about their desired outcome.

The State is opposed, yet is to be replaced by what is essentially a new State. It just appears to be a fundamental contradiction, from my understanding of it.

Somebody here wrote that the difference is that while the an-caps or whomever tolerates socialist communities, the left anarchists cannot tolerate a capitalist one.

EDIT: The variety of ‘left-libertarian’ as used by Roderick Long et al does not fall under this critique to my knowledge.

24

Roderick Long identifies as a left-libertarian and is against all aggressive institutions. Mutualism, although I don’t know much about it, doesn’t seem to support any aggressive institutions either.

25

A mob taking over one’s factory or farm sounds aggressive, although I dont know if mobs are properly spoken of as institutions. Left libertarianism seems to be all about curbing rights over the means of production, as opposed to regular ol lefty obsession with personal wealth.

26

Don’t worry, the calculation and incentive problems mean there won’t be any wealth to be resentful about!

27

That’s Anarcho-Communism and Anarcho-Syndicalism. There are so many types that fall under left libertarianism you can’t really make any real generalizations about what means they support, or even their ends. Trying to define ‘left’ as “supporting aggressive institutions” still wouldn’t work, even if most of the left did, because everyone under the category of ‘left’ would have to “support aggressive institutions” for it to hold true, which all of them don’t. Defining ‘left’ as “supporting aggressive institutions” would be like me defining ‘people’ as jackasses, a lot of people are jackasses, but not all of them.

28

Libertarian socialism may sound like a contradiction when using terms in the meaning they don’t historically have and are not consistent with their original definitions. That is to say that hijacking and redefinition of certain term have happened.

There’s a reason why we socialists call stateless capitalists propertarian and “anarcho”-capitalist with quotemarks, and why we call most Marxists “socialists” or “communists” with quote marks.

First one to call himself libertarian was Joseph Dejacque, who used the word to signify that the idea he belonged to was the idea centered on freedom, and not the liberal one (because of the same reason socialist call modern “libertarians” - propertarians), and he was an anarcho-communist. In (continental) Europe, the word libertarian is used to this day to signify anarcho-communists, and their subtype anarcho-syndicalists.

Similarly with words anarchism and socialism. Anarchism simply means- the idea of no master, that is- of no hierarchy, as espoused by the first man who called himself an anarchist- Proudhon, so “anarcho-capitalist” is in fact a contradiction, being that capitalism is an economic system that has hierarchy in it. (Though I have to mention that there has been an extension of the meaning of the word by anarchists themselves, so anarchism is taken to signify a socialist who is for abolition of state, using it to establish socialism and against participating in official politics)

Socialism is defined by workers’ self-management (there being no boss), meaning that Bolshevik and similar ideologies are not socialist, but state capitalist (where a private boss is not absent, but replaced with state). Socialism is an economic system that is non-hierarchical, where workers are free to organize according to mutualism, collectivism or communism; so when using terms in their correct meaning, libertarian socialism is not a contradiction, but a pleonasm, being that libertarianism in it’s real meaning of anarcho-communism is just a type of socialism.

.

About coercion and aggression. Socialist have different view of what legitimate property is, so consequently, their views if something is aggression or not will differ from the propertarian views.

Among socialist there are basically three views, one is that there is no such as legitimate property, and that property or possition is a right given to you by society, and they are utilitarians, saying that it’s best that society organizes itself by the socialist view of property/ possessions because that it will, according to their views, bring more general well-being. I’d say this view is the most prevalent among socialists, but I myself am a deontologist, not a utilitarian.

The other two views are versions of the socialist view of Labor theory of property.

The first one is that property comes into being by labor, and legitimate property is created in things you made (and therefore not in areas of land, which are under the principle of “occupancy-and-use”) which you can then sell. They see it illegitimate to rent means of production, being that they are used for labor, and because labor is the root of property, renting means of production means denying the laborer the “full product of their labor” which is one of the main slogans of socialism. A simple explanation would be when accepting the principle that labor is central in acquiring property, socialist go on to say that you have to be the one doing the work, you can’t have the machines/ tools/ factories “do the work for you” when in fact, someone other is doing the work with those means of production. (This is the a somewhat rare view, held by some mutualists, some of whom are also known as “individualist anarchist”, the following view is much more prevalent)

The second one start with the same premise, but extends the principle of labor being needed to acquire property even further, making all rent (not just of means of production, but of everything) illegitimate, saying that all incomes must be labored for, and it’s not just that means of production can’t “do the work for you”, but also neither can money or houses, cars, and any other kind of property.

Whether a socialist is a mutualist, collectivist or communist is just a matter or organisational system preference, we are all socialists. E.g. I myself am a communist, and doesn’t mean that I’m against people organizing according to mutualism or collectivism, it means just that I think this type of organisation is the best/ I like it the most, and that in a socialist economy, I would join a Commune, not a Co-op or a Collective.

Hope this explanation helps to clear the views of (‘libertarian’) socialists.

29

Thank you for taking the time to explain all of that. Have you done any reading on why “propertarians” believe property to be necessary? If so what are your thoughts on it.

30

Yes, afaik, the explanation is- because scarcity (in a defintion of there not being unlimited everything) exists. But as I said, there are socialists who do accept property (in a very different definition then the capitalist one) as an ethical cathegory, me being one of them, even though I am for (voluntary) communism. The main socialist criticism of capitalism is that workers have their products of labor stolen in capitalism (actually any system where they have a boss), and when we talk about theft, we pressupose some form of property.

31

“Anarchism simply means- the idea of no master, that is- of no hierarchy, as espoused by the first man who called himself an anarchist- Proudhon, so “anarcho-capitalist” is in fact a contradiction, being that capitalism is an economic system that has hierarchy in it.”

The thing is, there is anarcho in anarcho-capitalist, as a rejection of state/involuntary hierarchy. The idea of no master is still there, but people are free to agree to form and break hierarchies with people contractually. The idea of no master for everyone is a self-contradiction unless arrived at by choice; by forcing people to have no master, you have become master over them. Anarchno-capitalists don’t seek to prevent all hierarchy.

Nitpick, but capitalism, freedom and free trade without government intervention, does not imply the existance of hierarchy unless people agree to it. Having some people with more wealth and others with less is not hierarchy.

“Socialism is defined by workers’ self-management (there being no boss) … Socialism is an economic system that is non-hierarchical, where workers are free to organize according to mutualism, collectivism or communism;”

This is a contradiction. Workers are free to organize, yet at the same time they can’t choose not to self-manage or have a boss. There must be a hiearchy if you want to prevent workers from choosing to have a boss, if only to require them to self-manage.

32

Scarcity is part of the reason. Under Anarcho-Communism the means of production is shared by a group of people, if I’m understanding it correctly, something that sounds fair. From my experience people aren’t good at both sharing and taking care of what is shared. The best example I can think of is public restrooms in most places, the other day I walked through the door only to be hit in the face with a terrible odor, after looking around it was clear why. There was (forgive the crude language) a huge piece of excrement laying beside one of the toilets. (I almost felt sorry for the person which it came out of.) While visiting people’s homes I have never seen something that bad. Yes, this is anecdotal evidence, but psychology has explained why people generally take poor care of things that aren’t theirs. Reason being the more people that uses a machine, room, etc., the less responsibility each person feels they have to take care of it. (A disturbing study shows that if a large group of people see someone being beaten, raped, or murdered the less likely any of them are to help, thinking that since others are around that someone else will help the person being victimized.) With this in mind one can easily come to the conclusion that a society where all of the means of production, are owned by all people, that the means of production will not be taken care of, because each person will feel little responsibility to do so.

There’s my two cents on the subject.

33

Are people free or not free to define words as they see fit?

There’s no such thing as a correct/real meaning of a word.

What do you mean by “hierarchy”?

34

Which is an example that doesn’t have anything to do with communism, being that people using a public restroom consider the restroom “someone else’s”, or simply state’s. Roomates sharing a bathroom would be a better example.

Meaning the “anarcho” part should not be there.

I didn’t say “workers are free to organize, period”. Workers are free to organize into mutualism, collectivism or communism. In socialism the workers are not “free” to organize into slavery, feudalism or capitalism.

35

stsoc, I’d appreciate a response to my post.

36

Under what definition of “free” is this possible?

37

As a former libertarian socialist, I may be able to help with an answer. The word “libertarian” was actually invented by socialists in the 19th century. This was because the word “anarchist” was outlawed from what I remember. But what would a libertarian socialist economy or society be like?

When I was an anarchist, I and my fellow revolutionaries envisioned a classless society where everyone had equal rights and equal opportunities. Socialism is an economic system that is, by definition, classless. This means that there is no capitalist class and no working class. The means of production are collectively owned, whether it’s by the workers, by a given municipality, or a given district. Everyone had equal say if they were equally affected by a decision-making process but how much you got to consume depended on how much of an effort you made in your workplace. In a socialist society, everyone has personal property in the sense of having clothes, food, personal belongings such as CDs, watches, and so forth. But no one had private productive property such as a way of acquiring wealth. Everyone was rewarded according to the work they peformed but no one made a profit. I was especially attracted to the idea that libetarian socialism was essentially an economic system based upon mutual aid and cooperation instead of predatory, cutthroat compeition that I associated with capitalism.

How is it libertarian? It is libertarian in the sense that there was no capitalist ruling class or state. The state, we believed, existed to protect the property of the capitalists who used such property to earn profits and acquire wealth. The state didn’t exist and so there was nothing to commit force against anyone and violate their personal property. Law enforcement still existed, though, to protect individuals against force or fraud by their coworkers or fellow citizens. But there was no state and no capitalists to acquire profits or use the state to protect their profits against theft, force, or fraud.

I was personally attracted to the “Participatory Economics” of Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel, although I liked the “Communalist” views of the late Murray Bookchin.

38

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 do, I don’t have anything to talk about with someone with a different reality paradigm, 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, we can talk.

Propertarians see capitalism as ok, some also thing the same about slavery.

39

“Which is an example that doesn’t have anything to do with communism, being that people using a public restroom consider the restroom “someone else’s”, or simply state’s. Roomates sharing a bathroom would be a better example.”

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.

Since we are talking about words, and arguing about semantics, time to dig out http://lesswrong.com/lw/od/37_ways_that_words_can_be_wrong/: 37 ways that words can be wrong.

“24. You have only one word, but there are two or more different things-in-reality, so that all the facts about them get dumped into a single undifferentiated mental bucket.”

There is a difference between people working for a boss because both parties want this, or because he has to since someone will physically attack him if he doesn’t. Similarly there is a difference between a society where aggressive violence is banned, or where boss-worker relationships are banned. Trying to lump both of these things into the same thing is really confusing. That is why we are trying to ask you to define how it is categorized.

“6. You try to define a word using words, in turn defined with ever-more-abstract words, without being able to point to an example.”

Look at your previous definition of anarchy, and anarchism:

“Similarly with words anarchism and socialism. Anarchism simply means- the idea of no master, that is- of no hierarchy, as espoused by the first man who called himself an anarchist- Proudhon, so “anarcho-capitalist” is in fact a contradiction, being that capitalism is an economic system that has hierarchy in it.”

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 use anarchy in the context of no publicly enforced government. Since almost every place has a government that forces people there to abide by laws unless they leave, I do not consider those places to be anarchistic. As Autolykos said, “What do you mean by “hiearchy”?”, if you define anarchy as no hiearchy?

“I didn’t say “workers are free to organize, period”. Workers are free to organize into mutualism, collectivism or communism. In socialism the workers are not “free” to organize into slavery, feudalism or capitalism.”

But, slavery and feudalism aren’t things that, by definition, both parties choose to do voluntarily. Anyways, we are at problem #6 again. Instead of listing off words, can you give a list of examples of organizations that would be permitted or forbidden then?

“Being that you think that there are no correct meanings of words”

“16. You think a word has a meaning, as a property of the word itself; rather than there being a label that your brain associates to a particular concept.”

There is no “correct” meaning of a word, they are merely labels. Of course, there might be generally accepted labels.

“seem to think that it’s ok to define words in any way one wants”

“37. You think that definitions can’t be “wrong”, or that “I can define a word any way I like!””

However, this does not follow from there can only be one meaning as the property of words itself. Its important to be clear but there isn’t necessarily a single, “correct” definition.

“Propertarians see capitalism as ok, some also thing the same about slavery.”

The question is, what is the difference between capitalism and all these other ways of organization that you think are ok?

40

This is true, actually. It just requires voluntary organization into these structures. So, the definition would be, under voluntarism.

Most of these structures are artificial and un-workable however and would quickly break-down without imposition from without and support by coercion, so we don’t expect they would last in a free society.