Forum Post: Why LIBERTARIAN SOCIALISM is the best way to organize society
Posted 11 years ago on Sept. 10, 2012, 11:55 a.m. EST by struggleforfreedom80
(6584)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Libertarian Socialism is logical and just.
Libertarian Socialism, aka Anarchism, is just a logical and reasonable way to organize society. It is the ideas of Libertarian Socialism that we must base the new and sustainable society (which must be established at some point in the future) on.
Let’s look at some of the core principles of Anarchism/Libertarian Socialism:
- Building democracy from below.
That means a society where people have a right to a democratic say in the things they’re a part of and affected by, and that this democratic say is proportional to how much one is affected and part of things. And since the workplace and the community in which we live in is what we’re most involved in, and spend most of our time and energy, it logically follows that democracy should be organized from below thru democratically run workplaces and communities, cooperating in networks with other communities.
- Focusing on both collective, as well as individual rights.
Meaning that individuals should be free to do what they want as long as they don’t harm others, but at the same time, when people organize and do things together, focus on the collective deciding things together based on consensus and democratic process.
- Seeking to dismantle all illegitimate hierarchies and tyrannical systems.
That means opposing, not just state tyranny, but also private tyranny – capitalism and the concentration of private power and domination.
Anarchism doesn’t mean ”chaos” or ”lawlessness” or other such nonsense; that’s just propaganda. The word Anarchism actually means ”without rulers” and is about creating a highly organized society in which individuals have a right to participate in their community and workplace.
It’s about dismantling the hierarchical structures which allow some individuals to control and dominate others, and replacing them with an egalitarian, solidaric society where all individuals are in control of their own lives.
This is just common sense if you think about it. There shouldn’t be anything controversial about this. These are perfectly reasonable and logical ideas.
The only reasonable thing to do is working to create a free, just, solidaric and sustainable participatory democracy where the people are in control.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxYth0ktPsY&feature=plcp
A classless, egalitarian organization creates a better society.
By creating a classless, egalitarian society, all the people will have lots of freedoms and possibilities in their lives. People will be able to enjoy the benefits that exist in a modern technological society. It would be a society with good and decent social safety nets and workers' rights. People would feel less insecure and stressed; no one would fear losing their home income and possessions etc. Poverty would cease to exist, causing much less crime, conflict and violence. Consumerism and the hunt for profit would be replaced by solidarity and cooperation. People wouldn’t be treated like cogs in a machine, but could instead live out their true potential based on their own creative wants and capacity.
In a wealthy, modern society we should organize it so that everyone can have a decent life.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu8J_UKKa-c
Libertarian Socialism is about creating REAL freedom.
Right-wingers, republicans, people like Paul Ryan, Ron Paul and others, all advocate a society which in reality would lead to a more corporate-run society. They want to privatize more services and give HUGE tax cuts to the wealthy and the huge corporations. And then they claim that their policies would lead to more freedom.
Well, they’re way off. The non-elected financial elite - the wealthy and the huge corporations - getting more power over the economy and our workplaces has nothing to do with freedom in my opinion. The financial elite will get more freedom, that’s true, but they’ll get it on the expense of others. The workers, the students, the senior citizens, most of the population in fact, will get their freedoms infringed because of these policies.
The way I see it true freedom is:
True freedom is one that does not infringe the freedom of others.
The Revolution Starts Now, people!
Thinking maybe I would try living in a place that is like what you write about. I have many difficulties living in this world of capitalistic values. I'm thinking you have several posts that are well written.
Perhaps I have a new article in mind to add to your discussion of abolishing capitalism. I write from a point of view of someone that knows both innocence and corruption. I have traveled and seen poor people in foreign countries. I have read about how the USA has played a Malignant part in the History of the Carribean, Central America, and South America.
All of us have been corrupted by:
1) Advertising
2) Politics
3) Patriarchy
4) Politics of Control by Historical US Barons such as a) Beef ranchers b) Rail Roads c) Petroleum d) Transportation e) News Papers f) Telephones & Cable & Internet g) Insurance h) MSM i) Mining j) Big Pharma k) Big 3 Autos l) Wall Street banking (the Money Trust) m) Text Book Publisher n) US Military o) Microsoft and etcetera .... 5) There are many Control Accounting Frauds, banking scandals, Insider Trading, Stock Trading, and Ponzi schemes.
6) Dot Com Scandal should be in a category of it's own.
7) Sub-Prime Mortagage has it's own category.
8) Shadow Banking has it's own category.
9) 2008 FInancial Scandal is Prime.
10) Global Trade, Slave Labor, Child Labor, Off Shoring, Offshore Banking.
11) Banana Wars, Use of US Military for Corporations.
12) Vietnam, Panama, Gulf War, Iraqi War, Afghanistan War = They could never hurt us or attack us....
13) Not reporting the Refugees, Allied Death & Wounded, and US Wounded in Iraq & Afghanistan.
14) Passing Propaganda to support US Global War on Terrorism as patriotic and justified.
15) Worst: US 2 Party Politics with the Lies, Propaganda, and Violence against underclass, poor, or the disenfranchised.
Glad you like my posts, thanks.
You mention lots of things that are important to focus on ending. These are the results of having huge tyrannical institutions with enormous power in the world, only thinking profits and short term gain. If we don't end this current economic system we'll be heading towards enormous destruction.
perhaps social democracy
Not as a long term goal. But socal democracy is definitely better than the US capitalist system f.ex. I actually live in a country very much based on these ideas: Norway. I wrote an an article about Norway some time ago if you're interested:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/welfare-and-workers-rights-in-norway/
wow, I've been thinking today about living in another country like Nicaragua, Ecuador, india, panama, Malaysia. Maybe India for instance would have much to teach about democracy or government programs... not clear if an English speaker would really have access to the news or political moves while living there though.
Would like to try living in Sweden or Norway or Denmark ...just not sure if I would be harrassed as I have been working in the US. I really don't have the spirit for working any more. If I knew more about places to work and being accepted by people ... I would consider working again. As it is of course, it is like the old west in hollywood movies ... if we know your private info then maybe we don't want you around.
I wish you all the best and hope you'll feel better soon.
Really well put, sff. Glad you are here.
Thanks for those kind words :)
to me the ideal system would be something like the swiss model with a key change. including a technocratic branch of government. using the principals of meritocracy beginning at the city/village/town level through councils at the county, state, regional and finally federal level councils would be created. the technocracy would consist of those educated in the arts, sciences, and trades for the purpose of identifying problems and solving them.
There are some things about the swiss system that's ok. I think, however, that working towards the anarcho-syndicalist society should be our main objective.
as an economic system a green open source anarcho-syndical sociocracy is the way to go however that is an economic system and not a political system while intertwined they are not one in the same.
Have you ever been corrupted or lived a corrupt life. I' m wondering about if this question reflects on our collective expertise. In Russia 70 years ago or something it might have made a difference in how much expertise speakers were given.
In America we sort of have a Shadow Side where we never admit to having many nights of drinking downtown. I am this sort. I have many nights of drinking. This is partly a motivation for writing ... partily a motivation for being a philosopher ... and partly a reason why I live alone, work alone, read philosophy, follow corruption, follow OWS, and ... am an Idealist.
oops that was a little strong. Never mind. I'm not that well read or really a philosopher. I'm just a dude.
Don't drink too much, though. We should be sober most of the time in the fight for a better society, in which turning to drugs and alcohol to drown ones griefs is less necessary..
I agree. Drinking can be corruption, cynicism, giving up, and a kind of racket or self-pity.
That's true. Alcohol is nice once in a while; the key is to not drag it too far.
(engineer/sff debate continued)
"as for freedom, yes, I believe very much in freedom, but there is a need for some rules so that my freedom does not infringe on other's freedoms."
I believe that as well. What do you think of the last part of my post?
"I believe we will continue to differ on the work place theory."
There shouldnt be anything cntrovercial about workers' self-management and workplace democracy. Please watch this video i put toghther: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jRy5ZIYZok&feature=plcp
"Should people control their lives? Sure, but there is a need for structure."
Sure.
"I know people that want nothing to do with decision in the work place"
No one would be forced to participate in a libertarian socialist socity. It's up to the individuals how much they want to participate, contribute etc. But in LS people would be incouraged to, and have a chance to take part in the decitionmaking.
There would be disagreements in the community and among the workers, of course, but the communities and the institutions in a libertarian socialist society would be based on cooperation and solidarty, not on economic competition, so there'd be other values and incentives among most of the population.
