Libertarian Socialism is the future

“Whether the mask is labeled Fascism, Democracy, or Dictatorship or the Proletariat, our great adversary remains the Apparatus-the bureaucracy, the police, the military…. No matter what the circumstances, the worst betrayal will always be to subordinate ourselves to this Apparatus, and to trample underfoot, in its service, all human values in ourselves and in others.”– The French worker philosopher Simone Weil,1945
“People whose lives are barren and insecure seem to show a greater willingness to obey than people who are self-sufficient and self-confident. To the frustrated, freedom from responsibility is more attractive than freedom from restraint. They are eager to barter their independence for relief of the burdens of willing, deciding and being responsible for inevitable failure. They willingly abdicate the directing of their lives to those who want to plan, command and shoulder all responsibility.” ~Eric Hoffer ?The True Believer?

Left or Right political ideology is a bit of a distraction of the REAL POLITIC of LIBERTARIAN VS AUTHORITARIAN
Here’s a picture if it helps.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nolan-chart.svg
Libertarianism is a term used by a broad spectrum of political philosophies which seek to maximize individual liberty and minimize or even abolish the state.Libertarians embrace viewpoints across that spectrum ranging from pro-property to anti-property, from minimal government to openly anarchist.The word libertarian is an antonym of authoritarian
The term libertarian in a metaphysical or philosophical sense was first used by late-Enlightenment free-thinkers to refer to those who believed in free will, as opposed to determinism.Libertarianism in this sense is still encountered in metaphysics in discussions of free will. The first recorded use was in 1789 by William Belsham in a discussion of free will and in opposition to “necessitarian” (or determinist) views.Metaphysical and philosophical contrasts between philosophies of necessity and libertarianism continued in the early 19th century
The French communist-anarchist Joseph Déjacque was the first to employ the term libertarian in a political sense in May 1857, in an 11-page pamphlet De l’Etre Humain mâle et femelle (Concerning the Human Male and Female), an open letter criticizing Pierre-Joseph Proudhon published while its author was in exile in New Orleans. From 1858 until his return to France in 1861 Déjacque published in New York a journal called Le Libertaire: Journal du Mouvement Social. According to the anarchist historian Max Nettlau, the first use of the term libertarian communism was in November 1880, when a French anarchist congress employed it to more clearly identify its doctrines. The French anarchist journalist Sébastien Faure, later founder and editor of the four-volume Anarchist Encyclopedia, started the weekly paper Le Libertaire (The Libertarian) in 1895
Socialist anarchists like Noam Chomsky, Colin Ward and others indicate that most of the world uses the term libertarianism as a synonym for socialist anarchism; it is in the United States that it now refers predominately to the “free market” position.
Due to the creation of the Libertarian Party in the USA, many people now consider the idea of “libertarian socialism” to be a contradiction in terms. Indeed, many “Libertarians” think anarchists are just attempting to associate the “anti-libertarian” ideas of “socialism” (as Libertarians conceive it) with Libertarian ideology in order to make those “socialist” ideas more “acceptable” — in other words, trying to steal the “libertarian” label from its rightful possessors.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Anarchists have been using the term “libertarian” to describe themselves and their ideas since the 1850s. The revolutionary anarchist Joseph Dejacque published Le Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement social in New York between 1858 and 1861 Max Nettlau, A Short History of Anarchism, p. 75]. According to anarchist historian Max Nettlau, the use of the term “libertarian communism” dates from November, 1880 when a French anarchist congress adopted it [Ibid., p. 145]. The use of the term “Libertarian” by anarchists became more popular from the 1890s onward after it was used in France in an attempt to get around anti-anarchist laws and to avoid the negative associations of the word “anarchy” in the popular mind (Sebastien Faure and Louise Michel published the paper Le Libertaire — The Libertarian — in France in 1895, for example). Since then, particularly outside USA, it has always been associated with anarchist ideas and movements. Taking a more recent example, in the USA, anarchists organised “The Libertarian League” in July 1954, which had staunch anarcho-syndicalist principles and lasted until 1965. The US-based “Libertarian” Party, on the other hand has only existed since the early 1970s, well over 100 years after anarchists first used the term to describe their political ideas (and 90 years after the expression “libertarian communism” was first adopted). It is that party, not the anarchists, who have “stolen” the word
