Russian analyst predicts 'breakup' of USA; France surrenders
- Thread starter The Ozzman
- Start date
Death Aflame
voice of dissent
- Feb 1, 2004
- 2,504
- 2
- 38
- 37
Libertarianism in its original meaning is a socialist term, more recently it has been hijacked by the extreme American Right to become synonymous with unfettered capitalism. Outside of the American context (and even within it, if you go back far enough) and throughout history it has been a socialist term.
Death Aflame
voice of dissent
- Feb 1, 2004
- 2,504
- 2
- 38
- 37
there was a question? It seemed you were trying to paint anarchism as different from libertarianism when they are of the same meaning. 'Anarcho'-capitalism or unfettered Capitalism is not libertarianism as there can be no liberty without socialism in the view of anarchists and libertarians. Of course you could disagree with this and all that, but this is the tradition from which I am drawing and hence the one that I support.
I said anarchism is an extreme form of libertarianism. I wasn't implying they are really different, just two extremes of the same thing
cookiecutter
Proceed to Ultraslamming
I think what DA is saying is that Libertarianism used to have a socialist meaning rather than its current American meaning of extreme capitalism. If I'm interpreting him right DA is saying that his preferred form of Anarchism would stick more to the older socialist meaning rather than the extreme capitalist meaning which is the one that you probably meant.
I'd like DA to provide the socialist interpretation of libertarianism for me (from a source other than wiki since he apparently has a bunch)
cookiecutter
Proceed to Ultraslamming
Cythraul
Active Member
- Dec 10, 2003
- 6,755
- 134
- 63
Cythraul
Active Member
- Dec 10, 2003
- 6,755
- 134
- 63
From my quick skim of that pedopedia article I gather that the main difference between libertarianism and libertarian socialism is that the latter repudiates the legitimacy of 'most forms of economically significant private property.'
Interesting, this libertarian socialism. DA, mind telling me how such a state of affairs could arise in a non-coercive manner? That article is tl;dr
Interesting, this libertarian socialism. DA, mind telling me how such a state of affairs could arise in a non-coercive manner? That article is tl;dr
Death Aflame
voice of dissent
- Feb 1, 2004
- 2,504
- 2
- 38
- 37
Here is Noam Chomsky discussing the difference between the two:
From an AFAQ:
However, due to the creation of the Libertarian Party in the USA, many people now consider the idea of "libertarian socialism" to be a contradiction in terms. Indeed, many "Libertarians" think anarchists are just attempting to associate the "anti-libertarian" ideas of "socialism" (as Libertarians conceive it) with Libertarian ideology in order to make those "socialist" ideas more "acceptable" -- in other words, trying to steal the "libertarian" label from its rightful possessors.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Anarchists have been using the term "libertarian" to describe themselves and their ideas since the 1850's. According to anarchist historian Max Nettlau, the revolutionary anarchist Joseph Dejacque published Le Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement Social in New York between 1858 and 1861 while the use of the term "libertarian communism" dates from November, 1880 when a French anarchist congress adopted it. [Max Nettlau, A Short History of Anarchism, p. 75 and p. 145] The use of the term "Libertarian" by anarchists became more popular from the 1890s onward after it was used in France in an attempt to get round anti-anarchist laws and to avoid the negative associations of the word "anarchy" in the popular mind (Sebastien Faure and Louise Michel published the paper Le Libertaire -- The Libertarian -- in France in 1895, for example). Since then, particularly outside America, it has always been associated with anarchist ideas and movements. Taking a more recent example, in the USA, anarchists organised "The Libertarian League" in July 1954, which had staunch anarcho-syndicalist principles and lasted until 1965. The US-based "Libertarian" Party, on the other hand has only existed since the early 1970's, well over 100 years after anarchists first used the term to describe their political ideas (and 90 years after the expression "libertarian communism" was first adopted). It is that party, not the anarchists, who have "stolen" the word. Later, in Section B, we will discuss why the idea of a "libertarian" capitalism (as desired by the Libertarian Party) is a contradiction in terms.
You are separating the two as if all anarchism is libertarianism, but not all libertarianism is anarchism. From the traditional, and historical perspective, libertarianism is completely synonymous with anarchism (as shown above), thus they are equal terms in the minds of those who originally used them.