"I am enjoying our conversations. My goal is that we learn something from each other and I would hope that yours is the same."
You seem like a nice guy. You present arguments in a respectful manner. It's important that we humans learn from, and present ideas to each other.
"I believe we have more control than you are stating. Maybe it is in how we are defining "control"?"
1% of the population own close to 50% of inv.capital. How's that for control? The corporations and the financial elite have enormous power and control in society - undemocratic control. Honestly, engineer, isn't this totally unexceptable?
"PS. Is there a better way to communicate than using this forum.? I see we run out of "reply" sometimes."
I'd like to stay on ows, if you don't mind. It was bit cluttered at the end there. Let's continue here.
You mentioned "last part of your post". I am not sure which you are referring to (apologies, but I think I got lost). I will view your video. But have you thought about the challenge questions? What do you think would occur? What would you decide to do if you were a line worker, or a specialized skill person. Do you believe that personalities would create factions and that voting coalitions would lilely occur?
Yes the financial elite have control, but we have purchasing power which is something they need or they will starve. They ultimately decide on investment based on what we do or are intending to do. That's our part of control. Do not sell us short on this point. And we also have investment power.
As for competition, that will always occur. If one company can make items cheaper than the other, then the other will eventually go out of business. This is not about cooperation, it is about people having jobs. These 2 fictitious companies could be 3000 miles apart. The one company might desire to expand due to more sales of the better brush and then be able to provide more jobs for their community. Should they provide these jobs for their own community or just give up the jobs (and the technology) to the company 3000 miles away because that company is in financial trouble? What would you do if you were a worker waiting for a job in your community and the company decided to send the jobs 3000 miles away? Does it sound a bit like outsourcing?
"You mentioned "last part of your post". I am not sure which you are referring to (apologies, but I think I got lost)."
Oh, I ment the last part of my original forum post "Why Libertarian Socialism is the best way to organize society" The "Libertarian Socialism is about creating REAL freedom" part.
"I will view your video."
Good.
"But have you thought about the challenge questions?"
I did comment on questions you brought up. But again, I think you go a little too much into detail. I'm not going to give an answer on every single minor detail and exactly how all things occure and are being solved.
"Do you believe that personalities would create factions and that voting coalitions would lilely occur?"
Libertarian Socialism , especially the anarcho-syndicalist branch is about organizing the entire society; and it's based on solidarity It's not about every workplace for themselves, or a small group of cynical workers for themselves. There will be differences yes, but in a society where the tendencies we see so much of today, like greed, consumption etc are fought back and where instead cooperation and solidarity are much more valued and prioritized, this wouldn't be a big problem.
"Yes the financial elite have control, but we have purchasing power which is something they need or they will starve."
Purchasing power, exactly. And who has more purchasing power? The wealthy and the powerful. This argument horrible. It's highly undemocratic that people should have power based on their access to cash and resources.
"As for competition, that will always occur."
I'm talking primarily about economic competition, and that is no law of nature. Society could be based on a democratic economy with cooperation and participation instead.
The name "libertarian socialism" is just unfortunate. Currently, right libertarian "thought" is the single most antithetical element within the public discourse to serious progress. Secondly, the word "socialism" is just too loaded in the minds of the U.S. layman, and no one will ever be able to convince the masses that "socialism" means public schools and fireman's benefits. Its been tried, and it just ain't gonna happen.
You may feel that I'm being superficial and unfair. I guess I think I'm being a pragmatist. I think that we need to unify in convincing people that "libertarianism" is a bad word.
You seem like you have the best intentions, so good luck to you.
The words "libertarian" and "socialism" used to be about the ideas and values of the libertarian left - the things described in the post above. Then, as history unfolded, these words eventually took on another meaning in certain areas of the world.
It is the libertarian left that wants real freedom, and it is the libertarian left that wants real socialism, so should we just accept that opponents are giving these words new meaning?
I understand your point. It doesn't matter to me what names we use to descirbe this classless participatroy democracy, but "Libertarian Socialism" is a pretty well established word, and maybe it'll take just as much effort to establish new terms than to enlighten people about what LS really is about..? I don't know.
I mean, what we really don't have in this country is a center left party. Maybe "social democracy" or "progressive" or "direct democracy" (not that these are the same thing)? I mean, I really think it's about how you package something to everyday folks.
The other issue is that it really needs to be a central concern of ours to fight right libertarianism and capitalist "anarchists".
There are plenty of other words available for Chomsky to use, and he can describe himself however he wants. That being said, he seems like a stubborn and eccentric old genius, who is used to dealing with intellectuals and likes to be controversial. OWS has different challenges.
"I really think it's about how you package something to everyday folks."
People must be introduced to the ideas of Libertarian Socialism. I think most people would embrace these ideas if they got properly introduced to them.
"The other issue is that it really needs to be a central concern of ours to fight right libertarianism and capitalist "anarchists""
Absolutely. It's very important. I believe these horrific ultra-right ideologies have more influence in american society than what most people think.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7zwO88nRH8
For sure, Libertarian Socialist ideas need to be talked about.
Yes, and they need to be spread; and of course eventually put into action. Striking and workers' takeover of workplaces must be some of the main focus in the coming period.
Your version of libertarian socialism is not socialism.
Socialism is a worker movement, not a free rider movement where you live off the work of others.
Socialism is the system before communism where workers are paid the full value of what they produce as summed up in the socialist slogan, "To each according to their contribution."
This was also advocated by Karl Marx in Critique of the Gotha Program when he wrote, "Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor."
What you advocate is taking a significant portion of what workers produce and giving it to people who are able to work but who decide not to.
What you advocate is unfair and completely unworkable.
If you did that and everyone decided to work part time, you would lower the income of everyone to just $22,000 per year. What do you think morale among workers will be when you tell them you cannot get paid any more than that regardless of how long you work or how hard you work?
In socialism, you would get paid based on how hard you work which would pay all workers from $115k to $460k per year. That is workable, fair and will make everyone wealthy, not make them poor.
Postings like the one you are making are one of the reasons why people think socialism is not workable and why they think we have no choice but to live with capitalism.
You are hurting the socialist cause, not helping it.
”Your version of libertarian socialism is not socialism”
I lean towards the anarcho-syndicalist / anarcho-communist branches of libertarian socialism.
“Socialism is a worker movement”
That’s correct, and as a supporter of the anarcho-syndicalist struggle and organization, I strongly support workers and their interests.
“not a free rider movement”
We’re all free-riders. In a highly developed, wealthy society our contributions are extremely small compared to what we receive.
“where you live off the work of others.”
We all live off the work of others. We now live in a complex, highly advanced technological society built up by generations of people thru hundreds of years. People have been building infrastructure, contributed to science, developed technology, developed efficient ways of manufacturing etc etc. Because of all this effort we now enjoy a more wealthy, advanced and efficient society than ever. All of this, lots of it built and created long before we were even born, we’re now enjoying despite having little or nothing to do with contributing to it ourselves. In other words, our contributions, no matter what we do, are microscopic compared to what we receive from society. We’re enjoying the results of generations of people’s work gradually building a modern society - an enormous free ride
http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-free-ride-societypt4/
“Socialism is the system before communism where workers are paid the full value of what they produce as summed up in the socialist slogan, "To each according to their contribution." This was also advocated by Karl Marx in Critique of the Gotha Program when he wrote, "Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor."
I don’t think bringing up Karl Marx is going to serve your cause that much. As you know Marx advocated a free, classless and stateless communist society in which a socialist society naturally and logically would develop into.
”In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”
-K. Marx (Critique of the Gotha Program)
“What you advocate is taking a significant portion of what workers produce and giving it to people who are able to work but who decide not to.”
In a wealthy, technological classless society our personal contributions would be microscopic compared to what we receive; there’d be an overflow of goods. Everyone could have a decent life.
Your calculator-socialism is meaningless in a highly advanced technological society.
“What do you think morale among workers will be when you tell them you cannot get paid any more than that regardless of how long you work or how hard you work?”
People should work based on their own creativity, urge and capacity.
“In socialism, you would get paid based on how hard you work which would pay all workers from $115k to $460k per year. That is workable, fair and will make everyone wealthy, not make them poor.”
I don’t reject remuneration and pay in every circumstances. I’m talking about the end goal. A short term goal is to give workers more pay and better rights. I do however think that the society we should strive to create is a society based less on money, but instead lots of free/close to free services and goods.
“You are hurting the socialist cause, not helping it.”
I don’t think so. I think most socialists want a society where we seek to make goods and services free or close to free. Most libertarian socialists, as well as many non-anarchist socialists want, to a large extent at least, to move towards Libertarian Communism.