Given the anarchist pedigree of the word “libertarian,” few anarchists are happy to see it stolen by an ideology which shares little with our ideas. In the United States, as Murray Bookchin noted, the “term ‘libertarian’ itself, to be sure, raises a problem, notably, the specious identification of an anti-authoritarian ideology with a straggling movement for ‘pure capitalism’ and ‘free trade.’ This movement never created the word: it appropriated it from the anarchist movement of the [nineteenth] century. And it should be recovered by those anti-authoritarians . . . who try to speak for dominated people as a whole, not for personal egotists who identify freedom with entrepreneurship and profit.” Thus anarchists in America should “restore in practice a tradition that has been denatured by” the free-market right. [The Modern Crisis, pp. 154-5] And as we do that, we will continue to call our ideas libertarian socialism
Libertarian Socialism is an anti-authoritarian form of socialism and the main principles are liberty, freedom, the right for workers to fraternize and organise democratically, the absence of illegitimate authority and the resistance against force. Libertarian Socialists hold that the people can make the best judgments for themselves when given enough information and therefore stress education rather than regulation. In current society, the individual worker is separated from her or his fellow workers and not permitted to organise against his or her own exploitation… the state is the force which permits this lack of freedom to continue.
Alex Jones and Ron Paul are NOT LIBERTARIANS they are Objectivists with Austrian free market economics welded on! This philosophy is self defeating.
WHY LIBERTARIAN SOCIALISM?
Well “Free market” libertarianism ,or Ayn Rand Objectivism ,is doomed to failure as much as state socialism/capitalism. Why , well if you understand free market economics its a boom and bust economy.After a couple of cycles of boom and bust all the resourses are back in the hands of a select few and dictarorship is just around the corner ,libertarian or not!!! All you free market libertarians should read Karl Marx’s “the Capital” or “Das Capital” for a complete understanding of this.
FYI Marx just like Adam Smith was a LIBERTARIAN ,Marx was only trying to show where capitalism had FAILED to achieve its target of a LIBERTARIAN MERITOCRACY!
Adam Smith believed that the “state” was the invisible hand ,or a trade and standards commision to ensure fair and equal trade and that is ALL.
Marx believed in a society without a state, or a state that immediately withers away to leave a libertarian society.
Libertarian socialism aims to create a society in which all violent or coercive institutions would be dissolved, and in their place every person would have free, equal access to tools of information and production, or a society in which such coercive institutions and hierarchies were drastically reduced in scope.
This equality and freedom would be achieved through the abolition of authoritarian institutions such as an individual’s right to own resourses(including the state) ,in order that direct control of the means of production and resources will be gained by the working class and society as a whole.
Libertarian socialism aims to create a society in which all violent or coercive institutions would be dissolved, and in their place every person would have free, equal access to tools of information and production, or a society in which such coercive institutions and hierarchies were drastically reduced in scope.
This equality and freedom would be achieved through the abolition of authoritarian institutions such as an individual’s right to own resourses ,in order that direct control of the means of production and resources will be gained by the working class and society as a whole.
Political philosophies commonly described as libertarian socialist include: most varieties of anarchism (especially anarchist communism, anarchist collectivism, anarcho-syndicalism), social ecology, libertarian municipalism, and council communism
Left-libertarianism is usually regarded as doctrine that has an egalitarian view concerning natural resources, believing that it is not legitimate for someone to claim private ownership of resources to the detriment of others.
Only a libertarian-socialist system of ownership can maximise individual freedom. Needless to say, state ownership — what is commonly called “socialism” — is, for anarchists, not socialism at all. In fact,state “socialism” is just a form of capitalism, with no socialist content whatever. As Rudolf Rocker noted, for anarchists, socialism is “not a simple question of a full belly, but a question of culture that would have to enlist the sense of personality and the free initiative of the individual; without freedom it would lead only to a dismal state capitalism which would sacrifice all individual thought and feeling to a fictitious collective interest.” [quoted by Colin Ward, “Introduction”, Rudolf Rocker, The London Years, p. 1]
Anarchism has historically gained more support and influence in Spain than anywhere else, especially before Francisco Franco’s victory in the Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939.
