Libertarian Socialism: An Oxymoron?

[NWO Sentryman]

Noam Chomsky describes himself as a "libertarian Socialist"

But isn't individualist collectivism an oxymoron?

 

[drkitten]

Noam Chomsky describes himself as a "libertarian Socialist"

But isn't individualist collectivism an oxymoron?

Quick answer: no.

Longer answer: nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

 

[quixotecoyote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

Wiki explains it well.

It's basically the idea that we should throw away the institutions that wield undemocratic and abusive authority and transfer political and economic power to decentralized direct democracies.

It's a good idea in theory, but it has it's own problems about conflicts between/among those democratic structures as well as how they can organize an effective defense against those nations who do not change.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Well, Perry dehaviland wrote an essay once on it.

About Direct democracy, does it not descend into two wolves and a sheep deciding on dinner?

 

[drkitten]

Well, Perry dehaviland wrote an essay once on it.

About Direct democracy, does it not descend into two wolves and a sheep deciding on dinner?

Well, no one said it was a smart idea,.... just not oxymoronic.

And direct democracy doesn't necessarily descend into two wolves and a sheep any more (or any less) than representative democracy. The key idea in both instances seems to be a fairly sharp set of rules outlining what is and is not a valid democratic question and what is and is not written in semi-stone as part of the rules of the society. For example, Congress can't pass an ex post facto law (it's in the constitution), but neither can a Vermont town meeting.

 

[thought_fugitive]

I'm pretty sure I've heard Chomsky state that he believes democratic representation is necessary or maybe he said that it's unavoidable. Is the democratic structure of a lib-soc society direct / pure democracy in the Athenian democracy sense?

Also, a radical publication that he frequently contributes to, Z Magazine, seems to be a major proponent of a somewhat interesting (to me, at least) system of participatory economics. Does anyone who is more familiar with Chomsky knows if he subscribes to parecon specifically?

It mentions parecon can not be considered or utilized as a political philosophy, but there seem to be some similarities between parecon and some of the social libertarian ideals I've heard, such as solidarity and classlessness as well as the public ownership of the means of production.

My question is do any of you consider a dramatic social change to something akin to a lib-soc society beneficial? Plausible? To me, it sounds like Zeitgeist without the robots, which seems to amount to the communist utopia without central planning, which seems to be unattainable. The parecon idea seems to share a lot of principles with the limited Marx I've read, but the website (haven't read any books about it) use his name cautiously if at all, so I'm also interested in if it's because the concepts aren't unique to Marx/Engels or if there's a reluctance to admit it. Or I might just be wrong.

 

[Aerik]

You should look at the blog Divided by Zer0. Not only is he pretty good at he discussion "am I making sense calling myself a libertarian socialist?" but he maintains his site well, which I like. It's real snappy.

 

[Kiosk]

This was my early political orientation, and I used to know a lot of true believers (anarcho-syndicalists, to be precise). I'm still very much in the left/libertarian quarter of the political compass, but I've long since given up on full-on libertarian socialism, simply because it's just as hopelessly Utopian as right wing libertarianism, Communism, etc. Very nice philosophy, but you only have to spend a short time in (or observing) a trade union to see the problem.

 

[Kiosk]

The parecon idea seems to share a lot of principles with the limited Marx I've read, but the website (haven't read any books about it) use his name cautiously if at all, so I'm also interested in if it's because the concepts aren't unique to Marx/Engels or if there's a reluctance to admit it. Or I might just be wrong.

Lib-socs hate mentioning Karl Marx, I can tell you that much. Largely, it always seemed to me, because his idea that an intermediate state (and a pretty "big" state at that) would be necessary before any kind of "stateless" society could ever work is precisely correct, and rather exposes the single biggest problem with their own political outlook.

 

[thought_fugitive]

Noam Chomsky describes himself as a "libertarian Socialist"

But isn't individualist collectivism an oxymoron?

Also, I'm pretty certain that in anarcho-syndicalism, if not more generally just ideologies criticizing capitalism, it's more concerned with collectivism as the vehicle for all social change and function. Not that there's anything to disagree with it, I just don't think it's libertarian in the free-market private property libertarian sense.