Demand the good life for everyone :)
"as a supporter of the anarcho-syndicalist struggle and organization, I strongly support workers and their interests."
You don't.
You want to take a significant portion of what workers produce and give it to people who don't want to work. If that resulted in workers working part time on average, that would lower worker income to just $22,000 per year.
Making all workers poor is not supporting the interests of workers.
You are supporting the interests of those who want to live off the backs of workers instead.
.
"We’re all free-riders. In a highly developed, wealthy society our contributions are extremely small compared to what we receive."
This is also not true.
100% of our production comes from workers. If all workers stopped working, GDP would go to zero.
Since workers are responsible for 100% of the production, they should get 100% of the income. Then there would be no free riders other than the disabled and retired. That is the only fair economic system.
.
"We all live off the work of others. We now live in a complex, highly advanced technological society built up by generations of people thru hundreds of years"
That is just not true!
If all the workers today stopped working, production would go to zero. The scientific achievements of the past make today's workers more productive, but they are not producing a single thing today.
We also can't live off of infrastructure alone and if that infrastructure is not regularly maintained by workers today, it will quickly become useless.
If you work, you are not a free rider. 100% of our production comes from people working today.
.
"I don’t think bringing up Karl Marx is going to serve your cause that much. As you know Marx advocated a free, classless and stateless communist society in which a socialist society naturally and logically would develop into. "
Marx predicted that communism is what society would evolve into in the future when it eliminated scarcity and was able to fully automate all undesirable jobs.
Before we achieve that, he advocated socialism where workers got paid based on how much they produce.
We do not have the technology to create communism because we cannot automate all undesirable jobs and eliminate scarcity. So we need money and socialism. Marx did not advocate that before we achieve communism we should pay everyone equally regardless of whether they worked.
.
"In a wealthy, technological classless society our personal contributions would be microscopic compared to what we receive; there’d be an overflow of goods. Everyone could have a decent life."
This defies the laws of physics.
We will ONLY ever receive what it is we contribute.
And if everyone works part time, production would be cut in half. GDP would be $7 trillion. And if that production has to be shared with everyone equally, it will amount to a mere $22,000 worth of goods and services.
You cannot live a decent life on $22k.
.
"Your calculator-socialism is meaningless in a highly advanced technological society."
I can assure you that math and tracking production and consumption is not rendered meaningless in a high-tech society. In fact, it is just the opposite.
.
"People should work based on their own creativity, urge and capacity."
And since nobody has the urge to do all the hard, unglamorous jobs to the same extent that they do when they are getting paid to do it, production will plummet. When production plummets, your wealth plummets.
Relying on people's urges to work when they feel like it only doing jobs they feel like doing will make everyone poor.
.
" I’m talking about the end goal. A short term goal is to give workers more pay and better rights."
lol
So we have been debating over nothing!?!
It is not made clear at all that you don't think what you are advocating is possible today.
"You don't."
yes, I do. The core of Anarcho-Syndicalism is workers ' rights and workers' control.
"You want to take a significant portion of what workers produce and give it to people who don't want to work."
I want a society where workers and everyone else living there can have a decent life.
"Making all workers poor is not supporting the interests of workers."
I agree. Workers must get much better rights and conditions.
"This is also not true."
No, its correct. This is reality.
"100% of our production comes from workers. If all workers stopped working, GDP would go to zero."
I'm talking about the fact that we live and work in a society that has been gradually built up thru hundreds of years, and that we all benefit from previous work and contributions. Our society as a whole is wealthier than ever.
"Since workers are responsible for 100% of the production, they should get 100% of the income. Then there would be no free riders other than the disabled and retired."
If the disabled should get welfare then workers don't get 100% of income, now do they? So why should the disabled who don't contribute anything to society get a "free ride" then?
Personal contributions, no matter how hard you work, are microscopic compared to what we recieve back from a highly developed wealthy society. By your meaningless standards people should be paying back to society.
.
sff: "We all live off the work of others. We now live in a complex, highly advanced technological society built up by generations of people thru hundreds of years" dtgldc: "That is just not true!"
If you're serious you're out of touch with reality.
"If all the workers today stopped working, production would go to zero. The scientific achievements of the past make today's workers more productive but they are not producing a single thing today."
The results of the work made in the past affect society today to a very large extent. The society is more wealthy and technologically advanced than ever, and that's mainly the results of past achievments.
"..So we need money and socialism"
But do you think that a communist society should be implemented at some point in the future?
We can start making many goods and services free/close to free today. The Scandinavian coutries have free or close to free health care, college, university, decent welfare for the unemployd and less productive. This can be implemented in the US and other countries as well if the people organize. And then they can go on to other things working towards a solidaric participatory democracy.
"This defies the laws of physics."
No it doesn't.
"And since nobody has the urge to do all the hard, unglamorous jobs to the same extent that they do when they are getting paid to do it"
Work that no one wants to do can be shared in different ways, or remuneration could be given.
"lol So we have been debating over nothing!?!"
Maybe partially. We still disagree on many things, fex incentives and what kind of values we should base society on.
"It is not made clear at all that you don't think what you are advocating is possible today."
It is not made clear at all that you don't think what you are advocating is just a short term goal...
I have never claimed that the society I want could be implemented in the very near future. You're the first one I've met to think this.
Liberatarian socialism may be inevitable according to this new article by Chris Hedges. Check it out.
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/11435-globalized-growth-is-the-problem-localism-is-the-solution
Thanks for the link. Yes, CH makes a lot of important points. Today's existing system is of course not sustainable. It's obvious. It must be dismantled at some point, and the only reasonable system to replace it, in the long run at least, is a real participatory democracy built and controlled from below.
I think the birth and growth of the Occupy Movement is a great indication that the work for moving towards such a society has begun.
ows is phony. socialism always fails.
You got anything to offer? I mean you are just an ankle biter so I can understand the mods not booting you - you are kind of like an interactive representation of blind stupidity - but still. Do you get paid for this lame sniping?
ows is not " grassroots" , it a phoney group. socialism has always proven to be a failure.
Nope - nothing - just an irritating little ankle biter.
"ows is phony."
How so?
"socialism always fails"
Which "socialism" are you referring to?
started by lasn, funded by soros. all socialism , implemented anywhere, fails.
brudlo.. you are perpetuating a Lie based on rumor. None of what you say has a scintilla of truth. It does however, have all the earmarks of a Fringe element that has been behind all the Scathing rumors to discredit Good, Honest and Decent People trying to take down tyrants and Grafters in this Society..
Keep up the efforts, and just like a Boil, it too soon breaks.. and Goes away.
did you do a search on soros and the organizations he funds? his flagship org. is the open society institute. also, the gamaleil foundation,american institute for social justice,people for the american way,democracy for america, the midwest academy, the center for economic and policy research, the ella baker center for human rights ( founded by van jones, the emma lazarus fund,HCAN,project vote ( an arm of acorn), the progessive states network, the american pospect,the pacifica foundation, the alliance for justice,the institute for policy studies,casa de maryland, the brennan center, Moveon. ALL anti american fundamental values organizations despite their names.and on and on and on and on it goes.
Soros? conspiracy theory right wing wacko idiot!
do your own search on soros and see for yourself the long reach of him through the many ( and types of ) organizations he funds.
Does not compare to the Kochs. Not even close.
That made no sense. And I was asking which "socialism" you're reffering to. What is socialism in you view?
why not do a search on george soros and his organizations? i liseted some of the above. socialism,...........its a system in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state ( govt).
If you claim something, you can't just say "do a google search". You have to present arguments and information to back it up.
i did NOT say " do a google search". you did. interesting that you put in quotes what i didnt say. if you cant read then doing your own search is beyond your abilities. Socialism is a system of a society where the means of production are owned and controlled by the govt.
You're splitting hairs. Ok, ignore "google", then. Doesn't change anything.
"Socialism is a system of a society where the means of production are owned and controlled by the govt."
Oh, you're thinking about state-socialism. Well, that's not the kind I'm advocating. I advocate libertarian socialism. These ideas are perfectly feasible.
socialism by any name is a failure.
[Removed]
what you cited are run by local municipalities. socialism in any form is statism.
[Removed]
nasa is now a muslim outreach program.the rest and be disbanded.
As I argued in the article, Libertarian Socialism is the only reasonable way to organize a future just society. It would be a society where people had real freedom and control over their lives.
You have hit a nerve with this thread. LOL.
your naivete is astounding
How so?