There were several variants of anarchism in Spain: the peasant anarchism in the countryside of Andalusia; urban anarcho-syndicalism in Catalonia, particularly its capital Barcelona; and what is sometimes called “pure” anarchism in other cities such as Zaragoza. However, these were complementary trajectories, and shared a great deal of ideological similarities.
Early on, the success of the anarchist movement was sporadic. Anarchists would organize a strike and ranks would swell. Usually, repression by police reduced the numbers again, but at the same time further radicalized many members.
In the 20th century, this violence began to fade, and the movement gained speed with the rise of anarcho-syndicalism and the creation of the huge libertarian trade union, the CNT. General strikes became common, and large portions of the Spanish working class adopted anarchist ideas. The FAI was created as a purely anarchist association, with the intention of keeping the CNT focused on the principles of anarchism.
Anarchists played a central role in the fight against Franco during the Spanish Civil War. At the same time, a far-reaching social revolution spread throughout Spain, where land and factories were collectivized and controlled by the workers. All remaining social reforms ended in 1939 with the victory of Franco, who had thousands of anarchists executed. Resistance to his rule never entirely died, with resilient militants participating in acts of sabotage and other direct action after the war, and making several attempts on the ruler’s life.
Their legacy remains important to this day, particularly to anarchists who look at their achievements as a historical precedent of anarchism’s validity.
Today it continues to be validated!
After the non-violent collapse of the Argentinean government in 2001/2002, the social and economic organization of Argentina has undergone major changes, though how important these changes are remains to be seen. Worker occupations of factories and popular assemblies have both been seen functioning in Argentina, and both are the kind of action endorsed by anarchists: the first is a case of direct action and the latter a case of direct democracy. An alternate description by the CIA of present-day Argentinean politics is available here.[5] Approximately 200 “recovered” factories (fábricas recuperadas) are now self-managed and collectively owned by workers. In the large majority of them, pay is completely egalitarian; generally no professional managers are employed, or managers are collectively controlled in the other cases. These co-operatives have organised themselves into networks. Solidarity and support from external groups such as neighborhood assemblies and unemployed (piquetero) groups have often been important for the survival of these factories. Similar developments have taken place in Brazil and Uruguay.[6] In 2004, Avi Lewis and Naomi Klein (author of No Logo) released the documentary The Take, which is about these events.
Free Software Movement
The Free Software movement is an example of anarchist characteristics. The nature of the GPL which is the most widely used Free Software license in the world and most all Open Source licenses is such that there is a collective sharing of resources (in this case, source code) between all developers, thus putting into practice the theories behind social anarchists’ perspective on private property and economic organization.
For a complete history of anarchist influence ,here is the link.
http://eng.anarchopedia.org/history_of_anarchism
http://anarchopedia.org/Main_Page
MARX AND LENIN UNDERSTOOD THIS!! THAT WHY THEY ARE LIBERTARIAN SOCIALISTS!!!
“The proletariat needs the state—this is repeated by all the opportunists, social-chauvinists and Kautskyists, who assure us that this is what Marx taught. They ‘forget’ however, to add that, in the first place, the proletariat, according to Marx, needs only a state which is withering away, i.e. a state which is so constituted that it begins to wither away immediately, and cannot but wither away;
“The state is a special organisation of force; it is the organisation of violence for the suppression of some class. What class must the proletariat suppress? Naturally, the exploiting class only, i.e. the bourgeoisie.”
Lenin
While the State exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no State.
Lenin (1870 – 1924), “State and Revolution”, 1919
Socialism needs no state
Stalinism cannot show a single line in Lenin which would justify the rejection of the Marxist theory of the withering away of the state. Just the contrary. Lenin’s little masterpiece State and Revolution categorically refutes this revisionism. The argument that a strong state is necessary because of the danger of intervention from without, is palpably false. If socialism really had been achieved in the Soviet Union, there could be no question of intervention on the part of the capitalist world. On the contrary, the capitalists would be powerless economically, militarily and politically in the face of a socialist society. This would be because socialism would achieve such an enormous development of the productive forces that America’s vast productive facilities would seem puny by comparison.
