Libertarian Socialists Form in Denmark
Dan Clore
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
http://www.anarkismo.net/article/15065
Libert�re Socialister/Libertarian Socialists formed in Denmark!
The 8th of November witnessed the founding conference of the Danish
group Libert�re Socialister (literally: Libertarian Socialists). It's
over ten years since Denmark last had a specifically socialist anarchist
group, so this happy event was long overdue. Over two days, 18
representatives from local groups in Aalborg, �rhus, Copenhagen and
Svendborg, as well as members of the sister organizations SUF (Sweden)
and Motmakt (Norway) met in good spirits to discuss and vote in a
constitution, political platform and an action plan for 2010.
Politically, Libert�re Socialister has oriented itself towards
syndicalist, anarcho-communist and collectivist anarchist currents, as
well as council communists and other strains of libertarian socialism.
In practice, it will be organised on the basis of local groups organized
together by way of direct democracy in a federal structure. These local
groups will be supplemented by working groups that will deal with
specific political or practical issues.
Libert�re Socialister expects to start with approximately 25 members
nationwide, and welcomes contact with like-minded groups abroad - they
can be contacted at lsko...@gmail.com
Related Link:
http://www.libsoc.dk
--
Dan Clore
New book: _Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon_:
http://tinyurl.com/yd3bxkw
My collected fiction: _The Unspeakable and Others_
(Wait for the new edition: http://hplmythos.com/ )
Lord We�rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Skipper: Professor, will you tell these people who is
in charge on this island?
Professor: Why, no one.
Skipper: No one?
Thurston Howell III: No one? Good heavens, this is anarchy!
-- _Gilligan's Island_, episode #6, "President Gilligan"
James A. Donald
<cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
>
> http://www.anarkismo.net/article/15065
> Libertære Socialister/Libertarian Socialists formed in Denmark!
>
> The 8th of November witnessed the founding conference of the Danish
> group Libertære Socialister (literally: Libertarian Socialists).
Lets form a flying pigs group. We have no idea how we can enable pigs
to fly, but we are fully in favor of them flying.
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
Tim Howard
> The 8th of November witnessed the founding conference of the Danish
> group Libert�re Socialister (literally: Libertarian Socialists).
A "Libertarian Socialist" is a contradiction in terms.
>
> Libert�re Socialister expects to start with approximately 25 members
> nationwide, and welcomes contact with like-minded groups abroad - they
> can be contacted at lsko...@gmail.com
>
Oh wow. 25 members in a nation of 5.5 million? They're practically
ready to start the revolution!
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>Dan Clore wrote:
>
>> The 8th of November witnessed the founding conference of the Danish
>> group Libert�re Socialister (literally: Libertarian Socialists).
>
>A "Libertarian Socialist" is a contradiction in terms.
Why?
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
James A. Donald
> >A "Libertarian Socialist" is a contradiction in
> >terms.
Steve Hayes <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Why?
Socialism is the ownership of the means of production by
"everyone" - which means that each decision about
production must be made on behalf "everyone" - but
obviously not "everyone" can themselves make a decision.
A decision can only be made by one man, or a group small
enough to fit around a table in a small room with the
windows closed - in other words, all decisions must be
made by a Stalin or a Politburo, or something very
similar.
Without property rights in the means of production to
separate one man's plan from another man's different and
conflicting plan, there can only be one plan, one plan
for everything, one plan for everyone, one plan that all
must obey.
Every single socialist regime that was socialist in the
sense of abolishing or radically reducing private
property in the means of production, has found it
necessary to use terror against ordinary people, and
whenever they did so, western "libertarian" socialists
(for example Chomsky) were full of rationalizations and
justifications, and displayed a conspicuous lack of
surprise or shock at this terror.
If "the people" control things individually, then they
are free to buy and sell, and free to keep capital
goods, and profit from those capital goods, and you have
capitalism.
Socialism necessarily requires a vast centralized
bureaucracy and a brutal apparatus of terror, a
privileged elite waging unending war on the defenseless
and unarmed majority, and socialists seem to be quite
unbothered by those things when they happen in the real
world. Stalin would show his visitors the Gulag, and
they thought the Gulag was just fine until Stalin
started putting Marxists in it as well. Chomsky was
blissfully unworried by the slave states operated by the
Cambodians and the Vietnamese.
Think about a pencil. A pencil involves a multitude of
different materials, for example the glue that holds the
two sides together. Each of these materials has a
multitude of different uses.
In capitalism knowledge of this vast complexity, and
power over it, is dispersed over a vast multitude of
people. The guy making the glue does not have to know
or care about the social utility of conflicting uses of
the glue, because there is no social utility unless
somebody benefits, and if somebody benefits, they should
be willing to pay.
Under socialism this enormous multitude of allocational
decisions has to be made in conscious consideration of
the consequences. All the relevant knowledge has to be
brought together into a single room.
Now since every decision affects everyone, most people
cannot participate in these decisions, so all these
decisions must be made from above.
In capitalism, the customer ultimately has the power.
The businessman has no or little independent power, he
is merely a conduit for the will of the customer.
People in their role of producer must serve people in
their role as consumer, because the purpose of
production is consumption.
Under socialism a small privileged elite must exercise
the power that in our society is exercised by consumers.
Of course concentrating this power in few hands makes it
vastly greater, hence the need for unending war against
ordinary unarmed people that is such a striking feature
of every socialist society, a striking feature that
never seems to bother socialists much.
Catherine Jefferson
> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 00:29:30 -0800, Tim Howard <tim.h...@suddenlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Dan Clore wrote:
>>
>>> The 8th of November witnessed the founding conference of the Danish
>>> group Libert�re Socialister (literally: Libertarian Socialists).
>> A "Libertarian Socialist" is a contradiction in terms.
>
> Why?
*If* you (generic "you" of course) define socialism as "society imposes
collective ownership of property and collective decisionmaking about
many issues both for the benefit of the group and individuals within
it", and libertarianism as "the individual, not society, owns property
and makes all decisions that do not directly and significantly affect
the lives and welfare of other non-consenting human beings", then
socialism and libertarianism hold basic premises that are almost
completely in contradiction.
To make the two not contradict, you'll have to define the terms
differently. If you do redefine them, then maybe you've got something
that isn't contradictory. I'm not sure if many other people will agree
to go along with the redefinition of either of those terms, though.
--
Catherine Jefferson <ar...@devsite.org>
Personal Home Page * <http://www.devsite.org/>
The SpamBouncer * <http://www.spambouncer.org/>
*Anarcissie*
wrote:
> Steve Hayes wrote:
> > On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 00:29:30 -0800, Tim Howard <tim.how...@suddenlink.net>
> > wrote:
>
> >> Dan Clore wrote:
>
> >>> The 8th of November witnessed the founding conference of the Danish
> >> A "Libertarian Socialist" is a contradiction in terms.
>
> > Why?
>
> *If* you (generic "you" of course) define socialism as "society imposes
> collective ownership of property and collective decisionmaking about
> many issues both for the benefit of the group and individuals within
> it", and libertarianism as "the individual, not society, owns property
> and makes all decisions that do not directly and significantly affect
> the lives and welfare of other non-consenting human beings", then
> socialism and libertarianism hold basic premises that are almost
> completely in contradiction.
>
> To make the two not contradict, you'll have to define the terms
> differently. If you do redefine them, then maybe you've got something
> that isn't contradictory. I'm not sure if many other people will agree
> to go along with the redefinition of either of those terms, though.
The traditional definition of socialism is "the ownership
or control of the means of production by the workers or
by the people of the community." I suppose one ought
to add that an industrial context is supposed, since we
do not usually assign tribes of hunter-gatherers to the
socialist category.
Given an industrial context, I do not see anything
individualistic about either traditional capitalism or
socialism. Nor in my working life have I observed
much individualism in traditional capitalist
corporations. I don't really see where the
individualism business comes from or where it
is to be detected, which, given the highly collective
nature of much industrial production, is hardly
surprising
Fred Williams
> Tim Howard <tim.h...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
>> >A "Libertarian Socialist" is a contradiction in
>> >terms.
>
> Steve Hayes <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Why?
>
> Socialism is the ownership of the means of production by
> "everyone" - which means that each decision about
> production must be made on behalf "everyone" - but
> obviously not "everyone" can themselves make a decision.
> A decision can only be made by one man, or a group small
> enough to fit around a table in a small room with the
> windows closed - in other words, all decisions must be
> made by a Stalin or a Politburo, or something very
> similar.
>
Ridiculous right wing propaganda.
> Without property rights in the means of production to
> separate one man's plan from another man's different and
> conflicting plan, there can only be one plan, one plan
> for everything, one plan for everyone, one plan that all
> must obey.
>
Not "obey," rather "agree to."
--
Regards,
Fred
(remove FFFf from my email address to reply by email)
Dan Clore
> Steve Hayes wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 00:29:30 -0800, Tim Howard
>> <tim.h...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
>>> Dan Clore wrote:
>>>
>>>> The 8th of November witnessed the founding conference of the
>>>> Danish group Libert�re Socialister (literally: Libertarian
>>>> Socialists).
>>> A "Libertarian Socialist" is a contradiction in terms.
>> Why?
>
> *If* you (generic "you" of course) define socialism as "society
> imposes collective ownership of property and collective
> decisionmaking about many issues both for the benefit of the group
> and individuals within it", and libertarianism as "the individual,
> not society, owns property and makes all decisions that do not
> directly and significantly affect the lives and welfare of other
> non-consenting human beings", then socialism and libertarianism hold
> basic premises that are almost completely in contradiction.
>
> To make the two not contradict, you'll have to define the terms
> differently. If you do redefine them, then maybe you've got
> something that isn't contradictory. I'm not sure if many other
> people will agree to go along with the redefinition of either of
> those terms, though.
The problem here being that you (meaning you) use re-definitions of the
terms involved, not the traditional definitions:
http://www.nolanchart.com/article4246.html
It's worth noting that while in the USA the traditional definitions of
the terms have become fairly well concealed from memory, in places like
Denmark the traditional definitions are still used. The Danes probably
haven't even heard of the propertarian sort of libertarianism.
--
Dan Clore
New book: _Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon_:
http://tinyurl.com/yd3bxkw
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
(Wait for the new edition: http://hplmythos.com/ )
Lord We�rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
James A. Donald
> > Without property rights in the means of production
> > to separate one man's plan from another man's
> > different and conflicting plan, there can only be
> > one plan, one plan for everything, one plan for
> > everyone, one plan that all must obey.
Fred Williams
> Not "obey," rather "agree to."
But then everyone must agree to everything, which is not
going to happen except with a baton in their faces and a
whip on their backs.
Steve Hayes
wrote:
> Tim Howard <tim.h...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
>> >A "Libertarian Socialist" is a contradiction in
>> >terms.
>
>Steve Hayes <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Why?
>
>Socialism is the ownership of the means of production by
>"everyone" - which means that each decision about
>production must be made on behalf "everyone" - but
>obviously not "everyone" can themselves make a decision.
Not quite.
Socialism is the ownership of the means of production by the producers.
Steve Hayes
<spam...@spambouncer.org> wrote:
>Steve Hayes wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 00:29:30 -0800, Tim Howard <tim.h...@suddenlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dan Clore wrote:
>>>
>>>> The 8th of November witnessed the founding conference of the Danish
>>>> group Libert�re Socialister (literally: Libertarian Socialists).
>>> A "Libertarian Socialist" is a contradiction in terms.
>>
>> Why?
>
>*If* you (generic "you" of course) define socialism as "society imposes
>collective ownership of property and collective decisionmaking about
>many issues both for the benefit of the group and individuals within
>it", and libertarianism as "the individual, not society, owns property
>and makes all decisions that do not directly and significantly affect
>the lives and welfare of other non-consenting human beings", then
>socialism and libertarianism hold basic premises that are almost
>completely in contradiction.
>
>To make the two not contradict, you'll have to define the terms
>differently. If you do redefine them, then maybe you've got something
>that isn't contradictory. I'm not sure if many other people will agree
>to go along with the redefinition of either of those terms, though.
The question is, which is the definition and which is the re-definition?
>it", and libertarianism as "the individual, not society, owns property
>and makes all decisions that do not directly and significantly affect
>the lives and welfare of other non-consenting human beings", then
>socialism and libertarianism hold basic premises that are almost
>completely in contradiction.
This raises several questions.
The original post did not refer to "libertarianism" as an ideology, but used
"libertarian" as an adjective. Are only the exponents of the perticular
libertarian ideology that you mentioned entitled to use the adjective?
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>It's worth noting that while in the USA the traditional definitions of
>the terms have become fairly well concealed from memory, in places like
>Denmark the traditional definitions are still used. The Danes probably
>haven't even heard of the propertarian sort of libertarianism.
Quite.
It appears that people in the USA, having themselves redefined the terms
"libertarian" and "socialist", now insist that those who continue to use them
with their original meaning are "redefining" them.
James A. Donald
<anarc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The traditional definition of socialism is "the ownership
> or control of the means of production by the workers or
> by the people of the community."
But the people of the community cannot make decisions as a whole.
Only individual people and small groups can make decisions. So if the
people as a whole own stuff, then someone or some small group
supposedly representing everyone has to make these decisions for
everyone, and impose them on everyone.
Terror follows.
*Anarcissie*
> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 11:51:28 -0800 (PST), "*Anarcissie*"
>
> > The traditional definition of socialism is "the ownership
> > or control of the means of production by the workers or
> > by the people of the community."
>
> But the people of the community cannot make decisions as a whole.
> Only individual people and small groups can make decisions. So if the
> people as a whole own stuff, then someone or some small group
> supposedly representing everyone has to make these decisions for
> everyone, and impose them on everyone.
>
> Terror follows.
All that, even if it were true, would be beside
the point. Many ideologies have little to do with
physical reality. I'm merely giving the definition
of socialism as it was more or less conceived
by its originators, which is less contradictory
with liberty and libertarianism than the canard
given by the capitalist media which had been
mentioned before.
Catherine Jefferson
> James A. Donald wrote:
>> Without property rights in the means of production to
>> separate one man's plan from another man's different and
>> conflicting plan, there can only be one plan, one plan
>> for everything, one plan for everyone, one plan that all
>> must obey.
>>
> Not "obey," rather "agree to."
If you must agree to a plan, then what's the difference between that and
"must obey"? That's the point, as far as I can tell -- if you are
compelled to agree to something, then the collective (whether you call
it "the government", "the people" or "the workers") made the decision.
You did not.
James A. Donald
> the terms have become fairly well concealed from memory, in places like
> Denmark the traditional definitions are still used. The Danes probably
> haven't even heard of the propertarian sort of libertarianism.
It means the same thing in Denmark as it means in the US, the right of
people to use, to buy, and to sell what is theirs without busybodies
meddling - see the danish entry in Wikipedia:
http://translate.google.com.au/translate?hl=en&sl=da&u=http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianisme
Catherine Jefferson
> Socialism is the ownership of the means of production by the producers.
Then, by that definition, Soviet Russia was not socialist, but Hong Kong
and Singapore largely are. Better yet, by that definition, any part
of the world where most of the business is small and owned by those who
produce the product or service is socialist. (Shaking head.)
Alright, I like that kind of "socialism". It just isn't what the word
has ever meant in my world.
Catherine Jefferson
> Terror follows.
Generally true if you try to create socialism in a nation-state sized
entity. The "utopian socialist" communities of the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries in the United States and some other countries often
worked rather well, at least for the generation that created those
communities. I'd say they worked well because you had a self-selected
group of people that wanted to make them work. People usually can make
something work if they really want to, and in a society of that type,
you don't face the task, and pay the price, of imposing the will of a
few on the majority.
I don't know of a single purely or mostly socialist country that worked
out from either an economic or a human rights standpoint, though.
Russia and eastern Europe did not. I spent time there, and have *no*
sympathy for any attempt to whitewash the combination of grey boredom,
terror and hopelessness that I saw. China did not; the Cultural
Revolution and Tiananman Square between them discredited Maoism as
completely as I can imagine anything being discredited. I could run
down the list of other socialist or communist countries and the results
would be the same or worse in most cases.
The closest thing to working socialism I've seen was in western Europe,
where you actually had mixed economies with some socialist and some
capitalist features. Certain basic services that aren't usually "on the
tab" in capitalist systems were provided by the government, such as
medical care and post-secondary education. Usually the social safety
nets were more robust, as well -- various types of income support,
housing, food allowances, etc. for the unemployed or poverty-stricken.
Even many of those systems have added more capitalism to their mix,
however, as heavy taxation and other "business unfriendly" policies
drove businesses and people elsewhere.
The differences between these systems and what I grew up with are more a
matter of degree than kind, as well. The U.S. is also a mixed economy.
The closest thing the U.S. (and I suspect the world) has seen to pure
capitalism was IMHO about as attractive as the closest thing we've seen
to pure communism. I find the robber barons of the late 1800s in the
U.S. and those running Albania or North Korea under communism about
equally distasteful. :/ The biggest difference is that there was
somewhat more chance of escaping the factories in the United States,
although I attribute that mostly to the existence of the frontier.
To get back to the original topic, the terms "libertarian" and
"socialist" as I've always understood them do not fit well together.
That doesn't mean that this particular group of Danes means what I think
of when I try to conceive of something "libertarian socialist", of
course. But if they want to communicate with me, in any event, they'd
probably best explain what they do mean, because the mental picture I
get on hearing this can't be what they intended. ;-)
James A. Donald
> Generally true if you try to create socialism in a
> nation-state sized entity. The "utopian socialist"
> communities of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries
> in the United States and some other countries often
> worked rather well,
No they did not. The classic examples of utopian
socialist communities were the Pilgrims and New Harmony.
Among the Pilgrims damned little got produced, and what
little there was that was produced was produced by
violence. In New Harmony, nothing was produced. When
the Pilgrims ended this disastrous program, they got in
a decent crop, for which they gave thanks. Thanksgiving
was originally to thank God for ordaining capitalism
among men, and the governor presciently wrote that those
who believed in socialism thought themselves wiser than
God.
> The closest thing to working socialism I've seen was
> in western Europe, where you actually had mixed
> economies with some socialist and some capitalist
> features. Certain basic services that aren't usually
> "on the tab" in capitalist systems were provided by
> the government, such as medical care and
> post-secondary education. Usually the social safety
> nets were more robust, as well -- various types of
> income support, housing, food allowances, etc. for the
> unemployed or poverty-stricken. Even many of those
> systems have added more capitalism to their mix,
> however, as heavy taxation and other "business
> unfriendly" policies drove businesses and people
> elsewhere.
When the host threatened to die, the parasite eased up.
Everywhere in the world, people vote with their feet to
go from the more socialist economy to the less socialist
- London and Dublin are full of young frenchmen and
dutchmen.
> The differences between these systems and what I grew
> up with are more a matter of degree than kind, as
> well. The U.S. is also a mixed economy. The closest
> thing the U.S. (and I suspect the world) has seen to
> pure capitalism was IMHO about as attractive as the
> closest thing we've seen to pure communism.
That would be Hong Kong, which seems mighty attractive.
> I find the robber barons of the late 1800s in the U.S.
> and those running Albania or North Korea under
> communism about equally distasteful.
You were there? You don't sound that old.
The greatest of the "robber barons" was the guy who made
petroleum useful, making cars affordable. He "robbed"
people by reducing the cost of gasoline by an order of
magnitude, which threw those who wanted a world of
slavery, poverty, and fear into a frenzy of outrage.
They hated him then for transforming society by bringing
personal transport into reach of the masses, and they
have hate him today for the same reasons they hated him
then. To this day they want to undo what he did, the
present rationale being global warming, which supposedly
requires that all of us stick to walking while Al Gore
flies hither and yon in his private jet to tell us to
stick to walking.
You have simply been lied to. Capitalism massively and
immediately raised the standards of living of the poor,
everywhere it has been tried, for example the industrial
revolution.
I am sure that your school taught you of the Industrial
Revolution that in 1863 Gladstone said
"This intoxicating augmentation of wealth and
power is entirely confined to the classes of
property"
When in fact what Gladstone said was
"I should look almost with pain on this
intoxicating augmentation of wealth and power if
it was my belief that it was confined to the class
that are in easy circumstances, but the average
condition of the British laborer, we have the
happiness to know, has improved during the last
twenty years to a degree which we know to be
extraordinary, and which we may almost pronounce
to be unexampled in the history of any country and
any age"
Steve Hayes
<spam...@spambouncer.org> wrote:
>Steve Hayes wrote:
>
>> Socialism is the ownership of the means of production by the producers.
>
>Then, by that definition, Soviet Russia was not socialist, but Hong Kong
> and Singapore largely are. Better yet, by that definition, any part
>of the world where most of the business is small and owned by those who
>produce the product or service is socialist. (Shaking head.)
As I think someone else has pointed out, the system in Soviet Russia was not
socialism, but state capitalism.
>Alright, I like that kind of "socialism". It just isn't what the word
>has ever meant in my world.
Though it may not be libertarian, I like the kind of socialism exemplified by
building scoieties and mutual insurance associations.
I believe that in some parts of North America there are similar bodies called
"credit unions", though I'm not sure of that.
Steve Hayes
<spam...@spambouncer.org> wrote:
>James A. Donald wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 11:51:28 -0800 (PST), "*Anarcissie*"
>> <anarc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> The traditional definition of socialism is "the ownership
>>> or control of the means of production by the workers or
>>> by the people of the community."
>
>> But the people of the community cannot make decisions as a whole.
>> Only individual people and small groups can make decisions. So if the
>> people as a whole own stuff, then someone or some small group
>> supposedly representing everyone has to make these decisions for
>> everyone, and impose them on everyone.
>
> > Terror follows.
>
>Generally true if you try to create socialism in a nation-state sized
>entity. The "utopian socialist" communities of the nineteenth and
>twentieth centuries in the United States and some other countries often
>worked rather well, at least for the generation that created those
>communities. I'd say they worked well because you had a self-selected
>group of people that wanted to make them work. People usually can make
>something work if they really want to, and in a society of that type,
>you don't face the task, and pay the price, of imposing the will of a
>few on the majority.
Well, there now, you've said it. That's why that kind of socialism can be a
great deal more libertarian than corporate capitalism.
jos boersema
On 2009-11-29, James A Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> Tim Howard <tim.h...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
>> >A "Libertarian Socialist" is a contradiction in
>> >terms.
>
> Steve Hayes <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Why?
>
> Socialism is the ownership of the means of production by
> "everyone"
Say who ?
http://www.socialism.nl I think that site is called "socialism,"
and I even think it is my own site, how's that. So, does it
conform to "means of production are owned by 'everyone.'" ?
Well ... you take my word for it ? What is on my own site ?
The soil (natural resources) are to be distributed. Everyone
is going to get an equal share. You own that land in the sense
that you can use it within the limits the Gov sets for it,
you can make it productive or leave it barren. The Gov would
limit that you turn it into a toxic waste dump for example.
If a large sector of land is designated "wild area, but you
can hunt here," then persons could own licenses to hunt
there, such and so many animals. Because that represents an
economic value it falls under the distribution mechanism.
Now how exactly that is all being done and administered and
computed, that's the task of "everyone," which means: the
government duly elected and forced to do the public will.
And no that's not handwaving: that's what about half of the
239 laws presented for a socialist Constitution are for.
Then we have personal belongings, what does my site, called
'socialism' I guess, say ? You can own up to a maximum. You
can own up to 30 times the average of wealth a person owns
in a nation. That is, basically: you can own about 10 homes
worth, complete with interior and cars and whatever comes
with it, assuming that most people live with 3 in a home.
Obviously you can adjust that maximum up or down by a mass
decision; you can make it 1000 or 5. But the principle is:
you can own a level of luxury 30 times above average. That
private ownership is there, too.
Then the corporations themselves ? They are owned by who
started them, and they operate in a free market where
obviously soil-ownership (natural resource ownership) is
not a part of like it used to, and neither is investment
capital or the selling/buying of whole companies. For the
rest it is a normal free market, and free enterprise.
Corporations are either owned by the starter, or the employees,
unless they are tiny as in fewer then 10 full time employees.
That is then neither "everyone" because it is a group thing.
What would "everyone" own then: the government, and what it
administers like infrastructure, police & justice, etc.
If you want to look really careful at what the 'means of
production' are, then it is nature itself. That's the means.
It is distributed in this model.
BTW, I'd agree with you that if 'the mass' owns 'everything,'
then you're probably in for a lot of problems.
> - which means that each decision about
> production must be made on behalf "everyone" - but
> obviously not "everyone" can themselves make a decision.
> A decision can only be made by one man, or a group small
> enough to fit around a table in a small room with the
> windows closed - in other words, all decisions must be
> made by a Stalin or a Politburo, or something very
> similar.
Agreed, so that's why we need corporations, that specialization.
And in the context of a free market too.
But we don't need a Pinochet to run a capitalist monster state.
How all that works is pretty subtle and convulated, ...
> Without property rights in the means of production to
> separate one man's plan from another man's different and
> conflicting plan, there can only be one plan, one plan
> for everything, one plan for everyone, one plan that all
> must obey.
> Every single socialist regime that was socialist in the
> sense of abolishing or radically reducing private
> property in the means of production, has found it
> necessary to use terror against ordinary people, and
> whenever they did so, western "libertarian" socialists
> (for example Chomsky) were full of rationalizations and
> justifications, and displayed a conspicuous lack of
> surprise or shock at this terror.
Because they use the name socialist doesn't mean they are social(ist).
Why do you think the USA claims to be democratic or socialist ? The
dictatorship found it useful to establish their rule. What did
feudal lords call themselves in the middle ages ? They called themselves
christian. Doesn't the USA call itself the indespensible nation, beaken
of hope and freedom ? Yet they foment capitalist dictatorship around the
world ?
> If "the people" control things individually, then they
> are free to buy and sell, and free to keep capital
> goods, and profit from those capital goods, and you have
> capitalism.
Sounds like a social plan, but you didn't describe capitalism you
described free trade. But you did it in an uninformed naieve way
and you will therefore probably allow a free market in money, investment
and soil also, and that could be called capitalism, which will destroy
your system in the end. Because people in fact do combine in
dictatorships in companies, which is most profitable for capital
investment. Then in the end you end with the horrors of laissez faire
capitalism, and eventualy the corrupt elites know they've gone too far
because the people cry revolution, and then they start a world war to
beat that back. That's what has happened. Because of the economic
ignorance of the people, on all sides.
> Socialism necessarily requires a vast centralized
> bureaucracy and a brutal apparatus of terror, a
> privileged elite waging unending war on the defenseless
> and unarmed majority, and socialists seem to be quite
> unbothered by those things when they happen in the real
> world. Stalin would show his visitors the Gulag, and
> they thought the Gulag was just fine until Stalin
> started putting Marxists in it as well. Chomsky was
> blissfully unworried by the slave states operated by the
> Cambodians and the Vietnamese.
Straight from the bureau of capitalist disinformation ?
What you described was very anti-social, so it be 'anti-socialism.'
But you are right that many communist/socialist parties turned a blind
eye to these issues and still do.
How about this impossibility: the Dutch communist party who is
vehemently anti-capitalist when it concerns the west, they applaud
the Chinese capitalism and its growth rates, not a word about the abuses
happening there and when CHina is in fact a capitalist dictatorship
now ! The Chinese government sent chinese people here to learn
capitalist banking from the Dutch !
Not a word is said, no: they have 'communist' in their name and a red
flag "therefore they are good."
Actually I quit that party precisely because they supported capitalism.
I joined them, by the way, to defend them against the encrougment on
democratic freedoms by the EU. I thought: I'll join them, then they'll
have to put in jail the person who wrote the world's best internet
democracy program *) on the charge of being against democracy. Let's see
how that'll go, hah.
*) FWIK (see my site.)
> Think about a pencil. A pencil involves a multitude of
> different materials, for example the glue that holds the
> two sides together. Each of these materials has a
> multitude of different uses.
Very astute.
> In capitalism knowledge of this vast complexity, and
> power over it, is dispersed over a vast multitude of
> people. The guy making the glue does not have to know
> or care about the social utility of conflicting uses of
> the glue, because there is no social utility unless
> somebody benefits, and if somebody benefits, they should
> be willing to pay.
Exactly, I also always tell that to the plan-economists and marxists,
but forget it, they'll never understand it. They think they can run an
entire country as if it was merely a club of 30 people around a camp
fire. They are completely blind to the reality of it.
Why ? Because they have this inate distrust of free markets.
Why ? Because 'free market ideology' has committed untold attrocities on
all people, not in the least in Europe.
Why ? Becuase the free maker ideology was a superficial theory, that did
not take into account that natural resources need distribution rather
then markets, and that money must be invested socially and not for
profit.
If you want to know the why on these things, go to my site.
It seems to be a difficult subject for people to understand, though.
> Under socialism this enormous multitude of allocational
> decisions has to be made in conscious consideration of
> the consequences. All the relevant knowledge has to be
> brought together into a single room.
The word you are looking for is: 'Under a plan-economy ...'.
My form of socialism has free trade, in fact better then under
the present suposedly free-trade model, by removing income taxation
and profit taxation (changing taxation to a head-tax, and if you can't
pay you can either leave the nation, or work it off in Government public
service). I don't believe in a non-taxation nation, but if you see a way
you can of course try.
> Now since every decision affects everyone, most people
> cannot participate in these decisions, so all these
> decisions must be made from above.
In a plan economy: agreed. That's what the communists want: they want to
control it all and then be 'good Monarchs.' The entire marxist goal is
basically a monarchist idea: a feudal system run by 'the best
communist(s).' Amuzingly but very sadly, who did the Germans thought was
the best communist ? Hitler. What happened under his command & control
economy ? The marxists where killed. You could say, they where killed by
their own engine, by an example of their own 'system.' Maybe that is a
brutal way to say it, but technically look into it. Wasn't Hitler
elected ? Didn't the German expect everything from Hitler ? Didn't he
establish a command & control economy ?
Of course it was everything that the communists didn't want, but at the
heart the system was similar. What went wrong then in terms of marxism ?
The people elected 'the wrong best communists.' So, why didn't they
elect another then ? You could say: because the marxists never bothered
to write the laws for how their vision was actually going to work. The
marxists, they don't like laws. And Hitler ? He liked them neither, so
he could do what he 'felt was right.'
Have the marxists learned anything from these disasters ? Have they
learned that laws are useful ? Have they learned from all the disasters
with a plan-economy that have all turned out to be controlled by the
very enemies that labor fights against ? No. Learned nothing. Learning
something is just not in their repertoir, at least not yet.
Because, I guess, it involves admitting they have been wrong. Can't do
it.
Can the capitalists ? So far: neither.
> In capitalism, the customer ultimately has the power.
In free trade he has the power. Capitalism is an infestation by
rent seeking money into the proper free trade mechanism. But it is
true that in capitalism if every single person wanted it, then the
detrimental power of capital could be reversed. It is this way also
in feudalism and plan-economics: if every person wanted it to go
right, there is a bigger chance it would. Reality unfortunately isn't so
easy. Capitalism is a utopian system, it can only work with holy angels,
just as marxism can only work with holy angels, and feudalism too.
Capitalism, Feudalism and plan-economy, they all make different mistakes
about the economy (and all end up fomenting state tirany).
Capitalism is the mistake about money wrt trade.
Feudalism is the mistake about land wrt trade.
Plan-economy is the mistake about state power wrt trade.
> The businessman has no or little independent power, he
> is merely a conduit for the will of the customer.
Myopic. It's not that simple. The buiness man gets funding to
abuse labor, to lord over labor and to abuse labor. That makes
capital rich, and so that cycle continues until it destroys the world.
The business men end with all power. That's the mistake of money, you
can't have it in a free market. High capital is not a product of effort
anymore, it is a grandiose power that rules the entire nation. Where
does such power belong ?
> People in their role of producer must serve people in
> their role as consumer, because the purpose of
> production is consumption.
True, that's trade.
> Under socialism a small privileged elite must exercise
> the power that in our society is exercised by consumers.
I have no small priviliged elite in my model, sorry.
THe word you're looking for is 'plan-economy,' or 'command & control
economy.'
But you will never learn this. You will forget it and go on with
nonsense. Right ? Where have I seen that before ? Everywhere.
You will all get yourselves killed by being so superficial, monarchists,
capitalists and communists.
> Of course concentrating this power in few hands makes it
> vastly greater, hence the need for unending war against
> ordinary unarmed people that is such a striking feature
> of every socialist society, a striking feature that
> never seems to bother socialists much.
It does bother me a lot, does it bother you how labor is abused in
capitalist dictatorships ? You've not spend a word on it, so I assume
not only does it not bother you, you don't even see it.
--
http://www.socialism.nl
*Anarcissie*
wrote:
> ...
> The closest thing to working socialism I've seen was in western Europe,
> where you actually had mixed economies with some socialist and some
> capitalist features. Certain basic services that aren't usually "on the
> tab" in capitalist systems were provided by the government, such as
That isn't socialism, however, it's the welfare state.
Socialism is the ownership or control of the means of
production by the workers or the community. A
socialist polity might or might not provide welfare,
just as a capitalist polity might or might not. Two
different things. The conflation occurs because in
order to ward off socialism, capitalist states began
to provide goodies for their populations through
the government. In this sense welfare is anti-
socialist.
*Anarcissie*
> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:12:44 -0800, Catherine Jefferson
>
> > Generally true if you try to create socialism in a
> > nation-state sized entity. The "utopian socialist"
> > communities of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries
> > in the United States and some other countries often
> > worked rather well,
>
> No they did not. The classic examples of utopian
> socialist communities were the Pilgrims and New Harmony.
They were not examples of socialism but of
communism. Two different things.
Fred Williams
What on earth has your life been like to make you believe such a thing?
Fred Williams
> Fred Williams wrote:
>> James A. Donald wrote:
>
>>> Without property rights in the means of production to
>>> separate one man's plan from another man's different and
>>> conflicting plan, there can only be one plan, one plan
>>> for everything, one plan for everyone, one plan that all
>>> must obey.
>>>
>> Not "obey," rather "agree to."
>
> If you must agree to a plan, then what's the difference between that and
> "must obey"? That's the point, as far as I can tell -- if you are
> compelled to agree to something, then the collective (whether you call
> it "the government", "the people" or "the workers") made the decision.
> You did not.
>
You are not "compelled." You are "convinced." Why is that so hard to
understand?
jos boersema
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 05:20:25 +1000, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Tim Howard <tim.h...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
>>> >A "Libertarian Socialist" is a contradiction in
>>> >terms.
>>
>>Steve Hayes <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Why?
>>
>>Socialism is the ownership of the means of production by
>>"everyone" - which means that each decision about
>>production must be made on behalf "everyone" - but
>>obviously not "everyone" can themselves make a decision.
>
> Not quite.
>
> Socialism is the ownership of the means of production by the producers.
That's a good one. If you allow ownership of the means of production
to those who produre - which is everyone doing something iow labor -
then you have a chance to having a free market that does not abuse labor
anymore. Because labor would have the power to stand up for itself.
To defeat the tyrants of money and business and the scum that wants
to own all the land (feudal system).
Hence I'd say: that requires the *distribution* of the means of
production, because if you put it under central control, that central
control will disown 'labor,' and then the producers will in fact not own
the means of production anymore.
Hence: neither the pretence-socialist states in the east where EVER
anything closely to this socialist ideal, and neither where the
'capitalist' nations of the west socialist. Because nobody did in fact
/distribute/ the means of production ! Brilliant Steve, great. Problem
solved. The capitalists didn't allow the 'mean of production' to be hold
by those who produce: they feature the for profit business loans mechanism
which steals all businesses through its finance wars away from
cooperative ownership and grants it to abusive psychopathic bosses who
will abuse labor and dis-own labor from its ownership of what it has
made, abusing the top-management power to negotiate low wages for those
who produce and high profits for those who do nothing (financiers,)
while cutting themselves in big as well of course (CEO income). The
Capitalists neither allowed those who produce (labor) to own land, land
is in a market system and to buy it you have to pay absurd prices. Hence
land is effectively under control of big money.
Most eastern-block pretence 'socialist' nations where possibly even further
removed from "socialism" because they simply oppressed their people by
not allowing for a real people's democracy which requires laws and
protocols and an openness, which they don't allow for.
There have been land-distribution systems, and there have been company
labor ownership systems in the world in some nations, and there have
been attempts to distribute Government power to 'those who produce'
(also in capitalist nations, under pressure from ... socialists, in
Europe at least.)
--
http://www.socialism.nl <<-- Gives those who produce ownership of the
means of production, pure & simple. Well ... not simple: complicated.
Maybe I did use the right word for my site :).
Dan Clore
In other words welfare-state capitalism is still a form of capitalism
Dan Clore
> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 19:50:28 -0800, Catherine Jefferson
> <spam...@spambouncer.org> wrote:
>> Steve Hayes wrote:
>> Alright, I like that kind of "socialism". It just isn't what the
>> word has ever meant in my world.
>
> Though it may not be libertarian, I like the kind of socialism
> exemplified by building scoieties and mutual insurance associations.
>
> I believe that in some parts of North America there are similar
> bodies called "credit unions", though I'm not sure of that.
Correct. A credit union is a cooperative bank, owned by the members. I'm
a lifelong member of a credit union, and I've found the service much
better than capitalist banks that I've done business with. They've also
been largely unaffected by the financial crisis.
Dan Clore
> To get back to the original topic, the terms "libertarian" and
> "socialist" as I've always understood them do not fit well together.
> That doesn't mean that this particular group of Danes means what I
> think of when I try to conceive of something "libertarian socialist",
> of course. But if they want to communicate with me, in any event,
> they'd probably best explain what they do mean, because the mental
> picture I get on hearing this can't be what they intended. ;-)
They say:"Politically, Libert�re Socialister has oriented itself towards
syndicalist, anarcho-communist and collectivist anarchist currents, as
well as council communists and other strains of libertarian socialism."
That tells you how they fit into the traditional anarchist movement. And
that's what you need to learn about.
"Anarchy 101", an excellent introduction to anarchism,
can be found here:
http://tinyurl.com/2fq4d2
"An Anarchist FAQ", giving an in-depth treatment of
anarchism, can be found here:
http://www.anarchistfaq.org/
I would also recommend George Woodcock's book Anarchism: A History of
Libertarian Ideas and Movements.
They fall into the lower left (Libertarian Left) corner of the Political
Compass's two-dimensional model:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/
Catherine Jefferson
> Though it may not be libertarian, I like the kind of socialism exemplified by
> building scoieties and mutual insurance associations.
I'd have to leave any definitive pronouncement about that to the
libertarians. As best I know, though, *nothing* that is an activity of
a purely voluntary, mutual association that people are free to join or
not join violates any of the principles of what goes by the name
"libertarian" in the U.S.
> I believe that in some parts of North America there are similar bodies called
> "credit unions", though I'm not sure of that.
Yep; many people use them instead of banks. They *are* banks, but banks
owned by their members. We've also got the granges, which are
agricultural associations that were big in the rural heartland of the
U.S., and a whole bunch of cooperative organizations. They range from a
health care co-op with its own hospital (Group Health of Seattle), a
camping and outdoor supplies cooperative that has stores all over the
country (R.E.I. -- I'm a member of that one), to grocery stores
scattered around the country.
But say "socialism" in this country, and people simply don't think of
grass-roots cooperative effort by individuals who band together to do
something. They think of top-down activities dictated by a few leaders
at the head of government or a political party.
Fortunately for you leftist/progressive types, that leaves people quite
open to cooperative endeavors that don't involve somebody telling them
that they have to join. :-)
Catherine Jefferson
> Steve Hayes wrote:
>> I believe that in some parts of North America there are similar
>> bodies called "credit unions", though I'm not sure of that.
> Correct. A credit union is a cooperative bank, owned by the members. I'm
> a lifelong member of a credit union, and I've found the service much
> better than capitalist banks that I've done business with. They've also
> been largely unaffected by the financial crisis.
There's a good reason for that. They didn't make loans to people who
lacked the resources to repay those loans when there was absolutely no
reason to believe that they would or could gain those resources. The
recent banking problems in this country, and I suspect in most of the
world, had a great deal to do with basing banking decisions on wishful
thinking instead of data and good, clear, hardheaded analysis of that data.
The credit unions mostly stayed out of that game, although some did not
and those few are suffering as badly as any of the big banks.
Catherine Jefferson
> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:12:44 -0800, Catherine Jefferson
> <spam...@spambouncer.org> wrote:
>> Generally true if you try to create socialism in a nation-state sized
>> entity. The "utopian socialist" communities of the nineteenth and
>> twentieth centuries in the United States and some other countries often
>> worked rather well, at least for the generation that created those
>> communities. I'd say they worked well because you had a self-selected
>> group of people that wanted to make them work. People usually can make
>> something work if they really want to, and in a society of that type,
>> you don't face the task, and pay the price, of imposing the will of a
>> few on the majority.
> Well, there now, you've said it. That's why that kind of socialism can be a
> great deal more libertarian than corporate capitalism.
Of course. :-) But the problem between them was never one of
individual vs. collective -- any healthy society will have a mix of both
types of activity. The problem (at least, as seen by most libertarians
in this country) is one of individual *choice* and grassroots activity
vs. corporate-style/communist-dictatorship-style top-down planning and
control.
That kind of socialism isn't done at the level of national political
parties, however, any more than a local grocery cooperative is formed by
passing a law and taxing people to pay for it. I don't know what these
Danish people are planning, but if I get your drift right, the scope of
their national political activity and aim of their policies might well
look a lot like that of American libertarians. It's how they choose to
live and spend their time when they aren't organizing the vote and
pushing for laws that would be radically different.
So the whole "libertarian socialist" think sounds *very* strange to
American ears, and I gather (from some of the responses in here) to
those of people in other places as well.
BTW, Steve, are you familar with/have you ever read Ursula K. LeGuin's
"The Dispossessed"? If not, you should. :-)
Catherine Jefferson
> James A. Donald wrote:
>
>> James A. Donald wrote:
>>>> Without property rights in the means of production
>>>> to separate one man's plan from another man's
>>>> different and conflicting plan, there can only be
>>>> one plan, one plan for everything, one plan for
>>>> everyone, one plan that all must obey.
>> Fred Williams
>>> Not "obey," rather "agree to."
>> But then everyone must agree to everything, which is not
>> going to happen except with a baton in their faces and a
>> whip on their backs.
>
> What on earth has your life been like to make you believe such a thing?
Reality based, I would say, at least as far as this subject goes. I've
never known any group of reasonably healthy, independent minded
individuals (however small) who were in complete agreement about more
than a couple of things. I doubt that anybody objects to attempts to
persuade someone to change their mind, but there are limits to the
effectiveness of those methods. When they fail, the question becomes
whether to allow people to disagree and go their own way, or to try to
enforce compliance with a particular point of view.
There is no way to get around it: government is not reason, not
persuasion -- it is force. (Paraphrasing the first U.S. president.)
Some people (probably Dan Clore, a few others I know) feel that the
whole premise of government is immoral because of that fact. Others (I'm
one of those) feel that there are limited circumstances that justify
force. "Limited force" depending on your definition can range from "we
prosecute murderers and rapists in this country" to "we outlaw
self-defense and incandescent light bulbs" to "Glorious Leader rules
all." :/
Catherine Jefferson
Nope. Because if you are free to be convinced or not convinced,
sometimes you will not be convinced. Then what? Are you free to use
your efforts and your resources as you choose, or must you comply with
somebody else's rules?
Catherine Jefferson
Actually, I'm familiar with the traditional European anarchist movement.
I read Kropotkin and Bakunin back in college. (I was a German and
Russian major; they were a significant and often forgotten part of the
early Russian revolution, before Marx and his bunch of bloody control
freaks took over.)
Haven't read George Woodcock, though. I'll pick it up. :_)
jos boersema
Heard of local Government, or division into nations...
If person A wants to do something in way B, and person C wants to
do it in way D and person E in way F, and person G in way H, then
you can bet your behind that there are more like A, C, E and G.
If it is important enough for them: they find each other in an
area, and do stuff their way. Maybe B is living in a large extended
production village ? Go ahead ! Have fun ! So they take a territory
north, say. Maybe ... you get the picture.
If the differences are even more fundamental, often they are not
but they can: divide into different nations. Each of these nations
can do things completely different. Maybe D was having a Grandiose
Leader at the helm ? Let them do that then, as long as the rest
can get (the hell!) out of that nation (and man the borders !).
If you have extremely low population density, you can have the system
of sovereign local Government. Murderers will tend to form gangs,
occaisionally you may need to launch wars on such misbehaving local
areas (crime dens). It works, the NDNs did it this way, or some did.
If you have high population density this may not work well, but you
can still allow for high differences between local areas, and of
course different nations.
My system http://www.socialism.nl says that if local Governments
deal with local problems, national Government with national, the
larger area Governments can not dismiss the smaller area Governments,
and if a disagreement between two local Governments can not be resolved
in two different ways (one for each), then the national Government must
decide how it is to be resolved. That should allow for important
regional differences.
Please *DO* note that we're talking abuot reality and so the method of
thinking you should use is not analytical or abstract: it is
simulations. Simulate it in your mind, what will happen. What would the
differences actually be ? You'll find that while in the abstract the
weirdest dichotomies are possible, in actual fact things are far less
problematic. You think one persons wants oil from the tap, while another
water ? In theory, it can happen, in practice it never will, etc.
Please think about reality, simulate it.
You honestly think any sane person wants to live under a vicious
absolute dictatorship ? Nearly nobody does, nobody does. Just not a
realistic problem. Think about reality.
These people who have set in in their minds that governent must by
definition be evil or 'force' ? Babies. They don't think about reality.
Ask them whether they think in their ideal world there would ever be a
coming together of people to decide on a common issue. The answer will
be yes. So, that's where their entire way of thinking falls flat on its
behind. Such a useles garbage this leftwing thinking, and in the mean
time the world goes to pieces.
What was that famous word on evil winning ? It happens if good people do
nothing. Trash thinking counts as doing nothing.
--
http://www.socialism.nl
Dan Clore
> Libert�re Socialister/Libertarian Socialists formed in Denmark!
>
> The 8th of November witnessed the founding conference of the Danish
> group Libert�re Socialister (literally: Libertarian Socialists). It's
> over ten years since Denmark last had a specifically socialist anarchist
> group, so this happy event was long overdue. Over two days, 18
> representatives from local groups in Aalborg, �rhus, Copenhagen and
> Svendborg, as well as members of the sister organizations SUF (Sweden)
> and Motmakt (Norway) met in good spirits to discuss and vote in a
> constitution, political platform and an action plan for 2010.
>
> Politically, Libert�re Socialister has oriented itself towards
> well as council communists and other strains of libertarian socialism.
> together by way of direct democracy in a federal structure. These local
> groups will be supplemented by working groups that will deal with
> specific political or practical issues.
>
> Libert�re Socialister expects to start with approximately 25 members
> nationwide, and welcomes contact with like-minded groups abroad - they
> can be contacted at lsko...@gmail.com
>
> Related Link:
> http://www.libsoc.dk
A little bit of explanation from their website:
* LS are socialist, which means that we are working for a new kind
of society without the exploitative and oppressive economic structures
that characterize a capitalist society, acting on the understanding that
everyone has the right to life's basic necessities, and that the earth's
resources allow this when divided sensibly.
* LS is libertarian, which means that we reject that adult, healthy
people need to be ruled, regardless of whether it is states or other
actors that rule.
Instead, we desire a society based on self-organization and
self-governance, a society where people through voluntary associations
take back control of society, and shape it in a manner that liberates
the individual from inequality and lack of freedom.
* LS is revolutionary, which, in conjunction with the above means
that we do not believe that this society can be achieved through the
institutions of established society, including parliament, and instead
we advocate a social revolution from below, where people take power over
their own lives through these voluntary solidarity groups, and throw
both politicians and bosses out with the trash.
* LS also strongly opposes all forms of discrimination, including
those based on race, sex and sexuality, and we view the environmental
and anti-militarist movements as essential to creating a better world.
--
Dan Clore
New book: _Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon_:
http://tinyurl.com/yd3bxkw
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
(Wait for the new edition: http://hplmythos.com/ )
Lord We�rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
Dan Clore
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 06:40:50 -0800, Dan Clore
> <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>
>> Steve Hayes wrote:
>>> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 19:50:28 -0800, Catherine Jefferson
>>> <spam...@spambouncer.org> wrote:
>>>> Steve Hayes wrote: Alright, I like that kind of "socialism".
>>>> It just isn't what the word has ever meant in my world.
>>> Though it may not be libertarian, I like the kind of socialism
>>> exemplified by building scoieties and mutual insurance
>>> associations.
>>>
>>> I believe that in some parts of North America there are similar
>>> bodies called "credit unions", though I'm not sure of that.
>> Correct. A credit union is a cooperative bank, owned by the
>> members. I'm a lifelong member of a credit union, and I've found
>> the service much better than capitalist banks that I've done
>> business with. They've also been largely unaffected by the
>> financial crisis.
>
> one person in charge!
Actually, they have a board of directors in charge, democratically
elected by the member/owners.
James A. Donald
> > If you must agree to a plan, then what's the
> > difference between that and "must obey"? That's the
> > point, as far as I can tell -- if you are compelled
> > to agree to something, then the collective (whether
> > you call it "the government", "the people" or "the
> > workers") made the decision. You did not.
Fred Williams
> You are not "compelled." You are "convinced."
> Why is that so hard to
> understand?
And if I fail to be convinced? Does the project not go
ahead, or do I get chained to the bench.
In any case, we have done the experiment, time and time
again, already tried all this, time and time again, with
always the same result. Without coercion, nothing got
done, and even with coercion, not much got done, and it
was done badly.
New Harmony represents the "no coercion" example. The
Pilgrim famine, (before they decided that God ordained
capitalism among men) represents the harsh coercion
example. The Soviet Union, Khmer Rouge, etc, represent
really harsh coercion. To get reasonable performance
requires extraordinarily harsh coercion, and even then,
does not work well.
*Anarcissie*
wrote:
> ...
> So the whole "libertarian socialist" think sounds *very* strange to
> American ears, and I gather (from some of the responses in here) to
> those of people in other places as well.
People seem to be pretty well brainwashed by the
media, and in any case attention to the fine points
of language is not widespread. Hence capitalism
is conflated with individualism, free enterprise,
private property, etc. etc., and socialism with control
by the government and collectivism, whereas in
"The Soul of Man under Socialism", Oscar Wilde
argued that socialism was supportive of individuality
and capitalism opposed to it. I am not so sure about
the first part of that proposition.
> ...
Steve Hayes
<spam...@spambouncer.org> wrote:
What sounds very strange to me is the idea that libertarian socialism can't
exist because it *has* to be the same as authoritarian socialism.
That seems to me like saying that a cooperative society cannot exist UNLESS it
is imposed from above, like collective farming in the Soviet Union in Stalin's
times. Yet long before Stalin in Russia there was the Mir.
And there is that peculiar tendency in Western thought to think in terms of
Individual *versus* Collective. The communitarian alternative isn't even
considered, except by people like Dorothy Day.
>
>BTW, Steve, are you familar with/have you ever read Ursula K. LeGuin's
>"The Dispossessed"? If not, you should. :-)
--
Steve Hayes
There are two different things.
One is the political difference between libertarian and authoritarian
societies.
The other is the economic difference between capitalism and socialism, which
concerns ownership of the means of production.
Either of those can be linked to either of the other. Capitalism can be highly
authoritarian, and destructive of individuality, even in the USA. There was a
sociological study some years ago, "The organization man", that demonstrated
this. And socialism can also be highly authoritarian. But the group in Denmark
seems to want to reject both of those, and why shouldn't they?
*Anarcissie*
It seems to me that authoritarian socialism is
self-contradictory. After all, if "the workers" or "the
people" are going to own and control the means of
production, then they have to be able to do things
like discuss the means of production and what to
do with them, select their administrators or
administrate themselves, figure out some way of
developing group decisions, and so forth. That
sort of thing can't really take place in an authoritarian
polity. The fact that a number of socialists became
fascistic -- I probably need not name names -- just
means to me that they ceased to be socialists.
I concede, however, that if one has mystical ideas
like the _Volk_ then one might come up with some
mystical form of socialism that was authoritarian.
I'm thoughts above assume a rational view of
people acting rationally.
The case of capitalism is less clear. It seems
reasonably possible to me to have private
ownership and control of the means of production
in an authoritarian context, as long as the
ownership and control is limited to a certain
amount of space sufficient for the owners to
make decisions about the business and reap
the rewards thereof if they are lucky or clever;
and in all other matters they submit to the
state. Singapore, perhaps.
Steve Hayes
<anarc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The case of capitalism is less clear. It seems
>reasonably possible to me to have private
>ownership and control of the means of production
>in an authoritarian context, as long as the
>ownership and control is limited to a certain
>amount of space sufficient for the owners to
>make decisions about the business and reap
>the rewards thereof if they are lucky or clever;
>and in all other matters they submit to the
>state. Singapore, perhaps.
In this neck of the woods one of the classic examples is the "taxi industry".
There are minibus taxis that are the main form of public transport in many
cities and rural areas.
In the beginning there were lots of owner/drivers - in other words, the people
who did the work owned the means of production.
But they tend to be bought out by capitalists who form cartels, and engage
hit-men to take out rival taxi owners. They pay the drivers peanuts, and if an
owner/driver trespasses on "their" routes, he'll quite possibly be taken out
by the hit-men employed by the capitalists, with some of the passengers taken
with him as collateral damage -- or to serve as an example to others.
This system, of course, ensures the "suvival of the fittest" and shows that
competition (capitalist) is better than cooperation (socialist) for running
the economy.
Catherine Jefferson
> What sounds very strange to me is the idea that libertarian socialism can't
> exist because it *has* to be the same as authoritarian socialism.
> That seems to me like saying that a cooperative society cannot exist UNLESS it
> is imposed from above, like collective farming in the Soviet Union in Stalin's
> times. Yet long before Stalin in Russia there was the Mir.
> And there is that peculiar tendency in Western thought to think in terms of
> Individual *versus* Collective. The communitarian alternative isn't even
> considered, except by people like Dorothy Day.
"Communitarian" doesn't occur naturally, except maybe in families. I've
also seen it work in a couple of intentional communities I've visited,
and in monasteries/convents. But you're asking for a serious suspension
of disbelief to convince me that it is a real possibility in the wider
world. It's a high-demand way of living on the people who choose to do it.
You'll also need a means to deal with outsiders, and with those people
in the community who either can't or won't play by the rules.
jos boersema
> Dan Clore wrote:
>> News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
>>
>> http://www.anarkismo.net/article/15065
>>
>> The 8th of November witnessed the founding conference of the Danish
>> group, so this happy event was long overdue. Over two days, 18
>> and Motmakt (Norway) met in good spirits to discuss and vote in a
>> constitution, political platform and an action plan for 2010.
>>
>> well as council communists and other strains of libertarian socialism.
>> In practice, it will be organised on the basis of local groups organized
>> together by way of direct democracy in a federal structure. These local
>> groups will be supplemented by working groups that will deal with
>> specific political or practical issues.
>>
Sounds good. So, where is their Constitution proposal ?
If none, they might as well adopt mine: http://www.socialism.nl
Because it will do all that, in reality no less.
(Interesting to see how no leftist reading this group dares move a finger
on this. There is a word for that: salon socialists. You're only here
to take advantage of a niche in capitalist society: the 'suffering
market', rather then do something about it for real and not 'in a
niche, like a little cute credit union there in that hole, a little cute
anarchist breakfast party in that crack ... No, for real action, don't
bother with the leftists intellectual/political types. Wait for hell to
break lose and then go to labor, it's the only way.)
--
Fred Williams
> It seems to me that authoritarian socialism is
> self-contradictory. After all, if "the workers" or "the
> people" are going to own and control the means of
> production, then they have to be able to do things
> like discuss the means of production and what to
> do with them, select their administrators or
> administrate themselves, figure out some way of
> developing group decisions, and so forth. That
> sort of thing can't really take place in an authoritarian
> polity. The fact that a number of socialists became
> fascistic -- I probably need not name names -- just
> means to me that they ceased to be socialists.
>
It seems, and it's not just in this post, that people have accepted the
idea that socialism involves the ownership of the means of production by the
workers. That is a new concept and not what socialism meant originally.
The workers owning the means of production is "communism." Socialism merely
means that there is support for all members of society, like welfare,
unemployment insurance, universal health care and so on.
Hence countries like Canada are socialist, (although Canada is less so now
days). Cuba is technically socialist, and by their own claim, and with more
right to it than most.
Libertarianism is hard to pin down, which may be due to their claiming to
be all things to all people. One of the most hateful right wing fascists
I've ever known claimed to be Libertarian. It was never clear to me if
other Libertarians accepted him as one of their own.
When it comes to proper order and replacement of scarce money with
plentiful money, all the old definitions become meaningless and merely
academic curiosities.
Fred Williams
> What sounds very strange to me is the idea that libertarian socialism
> can't exist because it *has* to be the same as authoritarian socialism.
>
> That seems to me like saying that a cooperative society cannot exist
> UNLESS it is imposed from above, like collective farming in the Soviet
> Union in Stalin's times. Yet long before Stalin in Russia there was the
> Mir.
>
"Cooperation imposed from above" is definitely a contradiction in terms,
and I'm aware that you probably understand this, but I think it needs to be
stated explicitly.
> And there is that peculiar tendency in Western thought to think in terms
> of Individual *versus* Collective. The communitarian alternative isn't
> even considered, except by people like Dorothy Day.
>
We should remember also that "individualism" is adopted by the capitalists
because as individuals we have no power; we are alone. Only when people
come together and organize can they wield power. Hence those who would
enslave others seek to promote individualism and competition amongst the
slaves to keep them disorganised and helpless.
*Anarcissie*
> *Anarcissie* wrote:
> > It seems to me that authoritarian socialism is
> > self-contradictory. After all, if "the workers" or "the
> > people" are going to own and control the means of
> > production, then they have to be able to do things
> > like discuss the means of production and what to
> > do with them, select their administrators or
> > administrate themselves, figure out some way of
> > developing group decisions, and so forth. That
> > sort of thing can't really take place in an authoritarian
> > polity. The fact that a number of socialists became
> > fascistic -- I probably need not name names -- just
> > means to me that they ceased to be socialists.
>
> It seems, and it's not just in this post, that people have accepted the
> idea that socialism involves the ownership of the means of production by the
> workers. That is a new concept and not what socialism meant originally.
> The workers owning the means of production is "communism." Socialism merely
> means that there is support for all members of society, like welfare,
> unemployment insurance, universal health care and so on.
I'm not going to argue with your freedom to define
words as you please, but "the means of production
owned or controlled by the workers, or by the people"
or something like that is what I got out of Michael
Harrington's classic book on socialism, entitled
_Socialism_, which is of course out of print, and from
reading various other political writers, boiled down
to the minimum. Many people disagree with this
definition; for instance, some socialists have
insisted on the Welfare part, although they agreed
that worker ownership of the means of production
was also critical. Communism, however, has
usually been used for an absence of private
property, and there have been several conceptions
of socialism wherein the means of production,
while owned by the workers, were not particularly
communized. So you are proposing hat I think
is a substantially different set of definitions for
the words we're discussing.
> Hence countries like Canada are socialist, (although Canada is less so now
> days). Cuba is technically socialist, and by their own claim, and with more
> right to it than most.
Provision of welfare is, in my book, usually
called "social democracy" or "welfarism".
> Libertarianism is hard to pin down, which may be due to their claiming to
> be all things to all people. One of the most hateful right wing fascists
> I've ever known claimed to be Libertarian. It was never clear to me if
> other Libertarians accepted him as one of their own.
Libertarianism as used by most Americans
on the Net, anyway, usually seems to mean
a kind of fundamentailst liberalism, a return
to the first, essential principles. But when
someone says "libertarian socialist" he
probably doesn't mean that.
Fred Williams
> Fred Williams wrote:
>> James A. Donald wrote:
>>
>>> James A. Donald wrote:
>>>>> Without property rights in the means of production
>>>>> to separate one man's plan from another man's
>>>>> different and conflicting plan, there can only be
>>>>> one plan, one plan for everything, one plan for
>>>>> everyone, one plan that all must obey.
>>> Fred Williams
>>>> Not "obey," rather "agree to."
>>> But then everyone must agree to everything, which is not
>>> going to happen except with a baton in their faces and a
>>> whip on their backs.
>>
>> What on earth has your life been like to make you believe such a thing?
>
> Reality based, I would say, at least as far as this subject goes. I've
> never known any group of reasonably healthy, independent minded
> individuals (however small) who were in complete agreement about more
> than a couple of things.
Well, it takes some work and an investment in time and a common interest.
It takes concern for others and a love of your neighbours. All these things
are denigrated in capitalist societies, because it would allow the slaves to
start to free themselves.
Forced agreement from above is enslavement and that is the reality. If
there were no better way, then we'd be best advised to have a nuclear war
and end life on the planet now. Fortunately there is a better way if people
make the commitment to seek the common good and spend some emotional effort
in listening to one another and caring about something other then their own
bank account.
Scarce money furthers the competitive, individualistic craze that pits us
against one another. That is why it is called "The root of all evil." We
are taught by every major religion on Earth, (not just Christiaanity), to
love our neighbours. We never seem to get the message, because we are
forced by our current economic system to put our own interests first.
Plentiful money wouldn't force us to do the right thing, but it would allow
us to make our own choices and we'd be free to do so. Gandhi said, "Poverty
is the worst form of violence."
> I doubt that anybody objects to attempts to
> persuade someone to change their mind, but there are limits to the
> effectiveness of those methods. When they fail, the question becomes
> whether to allow people to disagree and go their own way, or to try to
> enforce compliance with a particular point of view.
Or continue to show patience, and keep talking,... as we are doing with
each other now,... for instance.
>
> There is no way to get around it: government is not reason, not
> persuasion -- it is force. (Paraphrasing the first U.S. president.)
Governments have force, but it is not the only force. There is economic
force and power as well as violent assault which has a force and power, and
maybe many others. Of all of them, government is the one where people are
supposed to elect the representatives, and therefore is supposed to have
whatever legitimacy comes from being the will of the majority of the people.
It certainly isn't perfect, (and 'the will of the majority' is not at all my
idea of utopia), but the idea is a compromise and intended to be a balance
to the power of money. Under the private sector, there is only the power of
money and the concepts of equality and democracy don't even apply. Which is
why we see so much propaganda imposed from above about "privitization' these
days, because the power of money has overtaken the power of government and
we are all to be sacrificed to those who control the money.
> Some people (probably Dan Clore, a few others I know) feel that the
> whole premise of government is immoral because of that fact. Others (I'm
> one of those) feel that there are limited circumstances that justify
> force. "Limited force" depending on your definition can range from "we
> prosecute murderers and rapists in this country" to "we outlaw
> self-defense and incandescent light bulbs" to "Glorious Leader rules
> all." :/
Surely there are things which are crimes, and a safe society has to have
some means of defending victims of those crimes. Force seems to be a
necessity in those cases, but what if we could work on prevention rather
than deal with punishment and retribution/revenge style of justice. Good
laws can be enforced by better methods, still "force" but prisons are vastly
overused and it may be possible to do away with them completely.
Restorative justice models have proven very effective and relate to
reforming the criminal rather than simply putting him or her away.
"Tha law in it's magnanimous equality forbids the rich as well as the poor
from stealing a loaf of bread, begging in the streets and sleeping under
bridges." -- Jacques Anatole François Thibault, apparently. Ultimately
economic power consumes political power and scarce money systems are self
destructive.
*Anarcissie*
wrote:
> Steve Hayes wrote:
> > What sounds very strange to me is the idea that libertarian socialism can't
> > exist because it *has* to be the same as authoritarian socialism.
James Donald has been contending that the only
possible power relationship between cooperating
humans is one of master and servant or follower.
If this is the case, or even largely the case, then
neither libertarian socialism nor libertarian
capitalism can exist; to be free, one must go off
and live in the woods. There are days when I
can understand this point of view.
> > That seems to me like saying that a cooperative society cannot exist UNLESS it
> > is imposed from above, like collective farming in the Soviet Union in Stalin's
> > times. Yet long before Stalin in Russia there was the Mir.
> > And there is that peculiar tendency in Western thought to think in terms of
> > Individual *versus* Collective. The communitarian alternative isn't even
> > considered, except by people like Dorothy Day.
>
> "Communitarian" doesn't occur naturally, except maybe in families. I've
> also seen it work in a couple of intentional communities I've visited,
> and in monasteries/convents. But you're asking for a serious suspension
> of disbelief to convince me that it is a real possibility in the wider
> world. It's a high-demand way of living on the people who choose to do it.
>
> You'll also need a means to deal with outsiders, and with those people
> in the community who either can't or won't play by the rules.
The term _communitarian_ was also widely noised
about in the early '90s by a fellow called Amitai
Etzioni (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amitai_Etzioni)
It seemed to be a mild form of fascism, but maybe
I'm too bristly about it.
Interest faded when the communitarianists
turned out to be mostly more of the same.
Fred Williams
> Fred Williams wrote:
>> Catherine Jefferson wrote:
>>
>>> Fred Williams wrote:
>>>> James A. Donald wrote:
>>>>> Without property rights in the means of production to
>>>>> separate one man's plan from another man's different and
>>>>> conflicting plan, there can only be one plan, one plan
>>>>> for everything, one plan for everyone, one plan that all
>>>>> must obey.
>>>>>
>>>> Not "obey," rather "agree to."
>>> If you must agree to a plan, then what's the difference between that and
>>> "must obey"? That's the point, as far as I can tell -- if you are
>>> compelled to agree to something, then the collective (whether you call
>>> it "the government", "the people" or "the workers") made the decision.
>>> You did not.
>>>
>> You are not "compelled." You are "convinced." Why is that so hard to
>> understand?
>
> Nope. Because if you are free to be convinced or not convinced,
> sometimes you will not be convinced. Then what? Are you free to use
> your efforts and your resources as you choose, or must you comply with
> somebody else's rules?
>
If your actions can be categorised as criminal then perhaps that is best,
and yes, "criminal," is a moveable definition. If we emphasize
"idividuality" as a virtue, then we are systematically prevented from
seeking a solution, or working together with others to try to find a
solution and I know it is very difficult to let go of ones own opinion
especially in a society that believes in individualism and treats every
conversation like a competition with winners and losers. When this causes
us to cling to our own lies or "misbeliefs," however, then it doesn't help
us progress to anything better.
True freedom includes the freedom to change our minds when confronted with
a better idea, (better than our own, on a given topic). When it comes to
*important issues*, if we have common objectives, then enough discussion
will bring about consensus or expose contrary intent, (wilful sabotage of
the system). Other situations simply mean more discussion is necessary.
I've long thought that those who say "The price of freedom is blood." are
so very wrong. Those who are willing to spill the most blood, seldom have
freedom in mind. I believe the price of freedom is a willingness to put
your bum in one of those chairs and listen to long winded people drone on
about potholes in the roads, doctor patient ratios and the size of classes
in the schools. I know sometimes it seems easier just to shoot someone and
get on with things, but we get the kind of world we create and that's why we
have to be part of the solution we want to promote.
It isn't easy to do, but over time the agreements get solidified into
cultural values and that becomes progress. Agreeing to truth when you are
presented with it can seem like complying with someone else's rules, but if
you recognise it as truth they become your rules as well and so there is no
real loss. If you do not recognise something as truth then you have a duty
not to agree with it. The system includes your right to present your truths
and to be listened to with respect. Do we have that under "authoritarian
systems?" Do we have that under "economic power systems?"
Fred Williams
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:06:17 -0800, Dan Clore
> <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>
>>no_...@void.nul wrote:
>>> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 06:40:50 -0800, Dan Clore
>>> <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Steve Hayes wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 19:50:28 -0800, Catherine Jefferson
>>>>> <spam...@spambouncer.org> wrote:
>>>>>> Steve Hayes wrote: Alright, I like that kind of "socialism".
>>>>>> It just isn't what the word has ever meant in my world.
>>>>> Though it may not be libertarian, I like the kind of socialism
>>>>> exemplified by building scoieties and mutual insurance
>>>>> associations.
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe that in some parts of North America there are similar
>>>>> bodies called "credit unions", though I'm not sure of that.
>>>> Correct. A credit union is a cooperative bank, owned by the
>>>> members. I'm a lifelong member of a credit union, and I've found
>>>> the service much better than capitalist banks that I've done
>>>> business with. They've also been largely unaffected by the
>>>> financial crisis.
>>>
>>> The fact that a credit union is not for profit helps. They still have
>>> one person in charge!
>>
>>Actually, they have a board of directors in charge, democratically
>>elected by the member/owners.
>
> I understand that. How long would it take them to remove a bad
> president?
I am a member of a credit union and I notice that the line ups are always
shorter than at a Bank. Very often when I go in there is a teller waiting
for me and no line up at all.
They also leave me pretty much alone if I choose not to participate in the
process of governing the organization. So far it's pretty well done and I
have benefited by being a member.
Fred Williams
> Catherine Jefferson wrote:
>> > If you must agree to a plan, then what's the
>> > difference between that and "must obey"? That's the
>> > point, as far as I can tell -- if you are compelled
>> > to agree to something, then the collective (whether
>> > you call it "the government", "the people" or "the
>> > workers") made the decision. You did not.
>
> Fred Williams
>> You are not "compelled." You are "convinced."
>> Why is that so hard to
>> understand?
>
> And if I fail to be convinced? Does the project not go
> ahead, or do I get chained to the bench.
>
If you have a better idea, then convince people. Everyone is equal under
such a system and that includes you. But would you agree to be convinced if
someone other than yourself comes up with a better idea or system? Or would
you go in with the idea that you will destroy and competing idea so that
you, or your masters, can continue to dominate others and profit from the
labour of others? What kind of a world do you want to live in?
> In any case, we have done the experiment, time and time
> again, already tried all this, time and time again, with
> always the same result. Without coercion, nothing got
> done, and even with coercion, not much got done, and it
> was done badly.
>
It depends what you mean by "the experiment." The system I am proposing
has never been tried in the modern world on a large scale, and there are
always other s trying to destroy it. Remember it is easy to destroy
movements and ideas, but harder to build them. Good is often sabotaged by
evil, but that is no reason to abandon good, or to stop trying to build a
better world.
> New Harmony represents the "no coercion" example. The
> Pilgrim famine, (before they decided that God ordained
> capitalism among men) represents the harsh coercion
> example. The Soviet Union, Khmer Rouge, etc, represent
> really harsh coercion. To get reasonable performance
> requires extraordinarily harsh coercion, and even then,
> does not work well.
But a better idea will have to take hold. American Capitalism has also
caused just as much pain and suffering. The U.S. now operates a string of
torture camps around the world using anti-Islamic racism as a justification
mechanism and waging war with the most horrific weapons ever devised; bent
on world domination like the Nazis of WWII, and using the political
philosophy of the Mafia.
A better way will have to take hold or we're going to destroy ourselves as
a species, (and take most of the other species with us). There are few
systems that would not be an improvement, and our task is to find one that
would be best. What criteria could we base an evaluation upon?
jos boersema
> On Dec 1, 9:10�am, Fred Williams <f...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
>>*Anarcissie* wrote:
>>> It seems to me that authoritarian socialism is
>>> self-contradictory. �After all, if "the workers" or "the
>>> people" are going to own and control the means of
>>> production, then they have to be able to do things
>>> like discuss the means of production and what to
>>> do with them, select their administrators or
>>> administrate themselves, figure out some way of
>>> developing group decisions, and so forth. �That
>>> sort of thing can't really take place in an authoritarian
>>> polity. �The fact that a number of socialists became
>>> fascistic -- I probably need not name names -- just
>>> means to me that they ceased to be socialists.
>>
>>It seems, and it's not just in this post, that people have accepted the
>>idea that socialism involves the ownership of the means of production
>>by the workers. � That is a new concept and not what socialism
>>meant originally. � The workers owning the means of production is
>>"communism." �Socialism merely means that there is support for all
>>members of society, like welfare, unemployment insurance, universal
>>health care and so on.
Basically, I guess, the word 'socialism' is defined by that which it is
a part of: the language. Why did they chose the word 'socialism' ...
and why indeed would anyone choose it now ... because it has at the root
the word 'social.' Social means positive interaction between people, not
violence but friendly talking, not abusing but cooperating, not an iron
fist. The whole question then becomes: what is a social system or
polity. The differences on that question can be many and varied, for
example if a Libertarian argues that people need to be free, then he
clearly defines it is social(ist) terms because he proposes it as
a betterment for people their lives. If a Libertarian would say 'I want
my freedom because I want to rape and pillage,' then he can still be a
Libertarian for wanting freedom, but he would not be a socialist because
his goal is not social but rather anti-social.
In that sense the 'social(ist)' movement is a very wide movement, which
includes all 'regular' religions, most political movements from liberal
to communist, etc etc.
Libertarian-socialist would then be a branch of the socialist movement
which wants to work for the betterement of all people, and who believe
that freedom is an absolutely essential good for all people to have.
The word 'communism' could either be from the root 'community' or
'commune,' (not sure what exactly, i'm not an expert on English by any
means). I suppose you could derive from that, that the
Communist-socialists but at the forefront of everything the group, the
community, the commune, the 'we,' the inter-group-solidarity.
I'm personally not clear what the different system choices would be, but
a communist-socialist is probably more inclined to make up a system of
common soil ownership per group and ultimately may force people to work
on it who refuse to do anything or ban them (as the group is primary),
whereas a libertarian-socialist may be more inclined to distribute soil
to each individual. But them both being 'socialists,' they would have
to do their activities in a positive way toward all people thus the
libertarian-socialists would not stand by idly when many people die on
their own soil for having a bad crop yield, whereas the communists would
not beat people who do not want to work but use softer methods for
people who prefer to work less.
Not even all socialists agree that democracy is the method of
governance, some believe that you need a monarchy to keep order in the
common interest. That reference to common interest would make them
socialists too.
I thought that the whole question in Europe was, historically:
''what is socialism.'' That that was the big question. The communist
movement has always held that their ideal of 'communism' was a very
high end moral ideal, that would only be reached through the
intermediate step of ''socialism.'' And they often held that the goal
of ''socialism'' could only be had after a dictatorial regime first
had a 'bourgeois' (civil society, semi-democracy) revolution and
stabilized under a sort-of parliamentary semi-abusive system. This is
why they didn't believe Russia could make it to socialism, because that
would be one step from Tsarism (absolute dictatorship), skipping the
bourgeois 'national liberation' revolution (and stabiliziation?), into
''socialism.'' Seems they where right on that, it did fail. It failed,
and only now does it seem to have reached that bourgeois national
liberation 'civil society' kind of thing (?), sortof at least.
What the communists wanted was a very high end morality of all people,
which is basically a tate of living where any model will work, even
capitalism will work because capitalists will worry not at all about
giving away their money and nobody would abuse the money power (but that
is my interpretation, haven't heard that from a communist).
So the communists saw this giant gap between their ideal and the
bourgeois society, and they thought: the intermediate step we need we
call that ''socialism,'' that which comes after 'capitalism.'
Actually it's not that bad a theory at all, imho.
All this blabber only leads to one thing: people have to find out what
the next step is that the world needs, and then do it. Doesn't matter
how it is called, it matters what it is and that it works and gets done.
IMHO, what seems to be the essential problem with all secular socialist
movement these days ? They don't realize that the #1 power in the world
is laws. Many even reject laws. Because they reject laws, they can not
define any system, because any system will be a set of laws. Therefore
all the secular socialist movements are impotent.
Why does the bourgeois class rule ? They knew a hell of a lot more about
governance, and although they often abuse their powers, they know the
value of law. In the combined revolutions against the Monarchy
(bourgeois and the other classes), laws where made, like les droit des
l'homme et du citoyen, and the Bill of Rights (year 1789). The bourgeois
know that the power comes from law. Somehow the communists haven't
appreciated this power of law making, thus they never had real power.
The anarchists are notorious for their lack of content, and they never
made any laws either (forgetting that the very notion of 'anarchy'
whatever it is supposed to mean (yes i know perfectly what it means)
that it is a *law* one way or the other. The 'democratic-socialists'
as they labeled themselves (the bourgeois democratic-socialist political
parties), they did realize the power to make laws, and hence they where
able to soften up capitalism to a degree, and so where the bourgeois
(European) liberal parties who once where progressive (a long time ago),
and sometimes seem to have retained a very small amount of
progressiveness to them even now.
Basically: whoever realizes that laws are the power, they will have an
impact, and everyone who doesn't will have an irrelevant movement or
achieve little more then regime changes. How else could it be ! If
you're not into laws, you can't define your system, you can only say
'vote for us, we're the good guys' (which is a Monarchist way of
thinking, no less!).
So ... all get your heads straight and your editors ready, and start to
write law systems that you think may work.
http://www.socialism.nl/law <<-- Law system, ready for use, I worked on
that for about a year, and it has a lot of support documents too.
But still: get your editors out and write down your own laws ! It's
great, and then we can talk about law system is the best 'socialist
system.'
I think mine is very crafty and nice, so it will be great to have this
debate about which laws are best and which details are best and so on
and so forth.
- How to distribute the means of production, exactly ! They won't
distribute themselves ! How do you do that fairly ! I have my ideas,
you have yours maybe, we can compare notes and find a promising way.
- How to make laws that protect freedom.
- How to make laws that will prevent dictatorships from occuring, how
to structure a Government (if any, but you will have one anyway
because a simple camp-fire meeting in a sovereign setting /is/ a top
sovereign government right there -- and if you don't structure
anything for it, you know who will rule: the ones with th ebiggest
mouths, the worst of them all usually; they *will* rule and that's the
end of that 'socialism' then.)
You can only succeed in this law making, if you accept that a people
is more then 30 persons around a camp fire faced with trivial questions.
You law model will be relatively worthless if it needs you there to
'make it go right.' It must be a self-sustaining self-replicating system.
The achieving of 'rule of law,' was one of the greatest achievements
toward the equality of all people, and to abolish the right of the
nobility to commit crimes. If you can't even acknowledge that ... you
are still in need of having your own personal bourgeois civil society
national liberation revolution.
--
http://www.socialism.nl
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>The term _communitarian_ was also widely noised
>about in the early '90s by a fellow called Amitai
>Etzioni (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amitai_Etzioni)
>It seemed to be a mild form of fascism, but maybe
>I'm too bristly about it.
I'd neveer heard of him, but prefer the Peter Maurin -- Amon Hennessey --
Dorothy Day version. See:
http://khanya.wordpress.com/2008/11/19/socialism-communitarianism-distibutism/
*Anarcissie*
> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 07:08:26 -0800 (PST), "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >The term _communitarian_ was also widely noised
> >about in the early '90s by a fellow called Amitai
> >It seemed to be a mild form of fascism, but maybe
> >I'm too bristly about it.
>
> I'd neveer heard of him, but prefer the Peter Maurin -- Amon Hennessey --
> Dorothy Day version. See:
>
>
In Netspeak, they were anarcho-communists. This Etzioni stuff is
decidedly right-wing, authoritarian social welfare state stuff but
presented as middle-of-the-road progressivism. Some of the
ruling class liked it and put it in their upper-middle media, like
NPR and the _New York Times_. Not anarcho-communist at
all. Nobody much bit and it faded out.
James A. Donald
> James Donald has been contending that the only
> possible power relationship between cooperating
> humans is one of master and servant or follower.
There is also the market.
We observe, in practice, that people cooperate as equals
with no one above them in the market, and only in the market.
> If this is the case, or even largely the case, then
> neither libertarian socialism nor libertarian
> capitalism can exist;
Libertarian capitalism is cooperation mediated by the market.
*Anarcissie*
> "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > James Donald has been contending that the only
> > possible power relationship between cooperating
> > humans is one of master and servant or follower.
>
> There is also the market.
>
> We observe, in practice, that people cooperate as equals
> with no one above them in the market, and only in the market.
I think one observes them cooperating in other ways
as well. Some of them, like gift-relations, seem to be
antecedent to market relations, and appear even
among non-human animals.
> > If this is the case, or even largely the case, then
> > neither libertarian socialism nor libertarian
> > capitalism can exist;
>
> Libertarian capitalism is cooperation mediated by the market.
Markets, like any other social relation I can think
of but explicit equality, are subject to manipulation
and pressure. The market facilitates, but it does
not sanctify.
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>"*Anarcissie*" <anarc...@gmail.com> wrote:
And it's as utopian as libertarian socialism.
jos boersema
> On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 15:05:24 +1000, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"*Anarcissie*" <anarc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> James Donald has been contending that the only
>>> possible power relationship between cooperating
>>> humans is one of master and servant or follower.
>>
>>There is also the market.
>>
>>We observe, in practice, that people cooperate as equals
>>with no one above them in the market, and only in the market.
>>
>>> If this is the case, or even largely the case, then
>>> neither libertarian socialism nor libertarian
>>> capitalism can exist;
>>
>>Libertarian capitalism is cooperation mediated by the market.
>
> And it's as utopian as libertarian socialism.
And as utopian as capitalism ? Capitalism is just another utopia that
will never work. Why ? Because you need exceptionally moral people not
to abuse the money power, the potential to hoard land and to combine
people under a dictatorial business power. Such a social makeup does not
exist, but Capitalism requires it to operate effectively and be stable.
Hence: capitalism, just another failed utoptia ... (like all the others).
Capitalism is poorly defended against corruption, although it tends to
take centuries for it to fully take over and implode the nation.
This does not mean that trade doesn't work, trade works beaufitully.
Capitalism does not work though, neither does feudalism, or the
plan-economy. 3 Utopias, 3 failures.
--
http://www.socialism.nl
James A. Donald
> > We observe, in practice, that people cooperate as
> > equals with no one above them in the market, and
> > only in the market.
"*Anarcissie*"
> I think one observes them cooperating in other ways as
> well. Some of them, like gift-relations,
Gift relations seldom involve significant value, and
occur primarily within the family. Families are indeed
socialist, but this is not evidence that such
arrangements can work on a larger scale, or between non
kin. Further, families are strongly hierarchical. Dad
is in charge, and when dad dies or goes senile the
family is apt to have horrifying conflicts that cannot
be resolved even if the members of the family continue
to love each other.
Not only does familial socialism only work on a small
scale, it only works when dad is in charge.
Fred Williams
> "*Anarcissie*" <anarc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> James Donald has been contending that the only
>> possible power relationship between cooperating
>> humans is one of master and servant or follower.
>
> There is also the market.
>
> We observe, in practice, that people cooperate as equals
> with no one above them in the market, and only in the market.
>
Propaganda lie. The market has led to some people making millions of
dollars a week and other starving on the sidewalk. That is no people
cooperating as equals. What we observe about the market is exactly the
opposite to what you're saying.
>> If this is the case, or even largely the case, then
>> neither libertarian socialism nor libertarian
>> capitalism can exist;
>
> Libertarian capitalism is cooperation mediated by the market.
Which is a sufficient definition for slavery.
Fred Williams
There is a big push by the propagandists in Washington to redefine these
terms. If that becomes the norm, then it will reduce everybody's ability to
talk about the issues because our language will have been taken away from
us. Over and above that, famous quotations and slogans will become
meaningless or be turned around completely.
I believe we're on the same side of many issues, but the definitions used
in this group recently are not what they are when I was young. That's all
I'm saying here.
>> Hence countries like Canada are socialist, (although Canada is less so
>> now days). Cuba is technically socialist, and by their own claim, and
>> with more right to it than most.
>
> Provision of welfare is, in my book, usually
> called "social democracy" or "welfarism".
>
>> Libertarianism is hard to pin down, which may be due to their claiming to
>> be all things to all people. One of the most hateful right wing fascists
>> I've ever known claimed to be Libertarian. It was never clear to me if
>> other Libertarians accepted him as one of their own.
>
> Libertarianism as used by most Americans
> on the Net, anyway, usually seems to mean
> a kind of fundamentailst liberalism, a return
> to the first, essential principles. But when
> someone says "libertarian socialist" he
> probably doesn't mean that.
>
"Liberalism" isn't what it used to be either.
*Anarcissie*
I wasn't talking about families. I was trying
to point out the obvious: that there are a lot
of egalitarian social interactions which are
not markets. But pointing out the obvious
is usually as thankless as it is useless.
James A. Donald
> to point out the obvious: that there are a lot
> of egalitarian social interactions which are
> not markets.
No there are not. Egalitarian cooperation is the market,
and very little else.
Your example was gift giving, but gifts outside the family
are rarely of significant value - and functioning families
are *not* egalitarian.
Catherine Jefferson
> On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 15:05:24 +1000, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com>
> wrote:
>> Libertarian capitalism is cooperation mediated by the market.
>
> And it's as utopian as libertarian socialism.
*Exactly*. There are better and worse governmental systems out there,
but it is real people, not some idealized projection of what humans
could or should be, that have to run them and live in them. Human
beings aren't perfect; their governments won't be perfect.
For those who care about maximizing the good things in life (justice,
peace, enough material goods to support a decent life), the task isn't
to come up with a perfect system. It is to devise *and implement* a
system that provides as many people as possible with those things. In
my experience, there isn't one single system that works best because
each group of people is different.
Certain things seem to be in common with good systems that actually
work, however. One of those is a large degree of real freedom for each
individual to choose within reasonable limits who to associate with and
how to make a living. Any system that allows that, whatever the
political form, is probably going to work well for most people living
under it.
Systems that have one person or a small group of people making those
decisions for other people, however, create injustice and unhappiness.
That's true regardless of whether you are dealing with large-scale
robber baron style capitalism or large-scale dictatorial bureaucratic
Marxism/Leninism/Maoism. ("Communism" is too useful a general term to
surrender to just the Marxist/Leninist/Maoist camp, IMHO.) It's true at
smaller scales too; just think of companies with cultures that allow
employees to innovate and reward initiative and creativity, vs.
companies that insist on all decisions being made at the top and simply
obeyed. :/
I (for one) would infinitely prefer to live in a "socialist" society
that consisted of a national government whose role is limited to
handling only those issues that can't be dealt with properly on a
regional level, than in a "capitalist" system that runs everything from
the top. As I understand the terms "socialism" and "capitalism", the
first is highly unlikely and the second impossible, but I don't care
about the words. I care about the reality.
James A. Donald
> > We observe, in practice, that people cooperate as equals
> > with no one above them in the market, and only in the market.
Fred Williams
> Propaganda lie. The market has led to some people making millions of
> dollars a week and other starving on the sidewalk.
The guy making millions cannot tell the guy starving on the sidewalk
what to do - indeed chances are that the reason he is starving on the
sidewalk is that he is disinclined to do what other people tell him.
In Cuba, however, the guy with slightly higher rank can throw the guy
with slightly lower rank in jail.
In America, you tip for good service. In cuba, the tourists tip for
good service, but the nomenclatura punish for bad service.
Dan Clore
One might note that your interlocutor has in fact frequently described
the market, at least in its capitalist form, with metaphors such as "the
consumer is king". Think through the implications of that remark: for
one thing, it implies that most people spend eight hours a day in the
position of a serf.
--
Dan Clore
New book: _Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon_:
http://tinyurl.com/yd3bxkw
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
(Wait for the new edition: http://hplmythos.com/ )
Lord We�rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
Dan Clore
> "Tha law in it's magnanimous equality
> forbids the rich as well as the poor from stealing a loaf of bread,
> begging in the streets and sleeping under bridges." -- Jacques
> Anatole François Thibault, apparently. Ultimately economic power
> consumes political power and scarce money systems are self
> destructive.
Yes, Anatole France (by his pen name). He was a great writer: The Revolt
of the Angels is one of my favorites.
--
Dan Clore
New book: _Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon_:
http://tinyurl.com/yd3bxkw
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
(Wait for the new edition: http://hplmythos.com/ )
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
James A. Donald
> the market, at least in its capitalist form, with metaphors such as "the
> consumer is king". Think through the implications of that remark: for
> one thing, it implies that most people spend eight hours a day in the
> position of a serf.
It means that the purpose of production is consumption.
Steve Hayes
wrote:
> There is a big push by the propagandists in Washington to redefine these
>terms. If that becomes the norm, then it will reduce everybody's ability to
>talk about the issues because our language will have been taken away from
>us. Over and above that, famous quotations and slogans will become
>meaningless or be turned around completely.
Could you identify these propagandists in Washington?
Are all propagandists in Washington members, or is there one particular group
of propagandists pushing this?
And how are they trying to redefine them -- from what to what?
>> Libertarianism as used by most Americans
>> on the Net, anyway, usually seems to mean
>> a kind of fundamentailst liberalism, a return
>> to the first, essential principles. But when
>> someone says "libertarian socialist" he
>> probably doesn't mean that.
>>
> "Liberalism" isn't what it used to be either.
True, but I rather like the "fundamentalist liberalism" description of US
libertarians. They seem to take liberal principles and push them beyond the
point of absurdity.
Steve Hayes
<spam...@spambouncer.org> wrote:
>Steve Hayes wrote:
>
>> What sounds very strange to me is the idea that libertarian socialism can't
>> exist because it *has* to be the same as authoritarian socialism.
>
>> That seems to me like saying that a cooperative society cannot exist UNLESS it
>> is imposed from above, like collective farming in the Soviet Union in Stalin's
>> times. Yet long before Stalin in Russia there was the Mir.
>
>> And there is that peculiar tendency in Western thought to think in terms of
>> Individual *versus* Collective. The communitarian alternative isn't even
>> considered, except by people like Dorothy Day.
>
>"Communitarian" doesn't occur naturally, except maybe in families. I've
>also seen it work in a couple of intentional communities I've visited,
>and in monasteries/convents. But you're asking for a serious suspension
>of disbelief to convince me that it is a real possibility in the wider
>world. It's a high-demand way of living on the people who choose to do it.
>
>You'll also need a means to deal with outsiders, and with those people
>in the community who either can't or won't play by the rules.
I think Orthodox Christian anthropology is communitarian, as is much premodern
tribal anthopology. Consider African proverbs, like "a person is a person
because of people" (Zulu: umuntu ungumuntu ngabantu). Another, which seems to
be totally misunderstod by Americans who can't think outside the framework of
modernity "it takes a village to raise a child" (I've seen Americans assert,
in blog comments, with apparent absolute certainty, that "village" there
refers to "the government").
But if you read Christos Yannaras's book "The freedom of morality" you can see
why Orthodox anthropology has little in common with either individualism or
collectivism, and is better described as "communitarian", though I think the
word may be of fairly recent origin, and may even have been coined by Dorothy
Day & Co.
Fred Williams
> James A. Donald wrote:
>> > We observe, in practice, that people cooperate as equals
>> > with no one above them in the market, and only in the market.
>
> Fred Williams
>> Propaganda lie. The market has led to some people making millions of
>> dollars a week and other starving on the sidewalk.
>
> The guy making millions cannot tell the guy starving on the sidewalk
> what to do - indeed chances are that the reason he is starving on the
> sidewalk is that he is disinclined to do what other people tell him.
>
It's the economic system that does it. Millions will starve on the streets
in order to make one rich person.
> In Cuba, however, the guy with slightly higher rank can throw the guy
> with slightly lower rank in jail.
>
Absolute Crap. Cuba is run by the people.
AGG
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 23:44:25 -0800, Catherine Jefferson
> <spam...@spambouncer.org> wrote:
>
> > Steve Hayes wrote:
> >
> >> What sounds very strange to me is the idea that libertarian
> socialism can't >> exist because it has to be the same as
> authoritarian socialism.
> >
> >> That seems to me like saying that a cooperative society cannot
> exist UNLESS it >> is imposed from above, like collective farming in
> the Soviet Union in Stalin's >> times. Yet long before Stalin in
> Russia there was the Mir.
> >
> >> And there is that peculiar tendency in Western thought to think in
> terms of >> Individual versus Collective. The communitarian
> alternative isn't even >> considered, except by people like Dorothy
> Day.
> >
> > "Communitarian" doesn't occur naturally, except maybe in families.
> > I've also seen it work in a couple of intentional communities I've
> > visited, and in monasteries/convents. But you're asking for a
> > serious suspension of disbelief to convince me that it is a real
> > possibility in the wider world. It's a high-demand way of living
> > on the people who choose to do it.
> >
> > You'll also need a means to deal with outsiders, and with those
> > people in the community who either can't or won't play by the rules.
>
> I think Orthodox Christian anthropology is communitarian, as is much
> premodern tribal anthopology. Consider African proverbs, like "a
> person is a person because of people" (Zulu: umuntu ungumuntu
> ngabantu). Another, which seems to be totally misunderstod by
> Americans who can't think outside the framework of modernity "it
> takes a village to raise a child" (I've seen Americans assert, in
> blog comments, with apparent absolute certainty, that "village" there
> refers to "the government").
***The phrase was coined by Hillary Clinton in the title of a book she
wrote some years ago. In addition to discussing how we are all
responsible for a child's upbringing directly or indirectly, she made
absolutely clear that the government played a big role in accomplishing
this.
*Anarcissie*
Among hunter-gatherers maybe. In a capitalist polity
the purpose of production is power through the
accumulation of capital. Consumption becomes a kind
of secondary job for the masses. So one might say
the purpose of production is more production.
Catherine Jefferson
> I think Orthodox Christian anthropology is communitarian, as is much premodern
> tribal anthopology. Consider African proverbs, like "a person is a person
> because of people" (Zulu: umuntu ungumuntu ngabantu). Another, which seems to
> be totally misunderstod by Americans who can't think outside the framework of
> modernity "it takes a village to raise a child" (I've seen Americans assert,
> in blog comments, with apparent absolute certainty, that "village" there
> refers to "the government").
>
> But if you read Christos Yannaras's book "The freedom of morality" you can see
> why Orthodox anthropology has little in common with either individualism or
> collectivism, and is better described as "communitarian", though I think the
> word may be of fairly recent origin, and may even have been coined by Dorothy
> Day & Co.
Certainly, and among a group of people who voluntarily accept the
premises and mutual obligations of that type of community this can work.
(And has; I've seen it in action.) You can build a community and a
life on these principles
But I don't see any way to enforce this by law, which is an altogether
blunter instrument than anything Yannaras or Dorothy Day was talking
about. In his epistles, St. Paul discusses some of the problems
inherent in the use "Law" to define the proper way to live in a
community, as opposed to changing minds and hearts so that people want
to do so and voluntarily do so. St. Paul, Dorothy Day, and Christos
Yannaras are all *right*, but I'm not sure it's possible to translate
any of what they say into a working system with large numbers of people
who don't believe the same things that they do. (For those who aren't
aware of this, Steve and I are both Eastern Orthodox Christians.)
Perhaps I misunderstood the conversation, but I thought that we were
discussing a legal system under secular, democratic principles, not a
community built on faith in God and Christian principles?
James A. Donald
> > > One might note that your interlocutor has in fact frequently described
> > > the market, at least in its capitalist form, with metaphors such as "the
> > > consumer is king". Think through the implications of that remark: for
> > > one thing, it implies that most people spend eight hours a day in the
> > > position of a serf.
James A. Donald:
> > It means that the purpose of production is consumption.
"*Anarcissie*"
> Among hunter-gatherers maybe. In a capitalist polity
> the purpose of production is power through the
> accumulation of capital.
Capital is not power, because the customer is king. If the homeless
guy is on the pavement obstructing Bill Gates, Bill Gates must walk
around him.
James A. Donald
> > In Cuba, however, the guy with slightly higher rank
> > can throw the guy with slightly lower rank in jail.
Fred Williams
> Absolute Crap. Cuba is run by the people.
There is no unemployment in Cuba, despite the fact that
most people find government pay insufficient, and
survive by other means of varying legality. Since the
pay is not an incentive, why do you think they continue
to show up and do as they are told at the government
job?
It is because they will be punished for not showing up
or not obeying, not because they are rewarded for
showing up and obeying. In Cuba, you do not get fired
for failure to perform to your boss's satisfaction, you
get the crap beaten out of you.
Steve Hayes
wrote:
As Marx put it, when money is simply a medium of exchange, one has
G -> M -> G
One makes goods and exchanges them for money, which one then uses to buy
goods.
So the shoemaker sells shoes and uses money to buy bread.
But in capitalism the money stops being a means and becomes an end, so it is
reversed, and becomes
M -> G -> M
the capitalist uses money to buy goods in order to sell them to get more
money.
Steve Hayes
We were discussing many things, but primarily the meanings of terms,
especially "libertarian" and "socialist".
It began with an announcement of the formation of a libertarian socialist
group in Denmark, and then someone said that "libertarian socialist" was a
contradiction in terms, and so it became a discussion of terms and their
meanings.
This particular sub-thread arises from a point I made, that both libertarian
socialism and libertarian capitalism are utopian: that is, there is no actual
society in which either has operated. Both are visions or ideals.
Thus we are not talking about an actual legal system, but rather the
principles on which a hypothetical legal system might be based in a
hypothetical future society.
The vision of such a society will be shaped by one's anthropology, and one
aspect of that anthropology is whether one has an individualist, a
collectivist or a communitarian view of humanity.
For what it's worth, politically I am a liberal with anarcho-syndicalist
sympathies. I don't believe that laws can make people good; the most one can
hope for from laws and legal systems is to limit the harm that people do to
each other because of their lack of goodness.
So it's not about enforcing this by law.
To think in those terms is to miss the point of anarchism or libertarianism.
The anarchist principle is that no government is good government. The liberal
principle is that the government governs best that governs least. So the very
idea of imposing such things by a system of law is contrary to the spirit of
anarchism. Imposing things by law is an authoritarian method, and
"authoritarian" is the opposite of "libertarian".
I've no idea what the Danish libertarian socialists have in mind, but to me
the Dorothy Day method makes sense -- start small, start where you are.
*Anarcissie*
> On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 07:58:09 -0800 (PST), "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 2, 11:00 pm, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> >> It means that the purpose of production is consumption.
>
> >Among hunter-gatherers maybe. In a capitalist polity
> >the purpose of production is power through the
> >accumulation of capital. Consumption becomes a kind
> >of secondary job for the masses. So one might say
> >the purpose of production is more production.
>
> As Marx put it, when money is simply a medium of exchange, one has
>
> G -> M -> G
>
> One makes goods and exchanges them for money, which one then uses to buy
> goods.
>
> So the shoemaker sells shoes and uses money to buy bread.
>
> But in capitalism the money stops being a means and becomes an end, so it is
> reversed, and becomes
>
> M -> G -> M
>
> the capitalist uses money to buy goods in order to sell them to get more
> money.
There are some capitalists who love money for its elegance
and beauty -- I know a couple -- but by and large the capitalist
wants money or other capital because it gives power. Wealth
itself is a kind of power, and it produces other kinds of power
like political power and social status. It also confers member-
ship in the class of powerful people; if one has enough, or
knows the right people who have enough, one becomes a
member of the ruling class. So I think that wealth or capital
must be accounted not an end in itself but a means to an
end, to wit, power -- power for oneself, power for one's
class, one's family, one's country.
The behavior of capitalists follows logically from these
connections.
Fred Williams
"Whoever has the most toys when she/he dies wins." That's capitalism.
Fred Williams
Sure, that's a terrible inconvenience. (:-|) Since when does Bill Gates
walk in the streets, anyway?"
Fred Williams
More lies. There are millions of homeless children in the world and yet
not one of them lives in Cuba. That is why they show up for work each day.
It's a good idea and they love their children and each other.
*Anarcissie*
No, it isn't. That would be consumption. That's
for the working class.
Fred Williams
When you look at how it's structured and more importantly how it actually
works on people, that's exactly what it boils down to.
Dan Clore
Particularly in streets where the homeless are allowed to obstruct
sidewalks. This doesn't tend to happen in areas frequented by the rich.
Catherine Jefferson
> Fred Williams wrote:
>> Sure, that's a terrible inconvenience. (:-|) Since when does Bill
>> Gates walk in the streets, anyway?"
>
> Particularly in streets where the homeless are allowed to obstruct
> sidewalks. This doesn't tend to happen in areas frequented by the rich.
Not in the United States. :/ But it happens a lot in other countries.
I grew up in a city on the Mexican border, and routinely saw beggars
and homeless people along the sidewalks near the fanciest districts in
town. The same was true in much of eastern and southeaster Europe
during the 1980s (when I was there for significant periods). I also
know that it is common in much of Asia, although I haven't seen it
myself. (I work with many people from India and Pakistan.)
Of course, rich people in most of those places tend to have private
security and gated grounds, as they often do here. But the social
expectations are very different. I wonder why?
*Anarcissie*
If you consider power a toy.
James A. Donald
James A. Donald wrote:
> > Capital is not power, because the customer is king. If the homeless
> > guy is on the pavement obstructing Bill Gates, Bill Gates must walk
> > around him.
Fred Williams
> Sure, that's a terrible inconvenience.
In socialism the homeless man gets sent to a re-education camp. The
inconvenience is liquidated.
James A. Donald
> More lies. There are millions of homeless children in
> the world and yet not one of them lives in Cuba.
If the rest of the world had slavery as Cuba does, there
would be no homeless people in the rest of the world
either.
Fred Williams
Capitalists do.
Fred Williams
Cuba is socialist and has no re-education camps, except for Guantanamo bay,
which is really a torture camp, not so much for re-education, although some
brainwashing is likely going on there.