[Removed]
Thank god this type of idiocy will never be tried here.
Do you have any counter-arguments? What's idiotic?
We probably won't see a really huge-scale libertarian socialist society in the very near future, but it is the ideas and values of LS that we must work to implement more and more in society.
[Removed]
when you depend on someone else to take care of your needs you will be disappointed 100% of the time. no one will ever care about your needs more than you if you put your faith in Socialism of any kind you will be disappointed and get exactly what you deserve. Have faith in yourself and your ability, understand bad things happen to good people everyday dont let failure make you give up keep on trying and living. Last but not least stop wanting what other people have and hateing them for having it.
"when you depend on someone else to take care of your needs you will be disappointed 100% of the time."
Who's taking care of who? Are you talking about the disabled etc? Of course they must be taken care of.
"no one will ever care about your needs more than you if you put your faith in Socialism of any kind you will be disappointed and get exactly what you deserve."
Libertarian Socialism is about freedom and justice - being in contol of your own life.
"Have faith in yourself and your ability"
Sure.
"understand bad things happen to good people everyday"
Sure, but that doesn't justify some individuals having the right to control and dominate others..
"Last but not least stop wanting what other people have and hateing them for having it."
This is not about envy or anything like that, it's about democracy: people controlling their own work, lives and communities. That can only be achieved by abolishing capitalism/state-capitalism.
You are right, if we can get this we don't have to work. The gov. will pay for everything.
Care to elaborate? (because that made no sense)
[Removed]
[Removed]
Libertarian socialism is likely to fail just as the current systems of government and economics have failed. It isn't the system's fault, it's people and human nature that bring it down.
There was a news article a few years ago in which a Congressman wanted programs to get more people into their own home because a survey indicated home owners were more responsible and better citizens. I found it amusing because he had it backwards. Homes don't make people responsible, it's responsible people that seek to buy homes.
You're making the same mistake. You look at a corrupt system and wish to create an improved one. You're blaming the human condition on the system we operate under and wish to put us in a better one. It isn't the system's fault that there is corruption. Human nature is to blame for corruption, the system is irrelevant.
Actually the system that's best suited human nature is Libertarian Socialism:
http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1323868733_human_nature_and_libe.html
Perhaps, but that is opinion, I see no hard evidence that it would be successful on a national scale. It requires level of altruism and active informed participation I don't see society as either having or being willing to cultivate.
The clips you linked to show Dr. Chomsky disagrees, but he argues opinion, he starts by saying "If it is correct, as I believe it is". That's fine, he has an belief that man is altruistic. I don't see it, if human beings were better we would have built a better society already. Any individual can try to be a better person and there are many good people, but I don't see the vast majority of humanity as being ready for libertarian socialism.
"It requires level of altruism and active informed participation"
Solidarity and altruism is there (cf Dawkins etc) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8C-ntwUpzM&feature=plcp An active informed participatory democracy is perfectly feasible. We have seen experiments with this functioning well in the past
"but he argues opinion"
There was a little article in between the videos as well :)
"I don't see it, if human beings were better we would have built a better society already."
I write about these questions in the article.
"but I don't see the vast majority of humanity as being ready for libertarian socialism."
Human nature is best suited Libertarian Socialism (cf my article)
Dawkins theory is certainly interesting, but it is still a theory. It explains observed acts of altruism, it doesn't say there is more in us that we haven't observed. I'm saying that the observed level in human society is not enough. Self sacrifice for family or acts of kindness toward strangers that cost us little is one thing. That doesn't mean people will choose the interest of others or a faceless society over their own self interest to a larger degree.
I don't suppose it matters much, there would have to be a slow transition from the current system to libertarian socialism to prove it's feasibility to a public that has repeatedly turned it's back on libertarian socialism. There is still the problem posed by a lack of informed participation. I suppose that too can be determined during a transition period. People will either rise to the occasion as one business after another changes it's way of operating or things will fall apart before much real change has occurred.
"Dawkins theory is certainly interesting, but it is still a theory. It explains observed acts of altruism, it doesn't say there is more in us that we haven't observed."
More or less all scientists have accepted Dawkins' contributions, His work is not controvercial
"That doesn't mean people will choose the interest of others or a faceless society over their own self interest to a larger degree."
There's of course a combination of feelings of solidarity and altruism, and at the same time wanting to have a decent life yourself. The point is that libertarian socialist organization is in accordance with human nature.
"There is still the problem posed by a lack of informed participation."
I touched a little upon this in the article as well. There has been a huge prpaganda campaign in order to divert the attention away from the ideas of a participatory democracy.
I didn't say it was controversial, he does have detractors, but assuming he's right, his theory explains the level of altruism we actually see. He doesn't state there is more unobserved, and I believe it isn't enough in people. Any increase in altruism, if you're relying on Dawkins, would need generations and some method to select it over self interest genetically.
People simply don't participate fully now, even those that vote often don't do so in an informed way. I don't see it as realistic to assume they will under a different form of social organization. You have to assume it would, again you may have faith it will, I don't. I'd need to see some long term success. Which is why I'd like to see a slow transition in workplaces over time. This would also cover an aspect that draws massive public opposition to libertarian socialism, the issue of property rights.
"He doesn't state there is more unobserved, and I believe it isn't enough in people."
Well, there is more than we observe, but that has to do with social structures. Corporate propaganda has, to a large extent, managed to mold us into becoming greedy consumers.
"Any increase in altruism, if you're relying on Dawkins, would need generations and some method to select it over self interest genetically."
I'm of course not suggesting an increase in altruism within a short period. That would be absurd.
In fact, more or less nothing has changed thuout the entire human history. Humans are the descendants of a small group of people eventually spreading thruout the world less than a 100 000 years ago. That's nothing in evolutionary perspective.
"People simply don't participate fully now, even those that vote often don't do so in an informed way. I don't see it as realistic to assume they will under a different form of social organization."
Why would you say that. These attitudes and tendencies are no laws of nature, they can be changed.
"You have to assume it would, again you may have faith it will, I don't."
We have seen societies develop a lot of participation and workers's control in the past. it could (and must) happen again.
"I'd need to see some long term success. Which is why I'd like to see a slow transition in workplaces over time."
Could you elaborate a little?
"..massive public opposition to libertarian socialism, the issue of property rights."
People must be introduced to the ideas of libertarian socialism; ideas that advocate strengthening workers' rights.
I do agree that man has not changed significantly in his behaviors over the past centuries. From what I've observed there is a greater tendency toward self interest then altruism. If there is to be a major social change instituted it would need to happen slowly. You seem to fault the system for the way man is. I think you are looking at it in reverse, if the system is flawed it's due to man's flaws, not the other way around. Moving from capitalism to libertarian socialism won't change man. What I see as likely to happen is that libertarian socialism will likely fail due to human nature.
I'd be willing to see trials made. When I say a transition in the workplace I mean the establishment and expansion of co ops. I think it is Germany that is assisting with the establishment of worker run businesses. Success with motivated individuals doesn't guarantee success with the population in general, but it's a start toward proving the value of libertarian socialism. In theory it sounds great, practice is another matter. In theory capitalism works great too.
Society is too complex to simply change how everything is done all at once. If libertarian socialism were to advance at all it might be through the workplace first then somehow introduced into forms of local government. I don't believe you'll ever get informed participation by more then a minority of voters. It will likely suffer from the same corrupting influences that seep into our current government.
People have been introduced to the ideas of libertarian socialism but turn away from it when it begins to discuss turning over businesses to the workers without compensation to the owners. In many cases corporations have more owners then workers. We live in a capitalistic world at present and over half the country depends on the stock market and profits. Few are willing to consider a rapid change.
If it's ever to happen at all it would need to be through small scale implementation, not some plan to transform the thinking of a majority who would then be expected to force change through strikes or protest. That route has been tried repeatedly since the industrial revolution, with little success.
"From what I've observed there is a greater tendency toward self interest then altruism"
Altruism and solidarity are basic human characteristics, but they're being supressed by the existing system (cf my article)
"Moving from capitalism to libertarian socialism won't change man."
Yes it will. Not genetically, but other values than the ones that dominate today's society will become more dominant.
"When I say a transition in the workplace I mean the establishment and expansion of co ops..."
Check this one out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jRy5ZIYZok&feature=plcp
"People have been introduced to the ideas of libertarian socialism but turn away from it when it begins to discuss turning over businesses to the workers without compensation to the owners."
They'd be compensated by getting control over their own lives and workplace - like everyone else. Again, I think most people would embrace the ideas of LS if they got properly introduced to them.
"Few are willing to consider a rapid change."
Abolishing capitalism will certainly take time. We have to think long term; but at the same time we don't have all the time in the world. State-capitalism is doing serious damage to this planet, and it's getting more serious by the day.
"If it's ever to happen at all it would need to be through small scale"
That's a good start, but working for a really large scale participatory democracy would have to be the next step.
"not some plan to transform the thinking of a majority who would then be expected to force change through strikes or protest. That route has been tried repeatedly since the industrial revolution, with little success."
it is important to get more people engaged in creating a real participatory democracy. Workers struggles and striking etc have actually lead to a lot of important workers' rights in many areas of the world thru the years.
(Ahem)You are correct,sir!
I'm glad you agree:)
Great Post !!! Solidarity !! Thanx 'sff' !
veritas vos liberabit ...
Thanks! Solidarity :)
"Solidarity Forever" (Pete Seeger) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYiKdJoSsb8 :-)
Norwegian singer/songwriter and friend of Seeger, Lillebjørn Nilsen made a Norwegian version of Seeger's song “Rainbow Race” (same melody but different lyrics) which he called “Barn av Regnbuen” ("Children of the Rainbow") This is and has been a popular song among children in Norway.
The Norwegian right-wing terrorist and mass-murderer Anders Behring Breivik stated that he thought the song was Marxist propaganda. Not long after this became known people reacted by organizing a concert with L. Nilsen performing the Seeger-cover with thousands singing along :)
Very Nice Anecdote ;-) Thanx sff' & 'Solidaritet' !!
Takk for det :)
Du er velkommen og : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-Dkqw2DSWY ;-)
per aspera ad astra ...
Thanks, and here's one for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqQ1uT8rQgs
You already have a right participate in your community.
You already have a right or ability to control your own life, within society acceptable limits.
You already have a right or choice in where you work, or whether to start your own business ( which is real control). We are free to mutually negotiate wages based on our value or skill set for the proposed job. We are free to reject that wage and look elsewhere. We are free to offer our skills on the open job market. We are free to pursue additional or new skills/knowledge if we desire. Owning the means of production does not equate to control, as in your system, you can be out voted in what you desire, so where, then, is the control of your workplace?
You already have a right to support, protest or whatever things that effect you in a democratic way (i.e voting, local town meetings, etc.). Just because others (a majority) want something different does not deny your voice.
Basic necessities or decent life can completely vary from individual to individual and to place of geographical residence. would that mean that air conditioning would become a mandate in the north just because the south desires it? healthy nutrition is a life choice, not a mandate. If I want to eat a nice rare rib eye steak once in a while, that is my free choice to do so. If enough people want healthy foods, the free market will provide for that demand.
Everyone has equal access to education up to 12 grade. College was never meant to be free, it is earned. Not everyone qualifies, but all should have equal opportunity.
Decent home: does this mean apartment, condo, house, or what? Everyone should have equal opportunity, but not all can afford single housing, nor are capable of owning, maintaining, etc. how do you define "decent home"?
Health Care: I am for some form of health care but there should be some personal responsibility that goes with it. I should not be forced to support an unhealthy life style (for example: smoking), where that high cost is born by others due to the selfishness of one.
So as mentioned above, we already have a lot of rights and free choice. What is lacking is some personal responsibility and execution.
“You already have a right participate in your community”
It’s not good enough. The right to participate in your community must be strengthened substantially. Concentrated power and wealth limit your rights. The economic institutions must be collectivized and put into the hands of the workforce and the community.
“You already have a right or ability to control your own life, within society acceptable limits.”
Only to a limited extent. Human liberation is not complete until individuals are in control of their work and productive life.
“You already have a right or choice in where you work, or whether to start your own business ( which is real control).”
No. Power structures in society limit freedom of choice in many cases.
“We are free to mutually negotiate wages based on our value or skill set for the proposed job. We are free to reject that wage and look elsewhere. We are free to offer our skills on the open job market. We are free to pursue additional or new skills/knowledge if we desire.”
That’s not how it works. Agreements taking place in this kind of system are of course far from being voluntary. In a capitalist / state-capitalist class society, you have some people with huge wealth and recourses - which on the national and global level are very highly concentrated - and others with very few or no wealth and resources. It is of course meaningless to talk about “voluntary agreements” in such a society, because the ones owning the recourses, the wealth and the means of production etc, have much more power in society. That includes of course that they have the advantage and overwhelming power in a job hiring, negotiations etc. So the non-owners - the workers - are trapped in a society in which they, in order to have a decent life or necessities in order to survive, must sell their labor to people who have much more power than they. This has very little to do with voluntary agreements, rather it’s submission to necessities.
So in reality we have a system in which some people, because of their wealth and ownership, have an overwhelming power in society, including in the labor marked. The owners, the employers, then have much more influence and power when contracts and agreements are being made, whether it’s in relation to working conditions, salaries etc.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/capitalism-exploitation-and-involuntary-agreements/
“Owning the means of production does not equate to control, as in your system, you can be out voted in what you desire, so where, then, is the control of your workplace?”
Decitions must be done by the participants thru consensus and democratic process. On some issues the majority agrees with you, on others they don't. That's a logical consequence of living in a society with other people. In a Libertarian Socialist society democracy would be built and controlled from below and would be based on solidarity and cooperation; immoral and idiotic decitions made by the collective would be down to the minimum.
“You already have a right to support, protest or whatever things that effect you in a democratic way (i.e voting, local town meetings, etc.). Just because others (a majority) want something different does not deny your voice.”
Freedom of speech is important, but it’s not enough. The freedom to control your own workplace and community must be established as well.
“Basic necessities or decent life can completely vary from individual to individual and to place of geographical residence.”
Sure.
“would that mean that air conditioning would become a mandate in the north just because the south desires it? healthy nutrition is a life choice, not a mandate.”
I’m talking about the right to healthy nutrition.
“If enough people want healthy foods, the free market will provide for that demand.”
What “free marked” are you talking about? If you’re talking about the unregulated capitalist marked, it’s not free in any meaningful sense.
“College was never meant to be free, it is earned”
College should be free
“Decent home: does this mean apartment, condo, house, or what?”
Details must be worked out by the participants, but there should at least be a minimum standard which must be so that the people living there can have a decent life there.
“but not all can afford single housing, nor are capable of owning, maintaining” If we spread all this wealth that exists in society – but which unfortunately is very highly concentrated at this point – we could afford all kinds of things. “I am for some form of health care but there should be some personal responsibility that goes with it.”
I don’t think so. When people get sick you don’t ask them if this was partially their own fault or something like that, you give them help. We have such enormous wealth, we can afford to give everyone free health care.
“I should not be forced to support an unhealthy life style”
Don’t worry. Your personal contributions to this is so microscopic, you wouldn’t notice it.
We continue to disagree on some things. And the length of the response all but makes it impossible to discuss. But I will take on some parts:
The right to participate is already there. You state it is not enough. At the local level, your power is very equal to anyone's. Wealth has nothing to do with it. The issue is "non-participation". There is no limits on attending local meetings, voicing opinion, etc. when an important issue comes up, many people attend, and if necessary, gives the board a vocal thrashing. The power is always in the vote. You are very wrong on this point. On the national levels, it is all about money influence in politics and voter turnout, which I believe we agree if money was somehow removed from politics, things would be a lot better.
You state that power structures limit freedom of choice (where tomwork, etc). I disagree. I believe that choice is always there, but there are good and bad choices life. The ones who choose well have many choices versus the ones who choose poorly (examples: doing well in school, having good work ethic, developing good personal integrity) Many of the problems we see today are the result of bad personal choices, and then with it comes a lack of personal responsibility. We can educate so people become better at life's choices, but we can not make the choices for them, nor be totally responsible to fix their lives just because they continually made the wrong ones. If you look at entrepreneurs, innovators, good workers, responsible citizens, etc, do you believe it is luck or the result of good personal choices that got them to where there are?
One thing in all your posts is lacking is any focus on the individual. Everything is about the collective. People are different. People are not equal. People have different abilities. A collective can not correct that. Humans are competitive, and will always be so. Your world is flat, everyone is the same. It is not real. This is not to say that there should be no equality or fairness. The equality is equal opportunity, equal access to education, etc. but you can not mandate how the result will be afterwards.
I believe you misunderstood the healthcare comment. I am not talking about sickness, but self induced problems. That is just not fair to all the others, microscopic or not. There should be responsibiltiy for bad life style choices, otherwise, we would have chaos. What would your response be if 60% led a poor life style and as a result, the 40% would have to pay for it?
Also: define "decent" in the context you are using.
"The right to participate is already there. You state it is not enough. At the local level, your power is very equal to anyone's."
I'm talking about the right to participate and have a say in the things you're a part of. Democratically run institutions are essential in a real participatory democracy.
"Wealth has nothing to do with it."
Of course it does. The more wealth you have the more power and control you have.
"There is no limits on attending local meetings, voicing opinion, etc. when an important issue comes up, many people attend, and if necessary, gives the board a vocal thrashing."
The economic institutions must be run by the ones particiapting. It's essential to a real democratic society.
"which I believe we agree if money was somehow removed from politics, things would be a lot better."
Absolutely.
"You state that power structures limit freedom of choice (where tomwork, etc). I disagree. I believe that choice is always there, but there are good and bad choices life."
And I just explained above that it's not that easy. The more wealth and resourses you have access to, the more possibilities you have.
"The ones who choose well have many choices versus the ones who choose poorly"
I'm not talking about someone who can freely choose between x and y and makes a bad choice, I'm talking about the class affiliation, and power structures in society which limit choices in many cases.
"If you look at entrepreneurs, innovators, good workers, responsible citizens, etc, do you believe it is luck or the result of good personal choices that got them to where there are?"
There's a mix of course and varies from case to case. I'm not criticizing people being able to make bad choices, I'm talking about undemocratic hierarchies and power structures in society limiting freedom among a huge part of the population.
"One thing in all your posts is lacking is any focus on the individual. Everything is about the collective."
You have obviously not read a lot of what I've written. I strongly favor individual rights (which you can see in my post above). Libertarian Socialism combines individual and collective rights:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu8J_UKKa-c
"People are different."
Absolutley. And in libertarian socialism people are free to live out their own unique talents and creativity.
"Humans are competitive, and will always be so."
Actually human nature is more based on solidarity and cooperation:
http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1323868733_human_nature_and_libe.html
"Your world is flat, everyone is the same. It is not real."
Strawman.
"I am not talking about sickness, but self induced problems. That is just not fair to all the others, microscopic or not."
It shouldn't matter what caused it, if people need medical attention they should get it no matter what. In a highly technological wealthy society that would not be a problem whatsoever.
"There should be responsibiltiy for bad life style choices, otherwise, we would have chaos."
If people do things that cause diseases, then that means they have to live with the current state they're in, but that douesn't mean we should not give necessary treatment and care.
"What would your response be if 60% led a poor life style and as a result, the 40% would have to pay for it?"
Then there'd obviously had to be more focus on trying to enlightening people to make better choices. In a civilized society with good education based on science and research this situation would not occure.
"define "decent" in the context you are using."
Like I said, details must be worked out by the participants. It depends on the circumstances.
Just a clarification. I am not for denying health care to anyone, only that there must be consequence for their action.
Also, when you mention details, that is why they say "the devil is always in the details". That is the challenge to you. Show me details if you want to convince me of your point. It is easy to pass it off to others to work out.
"Just a clarification. I am not for denying health care to anyone, only that there must be consequence for their action."
There is a consequence. Unhealthy life styles lead to bad health. Which consequences did you have in mind exactly?
"Show me details if you want to convince me of your point. It is easy to pass it off to others to work out."
But it isn't up to me to decide. But fine, if you're so obsessed with this I'll explain some more - which is based on my personal opinions.
Take housing f.ex. In a highly developed wealthy society I think all individuals should have the right to at least a studio apartment of some kind, with avarage size and standards, including access to electricity and clean water etc. Couples with children should have the right to something bigger.
This is what I would concider a decent minimum standard of living.
The consequence should be more than being unhealthy. They should have to contribute to the cost. That would be the fair way. People would re-consider a poor life style if it affects them directly (the pocket book). Most people that lead poor life styles really do not consider the health consequence, or are in denial of the possibility of bad outcome ("won't happen to me").
Right to housing is an issue. Who will provide that minimum housing? Who maintains, who oversees the property, etc. would there be ownership or just unlimited usage? Who would make sure there are enough units? What happens if there are too many empty units.? Who makes the rules, who enforces the rules? Is there insurance? Who has the Liability? Etc, etc.
You can see why I ask to evaluate details. If people are going to even begin to accept that these ideas are possible, they are going to want to know the HOW. I understand your proposals, they all look wonderfull on paper, almost utopian, but the transition from paper to reality is quite difficult. and these questions are just small part of very complicated proposal. If you make a change and then people are going to work out the details, nothing would ever be accomplished. As much as leaderless movements go, eventually someone or some people will be the leaders, because they have the better ideas and solutions more often than others.
Do you see why I question?
Do you really have a method to remove property ownership and wealth from people who now have it?
Do you have a working re-distribution formula?
Do you have a method to remove ownership of small businesses / companies or corporations from the existing ownership and then give to the workers?
Do you have a wage formula for the workers it here respective classifications?
Do you have a new taxation formula?
Do you have a definition of work and non-work?
Do you have a definition of "hard" work? (physical versus mental)
After all the wealth is redistributed, where is the source of funds to support all the free programs as the population exands.
Where will investment come from if there is no reward to invest.
Where will the savings come from if there is no reward to save?
If this is such a wonderfull, magnificent system, why is there no outpouring of support for it? Why has no community, society, country, etc, implemented it?
I am not expecting you to answer all of this, but at least you can get an understanding the challenges to try to convince anyone of your proposal. I desire a free and just society also, just do not see it possible with your proposals. I would rather fix what we have. I do believe that can be done. We just are not mad enough yet.
"The consequence should be more than being unhealthy.They should have to contribute to the cost."
I don't see why. Especially in a modern, wealthy society.
And what if they can't or won't contribute? What should happen then?
"People would re-consider a poor life style if it affects them directly (the pocket book)"
If you think people need economic incentives to have a healthy life, you're living in funny world.
"Most people that lead poor life styles really do not consider the health consequence, or are in denial of the possibility of bad outcome ("won't happen to me")"
More education, enlightening, and making a better lifestyle easily available will encourage people to live healthy.
"Who will provide that minimum housing? Who maintains, who oversees the property, etc. would there be ownership or just unlimited usage? Who would make sure there are enough units? What happens if there are too many empty units.? Who makes the rules, who enforces the rules? Is there insurance? Who has the Liability? Etc, etc."
The people in the community decides things like this together thru democratic process and concensus in different organized groups and gatherings. A libertarian Socialist society would be a highly organized society.
"If people are going to even begin to accept that these ideas are possible, they are going to want to know the HOW"
Sure. But many details must be worked out by the ones creating this society.
About al the questions you ask. I'm not going to sketch out the utopia to you. Many details must be decided by the participants who create this future society.
I wrote an article some time ago giving some suggestions to how society should be organized.
http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html
There's lots of great books and articles on LS. Rocker, Kropotkin, Chomsky, de Santillan, Michael Albert are some of the people who have contributed. If youre interested in LS you should spend time on these people, not me.
"If this is such a wonderfull, magnificent system, why is there no outpouring of support for it? Why has no community, society, country, etc, implemented it?"
support is beginning to grow. The ideas of LS have been fought by the existing power, and attemts have been crushed.
"I would rather fix what we have. I do believe that can be done. We just are not mad enough yet."
Capitalism is immoral in itself. It allows individuals to have undemocratic power and control over others. This is intolerable. Capitalism must be abolished.
Corrupted capitalism is immoral. We will continue to disagree about some of these points. I do have a problem with the statement that "details will be worked out by the participants.....". There is wrong assumption that each community would decide the same rules, which would not occur. One could have advantage over the other based on the rules decided. And we are talking about hundreds of thousands of communities around the world. It would disintegrate into factions, geographical dominance, etc. larger communities would swallow the small. Some areas would have greater resource acess, food, etc. some would be barren. It would be chaos. After reading about the NYC GAs and the struggle to get even the simplest things done, i do not believe there would ever be consensus within the community. Then we are left with the tyranny of the majority. Your assuming people will all get along just fine. No, they would not.
I also believe that no property owner, patent and copyright holder, business owner , etc. will ever agree to just turn over what they own to a community or collective. It just will not happen! It would lead to violent confrontations if attempts were made to take it. Some may choose to destroy all rather than have it taken away.
Again, while these are noble goals on paper, that is all they will ever be. It just will not transistion from paper to reality.
When able, i will read more on the references you gave and I am sure we will discuss again later.
"Corrupted capitalism is immoral."