Such a system, far from requiring an enormously strengthened state, as Lenin taught in the above mentioned work, would need no state at all. The necessity of the state does not arise from the danger of military intervention—but from the inequalities within society, and to regulate the antagonisms that arise from these inequalities. Lenin called the state a capitalist survival. Far from seeing the need for a constant strengthening of the state and of the army, Marx and Lenin expounded the idea of the “armed people” replacing the standing army, pouring scorn on the opportunists and the Mensheviks who argued the need for a military caste and a civil bureaucracy standing above the people.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/ …aleksandrov.htm
IF YOU BELIEVE IN STATE SOCIALISM CALL YOURSELF A STALINIST!
The break with Lenin’s internationalism led to the theory of “Socialism in one country.” This in its turn has led now to the open break with Marxism on the question of the state.
A significant speech was delivered by Gregori Aleksandrov at the Lenin memorial meeting in Moscow. Aleksandrov is the chief of the Propaganda Department of the Central Committee of the Russian Communist (Stalinist) Party. Present at his speech were the elite of the bureaucracy and all the members of the Political Bureau.
In this speech he openly proclaimed a revision of the fundamental doctrines of Marxism-Leninism on the state.
“Theories developed by Marx in the middle of the nineteenth century could not be accepted unchanged by Lenin. Lenin developed the idea that Marxists could not regard the theory of Marx as inviolable, and that that theory must constantly absorb the new experience of history and exert a transforming influence on the development of society. He accurately foresaw that the forces of reaction abroad would attempt to destroy the Socialist Soviet Union.
“The establishment of a powerful and flourishing Socialist land had been possible only, the speaker explained, because the theory of building a Socialist society in a single country was put into effect. There were two aspects of this policy. There were internal obstacles to be swept away and dangers from abroad to be met. Today there was no force within the Soviet Union capable of preventing the further development of Socialism and its gradual transition to Communism. Vigilance against attack from without had necessitated the rejection of the Marxist theory of the withering away of the State, based on the assumption of international Socialism and the adoption of the Stalin theory of building a strong State with a powerful army and its own military science capable of winning in war and achieving the military and diplomatic consolidation of victory.” (The Times, February 1st, 1946).
State capitalism, for Marxists and heterodox economists is a way to describe a society wherein the productive forces are owned and run by the state in a capitalist way, even if such a state calls itself socialist.Within Marxist literature, state capitalism is usually defined in this sense: as a social system combining capitalism — the wage system of producing and appropriating surplus value — with ownership or control by a state apparatus. By that definition, a state capitalist country is one where the government controls the economy and essentially acts like a single giant corporation. There are various theories and critiques of state capitalism, some of which have been around since the October Revolution or even before. The common themes among them are to identify that the workers do not meaningfully control the means of production and that commodity relations and production for profit still occur within state capitalism.
The term itself was in use within the socialist movement from the late nineteenth century onwards. Wilhelm Liebknecht in 1896 said: “Nobody has combatted State Socialism more than we German Socialists; nobody has shown more distinctively than I, that State Socialism is really State capitalism!”
It has been suggested that the concept of state capitalism can be traced back to Mikhail Bakunin’s critique within the First International of the potential for state exploitation under Marxism, or to Jan Waclav Machajski’s argument in The Intellectual Worker (1905) that socialism was a movement of the intelligentsia as a class, leading to a new type of society he called state capitalism.
BUT….
Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.
Benito Mussolini, fascist dictator of Italy (1922-1943)
SO
You have nothing to loose but your chains
nothing to fear but fear itself.
If you can imagine morality without god, then why not society without government?
We defy the laws of gods, but respect the laws of men?!?!
We are free right now, its just the state that keeps telling you ,you are not! …and you should know the state LIES by now!
How does a government reduce crime?
How does passing a LAW reduce crime?
It can ONLY create a NEW criminal class and thus create MORE CRIME!!!
Its a LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS ,the more you impose law ,the more you accelerate chaos!
Iraq and Afghanistan are good example of law being imposed, NOT ANARCHY!!!
Ignore this at your peril!!!
Power corrupts and attracts the corrupt ,it is doomed to failure.
Law is stagnation
ALL HAIL DISCORDIA

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: