[Rothbardian]

In this thread you are welcome to clearly and concisely state the principles of your ideology. There is so much complaining that those on 'the right' are not accurately portraying your ideals, and this is largely because you don't seem to take any consistent positions on anything.

So here you go. You don't have to explain why you hold the principles and positions you do nor why you feel they are correct. The only complication you may face is having your future arguments held against the principles you claim here. I'm sure this is of no consequence to you.

[anticlimacus]

There is so much complaining that those on 'the right' are not accurately portraying your ideals, and this is largely because you don't seem to take any consistent positions on anything.

Not quite sure where libertarian socialists have been inconsistent--or where they have been complaining, on PoFo.

As far as basic principles. Leftist anarchists are, at their core, anti-authoritarian. This means we are against centralization of power in the state and the economy, such as wage labor and private power over production. This makes leftists both anti-statists and anti-capitalist.

libertarian socialists advocate for the realization of self-determination of individuals and communities within all spheres of social life. This typically translates to seeking democratic participation in both political and economic life.

In terms of organization, this can be varied, but generally speaking, in addition to buttressing institutions that support deliberative democratic practice for public discourse over common socio-political norms and education, libertarian socialists seek a federation of co-ops and labor cartels for the coordination of production and trade.

[Rothbardian]

Not quite sure where libertarian socialists have been inconsistent--or where they have been complaining, on PoFo.

As far as basic principles. Leftist anarchists are, at their core, anti-authoritarian. This means we are against centralization of power in the state and the economy, such as wage labor and private power over production. This makes leftists both anti-statists and anti-capitalist.

libertarian socialists advocate for the realization of self-determination of individuals and communities within all spheres of social life. This typically translates to seeking democratic participation in both political and economic life.

In terms of organization, this can be varied, but generally speaking, in addition to buttressing institutions that support deliberative democratic practice for public discourse over common socio-political norms and education, libertarian socialists seek a federation of co-ops and labor cartels for the coordination of production and trade.

Thank you for your post but these aren't really principles.

prin·ci·ple
/ˈprinsəpəl/
Noun

A fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.

So left wingers are anti authority (I assume this is specific to government authority) and pro individual. What are the principles/truths/axioms that these conclusions (authority is bad, etc) are based on?

[Red Barn]

Anticlimacus has been kind enough to give you a very clear and well-written overview of Left Libertarianism, OP, but for some strange reason you seem to be (intentionally?) misreading it.

For instance:

As far as basic principles. Leftist anarchists are, at their core, anti-authoritarian. This means we are against centralization of power in the state and the economy, such as wage labor and private power over production. This makes leftists both anti-statists and anti-capitalist.


. . . libertarian socialists advocate for the realization of self-determination of individuals and communities within all spheres of social life. This typically translates to seeking democratic participation in both political and economic life.

. . . which you've restated as:

So left wingers are anti authority (I assume this is specific to government authority) and pro individual.

See what you've done there? You've stripped out everything that's communitarian and anti-capitalist in Comrade A's (very fine) synopsis, and replaced it with a description of your own position, which is quite different.



Now, how far do you really think you're going to get by making combative demands for information, and then pulling silly stunts like this when people actually take the time to respond?

Not far, I think, as this strategy is awfully transparent, and therefor unlikely to win you much good will.

[The Clockwork Rat]

Much the same as anticlimacus I guess, though perhaps less opposed to the use of force/power/violence in order to achieve those ends.

[anticlimacus]

So left wingers are anti authority (I assume this is specific to government authority) and pro individual.

As with Red Barn, I'm not sure how you reduced what I said to this. We are anti-authoritarian both in terms of state centralization of power and economic centralization of power, which for libertarian socialism means we reject both the state and capitalism. We are pro-individual, but not at the expense of the community. In other words we are not individualists. In fact, libertarian socialists tend to view individualization predicated on community--it is within the community that we are individuals. Thus, for instance, we can agree with the liberal Rawls, who is not an anarchist, with the basic liberties of free speech, freedom to vote and to participate in public decision making bodies, freedom of assembly, and freedom from arbitrary arrest; however, we would not agree with Rawls on an abstract original position for individuals to decide on justice within their own minds. Justice and the rules of society are to be decided through communal discourse, and some institutions need to be in place that allow for a fair and participatory deliberative democratic practice, and one of those means is the socialization of the means of production, as opposed to the institution of private property.

What are the principles/truths/axioms that these conclusions (authority is bad, etc) are based on?

I am not aware of any anarchist credo, except for a fundamental belief in the right for communities and individuals to self-determination, and that any form of force takes the burden of proof for justification. How one arrives at that position is their own prerogative. Libertarian socialists have a variety of philosophies behind their politics. Essentially we are eclectic.

I would say, however, that I don't think any anarchist would say "authority is bad". Authority is not always bad. Authority is a part of social life. What we reject as being anti-authoritarian, is the centralization of power which precludes the self-determination of individuals and communities by locating authority within the hands of a few who lord it over others.