The Libertarian Party of the US has taken this term, obviously, but I believe what most anarchists would believe--the use of 'libertarian' here is illegitimate since unfettered capitalism would necessarily impinge on the freedom of others. This is obvious just in the example of the wage slavery system that exists under state-protected capitalism today. Under unfettered capitalism, potentially, this could be even worse since private owners would have, presumably, no responsibility to the people.
As Mikhail Bakunin, an early anarchist, said "Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery, brutality".
Anarchists are opposed to private property, but not opposed to personal possession--and there is an important distinction between the two. To anarchists, and in Proudhon's words, property is theft or more directly "Property . . . violates equality by the rights of exclusion and increase, and freedom by despotism . . . [and has] perfect identity with robbery." [Proudhon, What is Property, p. 251]
From an AFAQ:
Firstly, [the property is theft maxim] recognises the fact that the earth and its resources, the common inheritance of all, have been monopolised by a few. Secondly, it argues that, as a consequence of this, those who own property exploit those who do not. This is because those who do not own have to pay or sell their labour to those who do own in order to get access to the resources they need to live and work (such as workplaces, machinery, land, credit, housing, products under patents, and such like).
In other words, private property is the state writ small, with the property owner acting as the "sovereign lord" over their property, and so the absolute king of those who use it. As in any monarchy, the worker is the subject of the capitalist, having to follow their orders, laws and decisions while on their property. This, obviously, is the total denial of liberty (and dignity, we may note, as it is degrading to have to follow orders). And so private property (capitalism) necessarily excludes participation, influence, and control by those who use, but do not own, the means of life.
[...]
To summarise, anarchists are in favour of the kind of property which "cannot be used to exploit another -- those kinds of personal possessions which we accumulate from childhood and which become part of our lives." We are opposed to the kind of property "which can be used only to exploit people -- land and buildings, instruments of production and distribution, raw materials and manufactured articles, money and capital." [Nicholas Walter, About Anarchism, p. 40] As a rule of thumb, anarchists oppose those forms of property which are owned by a few people but which are used by others. This leads to the former controlling the latter and using them to produce a surplus for them (either directly, as in the case of a employee, or indirectly, in the case of a tenant).
The key is that "possession" is rooted in the concept of "use rights" or "usufruct" while "private property" is rooted in a divorce between the users and ownership. For example, a house that one lives in is a possession, whereas if one rents it to someone else at a profit it becomes property. Similarly, if one uses a saw to make a living as a self-employed carpenter, the saw is a possession; whereas if one employs others at wages to use the saw for one's own profit, it is property. Needless to say, a capitalist workplace, where the workers are ordered about by a boss, is an example of "property" while a co-operative, where the workers manage their own work, is an example of "possession."
This is an interesting question, but since it is quite hypothetical it is difficult to answer. So I'll give you some historical examples and you could judge for yourself if they are non-coercive in nature (just a minor note here, Anarchists do not oppose violence against property, for property, as distinct from possession, is inherently illegitimate and thus it is non-coercive to destroy it, and if one feels as though they have been attacked, defending one's self against the attackers is not only allowable under anarchism but encouraged and Capitalistic exploitation could be considered to be such an attack).
The largest anarchist society (in terms of numbers of people) to arise was during the Spanish Revolution, which you can read more about here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Spain and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_Catalonia; the longest surviving anarchist society, though smaller in number of participants was the Israeli Kibbutz movement, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz, though it must be noted that it has lost much of what defined it as an Anarchist society today.
Alternatively you could listen to Chomsky describe both in brief here, at about 6:10 :
And for a more recent example of a movement of direct democracy (along with solidarity/mutual aid, this is one of the key forms of praxis that Anarchists advocate for and encourage) that shows signs of anarchist principles being put into action, you may be interested in checking out what has been happening in Venezuela: http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/1...-in-venezuela/
Edit: some of these sources are ones that I posted previously, but considering there relevance and since I didn't get any responses then, I figure I won't get hung out to dry for repeating them.