All kinds of Capitalism are immoral. Laissez faire capitalism means private tyranny
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYxGkFxb7f4&feature=plcp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwQEgOKEEXI&feature=plcp
"There is wrong assumption that each community would decide the same rules, which would not occur."
LS is not about all communities being identical. Variety is welcomed in a libertarian socialist society - but it must be within a framework of a egalitarian participatory democracy.
"It would disintegrate into factions, geographical dominance, etc. larger communities would swallow the small."
Libertarian Socialism, especially the anarcho-syndicalist branch, is about democratic organization and controlon all levels in society.
"Then we are left with the tyranny of the majority."
In a real participatory democracy built and controlled from below this expression is meaningless.
"Your assuming people will all get along just fine."
No, I don't. There will always be disagreements in any kind of society. The point is that society must be organized in such a way that people are in control of their own life, work and comminity.
"I also believe that no property owner, patent and copyright holder, business owner , etc. will ever agree to just turn over what they own to a community or collective."
Of course not. They must be forced to give up their power.
"It would lead to violent confrontations if attempts were made to take it. Some may choose to destroy all rather than have it taken away."
A libertarian socialist society can only become reality when the people and the communities want it. If the financial elite and owners dont accept the will of the people and turn to violence, then the people must defend themselves against these undemocratic forces.
The different geographical areas will create major differences in how the rules are applied and voted on at the local community level. People will migrate to areas where they like those rules better than rules somewhere else. Who sets this framework? Is that not in opposition to having your own control at the local level.? If the local community decides on certain rules by consensus, they should not be over ruled by other communities. What if they do not agree with these imposed rules? Do they really have control or not?
are you saying that the 1% elite or the people would turn to violence?
As for the property statement: i am talking about every homeowner, small business owner, sharolder, etc. this is a large percentage of the population. I would guess that it may be above 50%. If true, then the majority would never support LS, and this is a dead issue. How would you force that many people to just hand everything over. You are talking about civil war. And the property owners would win that war quite easily, but that is something that I would never desire to see. We had one of those here already, and that was with weaponery that pales in comparison to the killing power of today. Just look at any current civil strife in the last 20 yrs.
So to ask: why would you support this type of revolution if it leads to compete destruction and loss of life on a world scale not yet seen?
PS. Are you a property owner?
"People will migrate to areas where they like those rules better than rules somewhere else. Who sets this framework?"
It is the participants who create and control the society they're a part of. Libertarian Socialism is not about every union, or workplace or community for themselves, but a kind of "bottom-up" democracy.
"If the local community decides on certain rules by consensus, they should not be over ruled by other communities"
The point is that democracy is built from below, and that right to democratic say is proportional to how much you're part of things. Communities would cooperate with each other.
"are you saying that the 1% elite or the people would turn to violence?"
I'm saying that if the 1% dont accept the will of the people and turns violent, the people must defend themselves.
"If true, then the majority would never support LS, and this is a dead issue."
The main concern is private ownership on the means of production and economic institutions. The vast majority don't own this.
"How would you force that many people to just hand everything over."
An important factor is workers' takeover of production. It's about building engaged communities organizing and making the economic institutions collectivized.
"You are talking about civil war."
I hope it'll never go that far.
"And the property owners would win that war quite easily, but that is something that I would never desire to see."
If the 99% organized well enough, anything can be acomplished.
"So to ask: why would you support this type of revolution if it leads to compete destruction and loss of life on a world scale not yet seen?"
I hope the revolution will be as peaceful as possible.
"PS. Are you a property owner?"
I don't usually answer personal questions. I'm not important. But I'll make an exception. Yes I'm a property owner. I'm actually one of the lucky ones who own my own apartment. Why do you ask?
Apologies if you thought that was a personal question. I asked because would you be willing to give your ownership away? My understanding from all our various conversations is that property ownership would not be allowed under your proposal. For me, property ownership is the following: home, land, business, factory, etc. are you stating that only means of production property and financial institutions are considered owned by the community? If that is the case, where is the line drawn for any business, especially small business owners, etc?
I have a large problem with any revolutionary proposal where there is a high probability of civil strife. You just can not take what is not legally yours.
For example: If I started a small company, performed all the tasks to get it started, and made it successful. Then due to that success, I was able to hire additional employees, eventually turning it into to a medium sized operation (maybe 300 workers). Under your proposal, I would be "forced" to give this company to the workers? How would I be compensated for my labor, which is essentially stored in the value of the company? If I said no, then what would happen under your transition period? Would the people just take it from me? What would happen if I just chose to burn it down rather than give it up? What would happen if I resisted (essentially armed conflict)? Do you see the problem with your proposal? Your believing everyone would just cooperate. I believe In reality. You can never make the transition, therefore you can never make this happen.
Here's my latest response:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-libertarian-socialism-is-the-best-way-to-organ/#comment-834573
All hierarchical structures must be challenged. There should be really good arguments for structures in which some people have control over others. Undemocratic hierarchies are a no brainer. They are illegitimate and must be dismantled. That goes for all sizes. The corner stores should be run democratically by the participants as well.
Do you really find these ideas controvercial? Don't you think that individuals should be free; don't you think that people should be able to control their own lives work and community?
Yes, I find these ideas controversial, but that is okay. There are many other ideas that turned out good that were controversial, so that is not an important criteria. IMO, Controversy is more from an emotional response, usually due to ignorance. I am sure I have exhibited this in our conversation (though i hope not intentionally). as for freedom, yes, I believe very much in freedom, but there is a need for some rules so that my freedom does not infringe on other's freedoms. I believe the framers of our constitution did a magnificent job for such a difficult task, but it is still only the baseline point. Change brings the need for clarification, modification, etc. of the rules. The problem that we have is that these changes are being written (or influenced) by the "few" and therefore are skewed in their favor. I believe that the real power is still with the people, but are failing badly in using it. The politicians know this and also fear this, but remain comfortable in realizing that all they need to do is to make sure the people don't get "mad enough" . It is quite a simple strategy.
I believe we will continue to differ on the work place theory. Should people control their lives? Sure, but there is a need for structure. I know people that want nothing to do with decision in the work place, just want to go work and paid every Friday. Others that want to be totally invlolved in operations.
So here is an example and questions: Let's say there is a company with 100 total workers. The company manufactures and supplies cleaning brushes. It requires 75 workers to make the brushes, 2 to plan the work schedules, resource materials, etc., 2 admin secretaries, 2 technicians to maintain the equipment, 1 quality, 3 people for physical plant, 1 HR, 2 accountants, 1 payroll, 3 janitorial, 2 sales, 1 purchaser, 5 warehouse and shipping. They need to work 40 hours per week, 1 shift, 48 weeks per year to keep up with current sales. Take note that I have left out all managerial positions. Since this is a LS company, the people have the risk of ownership and share of profits. Let's examine some scenarios:
The 75 line workers (low skill) feel they work harder than the office people and now desire more pay. They have the voting numbers to get what they want, this would take money from the office workers ( reduced share of profit). The office workers feel they contribute just as much to the success of the company as the line workers due to the special skill that they have. The technicians say that without them, nothing would operate, so they are the most valuable (but they have lonely 2 votes). Do you believe that consensus could actually be achieved without some hierarchal structure? What would prevent the large voting block from getting what they wanted?
The company is facing competition from another community with a factory that makes a better brush and can sell it cheaper due to the methods they use to make them. So in order to compete they are faced with two possibilities: a) they could reduced costs by reducing wages, they could reduce price ( which would also reduce wages), b) copy their product and methods but in doing so will cause the layoff of 30 workers. Which choice do you believe the workers would choose (a or b)? If there was a large enough group (maybe a coalition) , they could decide by majority. Do you believe that the workers could decide who is eliminated?. Do the eliminated workers loose their ownership share of the company? Do you believe that factions within the workgroups would create real friction in the work place? That it could eventually operate like a coalition government? That it may begin the transistion back to some type of heirarchial structure? Do you begin to see that human personality not predictable, is not easily conformed? Not everybody always just gets along with everybody. I have worked in small, medium and a large companies. I have witnessed all kinds of events, and yet still can be surprised by some strange personality / emotional reactions, etc. I am only touching on some of the possibilities.
On a separate note, I am enjoying our conversations. My goal is that we learn something from each other and I would hope that yours is the same. I think where we differ is that I believe we have more control than you are stating. Maybe it is in how we are defining "control"?
PS. Is there a better way to communicate than using this forum.? I see we run out of "reply" sometimes. It also not the easiest when I use my iPad (sometimes lose my replies and have to start over again, and formatting not the easiest).
Corporations are private tyrannies.It's not just states that can have undemocratic control and dominate people.
Assad certainly has more power than an avarage factory owner, but the point is that both Assad the factory owner have undemocratic power and control over others. We should seek to dismantle all illegitimate hierarchies.
Libertarian Socialism is perfectly feasible; it'll work just fine. We've seen examples of societies basing their organization, to a large extent, on libertarian socialist principles.
Capitalism (in any form) is not sustainable in the long run. It must be abolished sooner or later. And the only reasonable long term goal is to replace this awful system with a really large scale libertarian socialist society.
"So we are challenged to find the right hybrid that actually could be implemented over time."
Yes, a hybrid of real libertarian values such as freedom and oppostion to tyranny, and real socialist values such as workplace democracy and equality: Libertarian Socialism :)
So basically, any hierarchy is illegitimate if not voted on democratically. Then as such, this would apply to a small corner store where the owner and his two employees work? Is there then any legitimate hierarchy?
“I say that the aggressors would be the non property holders and the ones that would start the violence.”
I don’t want there to be violence. When the property owners accept the will of the people, as they should, there’ll be a peaceful takeover. The ones not willing to accept the will of the people must be forced with the use of violence if necessary. That generalizes. This is how it is in democratic countries today, that’s how it must be in the future.
“If people came to take away someones factory, who is the the aggressor and who is the defender? I believe the answer is quite easy: the factory owner is the defender of his property that is about to be stolen from him.”
Fallen kings and dictators etc have all called the people participating in the uprising against them aggressors, but it was still right to overthrow them.
Call it aggression if you like, but fighting tyranny and undemocratic forces is legitimate.
Do you support the uprising against Assad?
“I believe there will be another way to have social fairness and justice without all the violence that is predictable with your proposal.”
What is your proposal, then?
“We will also later discuss patents and copyrights.”
Ok.
Yes I support the uprising against Assad. But that is the government, with dictatorial powers over the people. A simple factory owner does not have that power. The factory owner does not make laws, can not arrest, etc. I do not agree with that type of comparison(too extreme of an example). I do not have a proposal, only optimism at the moment as I believe that we will find a fair way. But I will think about it. The problem you have is that you can not get from theory to reality. You can see that point from our discussion. Starting from scratch would be easy. But that is not where we are. So it forces us to deal with and fix what we have. The people must support it (any proposal) or it goes no where. The "unwilling" need to be sold on the idea so they will give up what they own "willingly". I think we agree on that important point. So we are challenged to find the right hybrid that actually could be implemented over time.
"Based on your answer, there will be armed conflict."
No one can predict how much violence will occure in a transition phase. I can only repeat what I said earlier: I hope the transition phase will be as peaceful as possible.
"What I am saying is the holders of property would defend against those that try to take it."
Many will propably do this, icluding with the use of violence. But just like democratic societies today would defend themselves and stop undemocratic forces refusing to follow the will of the people, the same must be done in the transition phase to a free and just society.
"The property holders would not attack the non- property holders. The non-property holders would be the aggressors and be wrong"
It's about defending democracy. If the people wanted to collectivize the economic institutions, and the property owners decided to not accept this, then the people must defend themselves against these undeocratic forces.
"That is tyranny of a majority."
Spare me this right-wing BS. It must be the people that should get to decide what kind of society they should have; individuals should have a say in the things that affect them. Sometimes the minorty agrees with you, sometimes the majority agrees. That's how it's like to liv in a soceity with other people.
"I would prefer to defend what I own, as would many others."
Whether they're slave-owners, kings, dictators, CEOs or whatever, undemocratic forces must be stripped from their power, no matter if they resist or not.
"I will eventually want to discuss "ownership of means of production" with you."
Sure. Bring it on.
Just one thing. I say that the aggressors would be the non property holders and the ones that would start the violence. You seem to say that the non property holders would be defending themselves against undemocratic forces. If people came to take away someones factory, who is the the aggressor and who is the defender? I believe the answer is quite easy: the factory owner is the defender of his property that is about to be stolen from him. There is no other way to say it. For me, I believe there will be another way to have social fairness and justice without all the violence that is predictable with your proposal. We will also later discuss patents and copyrights.
"I asked because would you be willing to give your ownership away?"
Could you elaborate. I'm not sure if I understand what you mean.
"My understanding from all our various conversations is that property ownership would not be allowed under your proposal"
That's not entirely correct. There's a difference between personal belongings like your CD collection or your sofa etc, and corporations. It is the economic institutions that must be the main focus.
"If that is the case, where is the line drawn for any business, especially small business owners, etc?"
Again, things, big or small, must be controlled by the ones participating. Having a democratic say in the things you're a part of and affected by is essential in a real participatory democracy.
"I have a large problem with any revolutionary proposal where there is a high probability of civil strife"
If undemocratic forces want to turn to violence self defense will be necessary. There's nothing controvercial about that. That's how democratic countries would react today.
The quest for human liberation must never stop, and I hope it'll be as peaceful as possible.
"You just can not take what is not legally yours."
Today's property rights can be changed. A libertarian Socialist society can only become reality if the people and communities want it.
"If I started a small company, performed all the tasks to get it started, and made it successful. Then due to that success, I was able to hire additional employees, eventually turning it into to a medium sized operation (maybe 300 workers). Under your proposal, I would be "forced" to give this company to the workers?"
I want a free egalitarian, participatory democracy where this is not a very relevant issue, but yes, I would advocate forcing you to give up your privileges in that example. Everyone participating should have an equal say. You should not have the right to have undemocratic control and dominate others.
"How would I be compensated for my labor, which is essentially stored in the value of the company?"
Your compensation would be a right to a democratic say in the things you're apart of - like everyone else.
"If I said no, then what would happen under your transition period?"
You'd be carried out of your office if necessary.
"Would the people just take it from me?"
Yes.
"What would happen if I just chose to burn it down rather than give it up?"
I don't know how that would unfold in detail, but it would certainly be a loss to the community and it would not make you very popular within the community you live; and if you're a decent human being it would leave you with lots of shame and loss of self respect.
What would happen if I resisted (essentially armed conflict)?
If necessary the people would have to defend themselves against undemocratic forces (just like it is today)
"Your believing everyone would just cooperate."
Oh, no, ther'd be lots of resistance from the owners.
"You can never make the transition, therefore you can never make this happen."
Of course we can create a free participatory democracy. Thruout history there have been many examples of big changes, it can happen again...In fact it must happen again, because our current economic system is not sustainable.
Based on your answer, there will be armed conflict. What I am saying is the holders of property would defend against those that try to take it. The property holders would not attack the non- property holders. The non-property holders would be the aggressors and be wrong, irregardless of the vote. That is tyranny of a majority. I would prefer to defend what I own, as would many others. I believe you know that the end does not justify the means and is wrong. Very very wrong. I can not hold to violent change. While the theories can be good, implementation is where it goes bad, and will never happen. We will continue to discuss elsewhere In the forum. I will read further and continue to question. I will eventually want to discuss "ownership of means of production" with you.
If that were true, there would be no need to protest for higher wages or better working conditions.
Not sure if i understand your reply, please clarify.
If no one had power and control over others, there'd be equality; the wealth and resourses would be owned in common, so there'd be no need for protest :)
Are you answering for drjekyll?
No, I was just sharing my own thoughts.
the answer is the same as I would have given.
You are correct !!!!!! and you'll be attacked for stating facts. ows has an agenda, the facts be damned.
you people are just clueless. Any of you study history? And why the societies you propose have failed, often miserably?
Do you really think this society is working? 1 in 7 on food stamps, 49 million with no health insurance, 22% of American children living in poverty, declining wages, CEO's earning 343 times the wage of the average worker (30 years ago the average CEO earned 40 times the wage of the average worker), high unemployment, astronomically high college costs,....and all of this while corporate profits are at an all time high. Our kids stink at math and science, our life expectancy ranks 50th in the world, our infant mortality ranks 34th, and the list goes on and on.
"Any of you study history?
Sure.
"And why the societies you propose have failed, often miserably?"
The greatest anarchist acheivement so far was in 1930s Spain. It was very successful actually. Unfortunantly it was eventually crushed by powerful opponents.
yes, crushed by the nazis, the west (us and uk) and the soviets - nice combination - those groups would all attack a successful anarchist movement today
People controlling undemocratic hierarchical structures will naturally always fight the ones who want to dismantle undemocratic hierarchical structures.
right
Good luck with that asshole
I hope you'll change your mind in the future and join the struggle for a free and just society.