[Eran]

You are using abstract terms such as "community". Where are its limits?

For example, I drive west and find a plot of unused land, where I build myself a home. To begin with, there is nobody living for miles around.

Next, some strangers I don't know decide to move within a couple of miles from my home, declare themselves a "community", and pass laws requiring me (as well as anybody else within a 10 mile radius) to pay taxes for the "public good".

Legitimate?

In other words, can people be forced into communities they don't want to belong to?

[anticlimacus]

In other words, can people be forced into communities they don't want to belong to?

No, and I don't think it is necessary. However, I think most people find themselves already in some form of communal existence. People depend on other people, and this is the case in the countryside just as it is in the cities, where the majority live. This was the case, for instance, in anarchist Spain, where syndicalism took place in countryside just as it did in the cities where there did not need to be a central organizing power in order to establish worker federations and communal boards and communication. These things developed spontaneously by the people themselves coming together, and this happened precisely because individuals already find themselves and identify with some form of communal existence. Peasants in the countryside formed their own communes just as did workers in the cities.

[Eran]

This is a critical issue for the difference between us.

I have no problem with voluntary communal organizations.

We will differ as to the legitimacy of a community using force to impose itself on unwilling individuals.



Another question regards the difference between personal property (which I assume you accept?) and private ownership of the means of production (which you explicitly reject).

How do you draw the line, given that a physical object can easily be either (or both)?

[anticlimacus]

This is a critical issue for the difference between us.

I have no problem with voluntary communal organizations.

We will differ as to the legitimacy of a community using force to impose itself on unwilling individuals.

We too seek voluntary communal organizations. However, where we differ is the conditions under which these voluntary organization develop. A system of private property, from the perspective of the libertarian socialist, fundamentally is at odds with any substantive meaning of "voluntary." It creates, in work, the drudgery and authoritarian relation of wage labor to capital, within the process of production it creates authoritative relations between workers, managers, capitalists, etc., and it finally creates a sharp division between those who control the means of production (and therefore also most of the social wealth and typically social power) and everybody else.

Another question regards the difference between personal property (which I assume you accept?) and private ownership of the means of production (which you explicitly reject).

How do you draw the line, given that a physical object can easily be either (or both)?

Private property, the means of production, which includes the vital resources of society--e.g. land, machinery, natural resources, medicine, etc--which can therefore be used to control others and command the labor of others is to be socialized. The products produced are to be the producer's products to appropriate. Society controls the means of production, individuals control, privately, the products produced.

[Eran]

The rhetoric argument against private ownership of the means of production often refers to monopolization of those resources.

Does your objection to such ownership extend even to scenarios in which access to the creation (or funding) of means of production is readily and easily available to all?

Do you really believe there is a difference, in principle, between being "forced" to work for a capitalist, and being forced to work for a huge syndicate in which you only have a negligible say (having one vote in thousands)?

Further, wouldn't you agree that any regime in which the ability to build a business is significantly and artificially limited would limit rather than extend the range of options available to workers?

Finally, you seem to assume that all wage labour involves "drudgery and authoritarian relations". What of the many examples of wage labour which involves neither? And what mechanisms would you propose to avoid a situation in which working for a communally-owned enterprise won't similarly involve "drudgery and authoritarian relations"?

[anticlimacus]

Does your objection to such ownership extend even to scenarios in which access to the creation (or funding) of means of production is readily and easily available to all?

I'm not sure what scenario this would be. But no. Our position is not that the means of production are easily and readily available for all to appropriate privately . Our position is that the means of production are available for all to be appropriated socially.

Do you really believe there is a difference, in principle, between being "forced" to work for a capitalist, and being forced to work for a huge syndicate in which you only have a negligible say (having one vote in thousands)?

Why would one be forced to work for a syndicate? For instance, if we look back at Spain nobody was forced to go back into the huge factories and work. The workers did it on their own volition and took control of the means of production within their cities and communities. As far as having negligible say--I don't think that it is necessarily fully accurate. Part of the idea of the syndicate is that individuals can have more say than a mere vote. They participate in meetings, in sub-groups if it is big enough, as well as participating in electing board members etc. They are not necessarily just given two options, both against their interest from the "powers that be". Additionally, in relation to other parts of society the factory does not get to do whatever it wants. It also works in coordination with other labor cartels and communal boards, all of which are deeply connected to communities so that social life can be as democratic and deliberative as possible, while at the same time attempting to be efficient.

Further, wouldn't you agree that any regime in which the ability to build a business is significantly and artificially limited would limit rather than extend the range of options available to workers?

No, not necessarily. I do agree that there needs to be motivation. However, I disagree that motivation needs to be in the sense of private gain of wealth with the social result of capital accumulation. I think that this is one of the aims of anarchism is to move towards meritocricy and diversity, without being cutthroat. You don't starve because you don't work, and work is not based on serving somebody else's quest for wealth, so that you can maintain subsistence. Work actually becomes something that people would own and claim for themselves--it becomes the real product of the producers.

Finally, you seem to assume that all wage labour involves "drudgery and authoritarian relations". What of the many examples of wage labour which involves neither? And what mechanisms would you propose to avoid a situation in which working for a communally-owned enterprise won't similarly involve "drudgery and authoritarian relations"?

I think for most it does lean towards drudgery and authoritarian relations. But certainly there are many exceptions. For instance, many professionals, say doctors who work for-profit-hospitals, find much meaning and importance and even ownership in their work (relatively speaking). Why is this? Well some (Harry Braverman) have argued that many professionals have been proletariatized, and to some extent this is true. But not entirely. I think professionals--and those who are able to hold what they would call "professional positions"--find much more meaning in their work because they are afforded more say and control over their work. They receive this because of their training and credentials, and are thus afforded more involvement and discretion and application of their own person into their toil. Their work is more their own. This is what syndicalism seeks to universalize in work. Not to make everybody professionals, that would be unrealistic. But to allow communities and workers to actually have meaningful participation in production and the functioning of their social life. There are many ways in which this can be accomplished, part if it includes socializing the means of production but other things as well such as seeking to eliminate poverty and ensuring certain basic social goods (food, housing, medicine, education, transportation), and other secondary goods and opportunities can be decided by the communities.

[Red Barn]

I think the thing I love most about your writing, Anticlimacus (and I do love it!) is that it's so clear, so straightforward, and so engagingly conversational. You obviously have theory absolutely nailed down, but you also know how to outline broad theoretical concepts in ways that just about anybody can relate to on a very personal, thoroughly workaday level.



I don't speak anywhere near as well as you do, but I have noticed a parallel phenomenon in real life. I've noticed that if, when talking about practical political ideas, I preface my remarks with any sort of indication that I'm talking about a "socialist" or "anarchist" worldview, then people will instantly brace themselves against whatever it is I'm going to say, and never really consider the content that follows.

On the other hand, if I never mention ideology at all, and just describe the everyday conditions that we aim to bring about, I get lots of nodding heads and "That's right!" "No kidding!" "Fuck yeah!" type remarks. I think that's because Left Libertarian ideas are actually extremely common-sensical, and correspond to ideals and projects that people already treasure in ordinary life, or understand to have existed in the past.

I mean, who doesn't hate taking orders from some clueless asshole with a Management degree? Who wouldn't rather have more say in how his department is run, or his town managed? Nobody likes feeling like a cog in somebody else's machine, and everybody thinks his own life is more interesting and important than what he's paid by the hour.



I think you should have your own TV show, Anticlimacus, and call it something like "Breakroom Chat" or "Have a Beer with Anti." I'm 100% positive you'd be a folk hero in no time.

[anticlimacus]

Thanks, Red Barn. Although, I think you articulate your position just as well, if not better than I do. Maybe we'll have to have a joint TV show

I don't speak anywhere near as well as you do, but I have noticed a parallel phenomenon in real life. I've noticed that if, when talking about practical political ideas, I preface my remarks with any sort of indication that I'm talking about a "socialist" or "anarchist" worldview, then people will instantly brace themselves against whatever it is I'm going to say, and never really consider the content that follows.

On the other hand, if I never mention ideology at all, and just describe the everyday conditions that we aim to bring about, I get lots of nodding heads and "That's right!" "No kidding!" "Fuck yeah!" type remarks. I think that's because Left Libertarian ideas are actually extremely common-sensical, and correspond to ideals and projects that people already treasure in ordinary life, or understand to have existed in the past.

This seems to be particularly the case in the US, where almost all political language is anti-socialist and within the bounds of capitalist organization. Even "libertarian" has a uniquely capitalistic spin in the US so much so that it is no longer a leftist ideology, unless it is qualified as libertarian socialist. And then people just look at you weird as if you've made a contradiction!

[The Clockwork Rat]

Could the predominance of libertarianism (especially in left-wing discourse) in the USA have anything to do with agriculture and large expanses of land with very low populations?

If you know what I mean then that's perhaps enough of a confirmation for me

[Donna]

I see a lot of potential in libertarianism as a millennial movement that will free up the global economy from the fetters of last century's failed social democratic experiments. In many ways libertarians today are being used by the ruling class in the same way the Left was used in the Sixties.

[The Clockwork Rat]

The question is, what happens afterwards? Is this the end of the spiral?

[Decky]

If it is the revolution then were are looking at the Russian civil war but on a global scale. Fun times.

[The Clockwork Rat]

Come on, we need a bit more enthusiasm than that Decky.

[Decky]

It's occurred to me that if one/ a few industrialised western countries go red and the rest don't then they can just starve us out and with the amount of food we import we wouldn't last a year.

Edit: wtf was that?