From an AFAQ:
However, due to the creation of the Libertarian Party in the USA, many people now consider the idea of "libertarian socialism" to be a contradiction in terms. Indeed, many "Libertarians" think anarchists are just attempting to associate the "anti-libertarian" ideas of "socialism" (as Libertarians conceive it) with Libertarian ideology in order to make those "socialist" ideas more "acceptable" -- in other words, trying to steal the "libertarian" label from its rightful possessors.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Anarchists have been using the term "libertarian" to describe themselves and their ideas since the 1850's. According to anarchist historian Max Nettlau, the revolutionary anarchist Joseph Dejacque published Le Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement Social in New York between 1858 and 1861 while the use of the term "libertarian communism" dates from November, 1880 when a French anarchist congress adopted it. [Max Nettlau, A Short History of Anarchism, p. 75 and p. 145] The use of the term "Libertarian" by anarchists became more popular from the 1890s onward after it was used in France in an attempt to get round anti-anarchist laws and to avoid the negative associations of the word "anarchy" in the popular mind (Sebastien Faure and Louise Michel published the paper Le Libertaire -- The Libertarian -- in France in 1895, for example). Since then, particularly outside America, it has always been associated with anarchist ideas and movements. Taking a more recent example, in the USA, anarchists organised "The Libertarian League" in July 1954, which had staunch anarcho-syndicalist principles and lasted until 1965. The US-based "Libertarian" Party, on the other hand has only existed since the early 1970's, well over 100 years after anarchists first used the term to describe their political ideas (and 90 years after the expression "libertarian communism" was first adopted). It is that party, not the anarchists, who have "stolen" the word. Later, in Section B, we will discuss why the idea of a "libertarian" capitalism (as desired by the Libertarian Party) is a contradiction in terms.
You are separating the two as if all anarchism is libertarianism, but not all libertarianism is anarchism. From the traditional, and historical perspective, libertarianism is completely synonymous with anarchism (as shown above), thus they are equal terms in the minds of those who originally used them.
The Libertarian Party of the US has taken this term, obviously, but I believe what most anarchists would believe--the use of 'libertarian' here is illegitimate since unfettered capitalism would necessarily impinge on the freedom of others. This is obvious just in the example of the wage slavery system that exists under state-protected capitalism today. Under unfettered capitalism, potentially, this could be even worse since private owners would have, presumably, no responsibility to the people.
As Mikhail Bakunin, an early anarchist, said "Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery, brutality".
Anarchists are opposed to private property, but not opposed to personal possession--and there is an important distinction between the two. To anarchists, and in Proudhon's words, property is theft or more directly "Property . . . violates equality by the rights of exclusion and increase, and freedom by despotism . . . [and has] perfect identity with robbery." [Proudhon, What is Property, p. 251]
From an AFAQ:
Firstly, [the property is theft maxim] recognises the fact that the earth and its resources, the common inheritance of all, have been monopolised by a few. Secondly, it argues that, as a consequence of this, those who own property exploit those who do not. This is because those who do not own have to pay or sell their labour to those who do own in order to get access to the resources they need to live and work (such as workplaces, machinery, land, credit, housing, products under patents, and such like).
In other words, private property is the state writ small, with the property owner acting as the "sovereign lord" over their property, and so the absolute king of those who use it. As in any monarchy, the worker is the subject of the capitalist, having to follow their orders, laws and decisions while on their property. This, obviously, is the total denial of liberty (and dignity, we may note, as it is degrading to have to follow orders). And so private property (capitalism) necessarily excludes participation, influence, and control by those who use, but do not own, the means of life.
[...]
To summarise, anarchists are in favour of the kind of property which "cannot be used to exploit another -- those kinds of personal possessions which we accumulate from childhood and which become part of our lives." We are opposed to the kind of property "which can be used only to exploit people -- land and buildings, instruments of production and distribution, raw materials and manufactured articles, money and capital." [Nicholas Walter, About Anarchism, p. 40] As a rule of thumb, anarchists oppose those forms of property which are owned by a few people but which are used by others. This leads to the former controlling the latter and using them to produce a surplus for them (either directly, as in the case of a employee, or indirectly, in the case of a tenant).
The key is that "possession" is rooted in the concept of "use rights" or "usufruct" while "private property" is rooted in a divorce between the users and ownership. For example, a house that one lives in is a possession, whereas if one rents it to someone else at a profit it becomes property. Similarly, if one uses a saw to make a living as a self-employed carpenter, the saw is a possession; whereas if one employs others at wages to use the saw for one's own profit, it is property. Needless to say, a capitalist workplace, where the workers are ordered about by a boss, is an example of "property" while a co-operative, where the workers manage their own work, is an example of "possession."
This is an interesting question, but since it is quite hypothetical it is difficult to answer. So I'll give you some historical examples and you could judge for yourself if they are non-coercive in nature (just a minor note here, Anarchists do not oppose violence against property, for property, as distinct from possession, is inherently illegitimate and thus it is non-coercive to destroy it, and if one feels as though they have been attacked, defending one's self against the attackers is not only allowable under anarchism but encouraged and Capitalistic exploitation could be considered to be such an attack).
The largest anarchist society (in terms of numbers of people) to arise was during the Spanish Revolution, which you can read more about here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Spain and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_Catalonia; the longest surviving anarchist society, though smaller in number of participants was the Israeli Kibbutz movement, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz, though it must be noted that it has lost much of what defined it as an Anarchist society today.
Alternatively you could listen to Chomsky describe both in brief here, at about 6:10 :
And for a more recent example of a movement of direct democracy (along with solidarity/mutual aid, this is one of the key forms of praxis that Anarchists advocate for and encourage) that shows signs of anarchist principles being put into action, you may be interested in checking out what has been happening in Venezuela: http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/1...-in-venezuela/
Edit: some of these sources are ones that I posted previously, but considering there relevance and since I didn't get any responses then, I figure I won't get hung out to dry for repeating them.
Last edited by a moderator:
Could you post something other than a youtube vid? I am at work and don't have speakers on this computer.
Death Aflame
voice of dissent
- Feb 1, 2004
- 2,504
- 2
- 38
- 37
There is a large block quote beneath the first youtube video which explains essentially the same thing.
And the historical examples can be researched using the Wiki links I gave you, if you don't have access to the video right now.
Thanks for expounding. I just noticed the additional text at the bottom here.
So, the anarchists consider manufacturing and commercial entities as 'private property' but they consider stuff like houses as 'possessions'?
So, the anarchists consider manufacturing and commercial entities as 'private property' but they consider stuff like houses as 'possessions'?
Death Aflame
voice of dissent
- Feb 1, 2004
- 2,504
- 2
- 38
- 37
It is not inherent in the 'stuff' or the 'material' whether something is a possession or a property--what makes them one or the other lies in their use. For instance, a house could become property if you rent out a room to achieve a surplus from a tenant--this is exploitation. If you want to get absurd about it, if I rented to you my toothbrush, its use would transform from a personal possession to a piece of property through which I exploit you to gain a surplus. Similarly, a workplace that is corporate controlled, that is the few commanding the many, is an exploitative property since the workers are exploited, through wage slavery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery), to the profit of the few that control the corporation.
However, if the workplace is run by the workers, such as in a co-operative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative), than it no longer is property, since no one is 'under the boot' so to speak of someone else--gains and losses are evenly distributed and the worker is free to do his or her work without coercion from above. In other words, the worker's relation to the co-operative is one of voluntary association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unincorporated_association) and not exploitation.
So do you see something like a mortgage as exploitative because it's to the benefit of one person and the detriment of another?
Death Aflame
voice of dissent
- Feb 1, 2004
- 2,504
- 2
- 38
- 37
I agree with you in some respects, but keep in mind that wage slavery is a very old term which when first used was probably extremely accurate in defining the conditions that existed under industrialization. Just because conditions have gotten better, it doesn't mean that wage slavery or wage exploitation have disappeared.
However, in the case of tyranny, I think its use is justified to explain how corporations are managed--they are, tangibly and metaphorically, private tyrannies.
Yes because the one providing the mortgage is ostensibly the owner of the property who is exploiting the prospective owner through an agreement that gives the former a profit, or at least this is the intent.
This is how I presume an anarchist would view mortgages, anyways since both 'profit' and 'property' are rejected by them.
Death Aflame
voice of dissent
- Feb 1, 2004
- 2,504
- 2
- 38
- 37
While there are certainly different levels of tyranny, I would say any business that uses wage exploitation and top down organization is essentially tyrannical in the sense that the owner(s) hold absolute power over those that they 'employ'.
After all, a tyranny can be defined most simply as "a single ruler [or set of rulers] holding absolute power over a state or within an organization". In other words, it isn't necessary for a business to treat its workers in a 'cruel' or 'harsh' manner for it to be considered tyrannical (i.e. organized in such a way as to allow for a 'master' or 'sovereign leader') in the original sense.
Similar threads