Rhetoric I usually hear from Chomsky lectures (I listen to a shoutcast station with 24/7 Chomsky speeches to help fall asleep sometimes ;D) is along the lines that it's morally wrong to submit to wage-slavery, that capitalism is offering yourself as a tool to be rented by the market (in the negatively implied sense), or that corporations are tyrannical institutions in control of all society.

I'm too young and uninformed to say whether or not I agree with him or to confidently maintain my own political ideology so I'm not trying to comment much, but I think the individualism Chomsky supports ends somewhere near the belief that it should be the individual's inalienable right to be paid to do the work they're passionate about.

So, I think the attitude is that one is alive for their work, not working for their life.

 

[drkitten]

Lib-socs hate mentioning Karl Marx, I can tell you that much. Largely, it always seemed to me, because his idea that an intermediate state (and a pretty "big" state at that) would be necessary before any kind of "stateless" society could ever work is precisely correct, and rather exposes the single biggest problem with their own political outlook.

Is that a Marxist idea, or a Leninist one?

I've usually seen it attributed to Lenin, and in fact, was one of the major reasons that he and Stalin ended up breaking with Trotsky.

 

[leftysergeant]

Anarcho-syndicalists and anarcho-capitalists are just Communists and Fascists who haven't grown up yet.

 

[Puppycow]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

Wiki explains it well.

It's basically the idea that we should throw away the institutions that wield undemocratic and abusive authority and transfer political and economic power to decentralized direct democracies.

It's a good idea in theory, but it has it's own problems about conflicts between/among those democratic structures as well as how they can organize an effective defense against those nations who do not change.

This idea is based on a naive view of human nature. The article doesn't even mention what they would so about crime. Police, prisons, courts, are all "coercive"? What will they do about homocidal maniacs, violent gangs, rapists and warlords? Try to reason with them? Will Noam Chomsky threaten to lecture them about justice?

 

[drkitten]

This idea is based on a naive view of human nature.

Anything with the word "libertarian" in it is based on a naive view of human nature.

Why should "libertarian socialism" be any different?

 

[Ziggurat]

Is that a Marxist idea, or a Leninist one?

Marxist. Lenin and the other soviets leapfrogged from feudal agrarianism to "communism" in one bound, skipping over the capitalism stage Marx posited was a necessary intermediary. Those who still cling to Marxism sometimes use this as an excuse for why communism isn't really a failed ideology since it's never been done "right". Those who aren't still smoking dope can mostly recognize that it's because only deeply dysfunctional societies would ever try something as stupid as communism in the first place.

 

[Cain]

"Libertarian socialism," if anything, is redundant. (Investigate the origins of the term "libertarian"; its relationship with anarcho-syndicalism. I'm far more wary of people who use the term "collectivst," which often signals slavish adherence to doctrinaire, Rand-inspired, libertarianism.

drkitten:

Anything with the word "libertarian" in it is based on a naive view of human nature.

Why should "libertarian socialism" be any different?

So a civil libertarian has a naive view of human nature? What about an anti-libertarian?

Leftysergeant:

Anarcho-syndicalists and anarcho-capitalists are just Communists and Fascists who haven't grown up yet.

It's one thing to say a person who believes X political ideology is naive, and quite another to say she's really a Y, where Y is something else entirely. But that sort of easy, thoughtless comment seems all too common to this thread.

Puppycow:

This idea is based on a naive view of human nature. The article doesn't even mention what they would so about crime. Police, prisons, courts, are all "coercive"? What will they do about homocidal maniacs, violent gangs, rapists and warlords? Try to reason with them?

So you've read the Wikipedia article and concluded that libertarian socialism has no mechanism -- except polite conversation -- to deal with demonic marauders. This says more about you than it does about the doctrine (supposedly) under discussion, if we dare call it a discussion.

 

[GreyICE]

Anything with the word "libertarian" in it is based on a naive view of human nature.

Why should "libertarian socialism" be any different?

x2

I'd like to add NWO has previously demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the term 'socialism' so it's not actually surprising that he's a bit stuck here.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

x2

I'd like to add NWO has previously demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the term 'socialism' so it's not actually surprising that he's a bit stuck here.

Socialism, as you know, Led to Stalin, Pol Pot, the Killing Fields and Mao.

before you say "they weren't truly socialist" i call the no true scotsman on you.

 

[Cleon]

Socialism, as you know, Led to Stalin, Pol Pot, the Killing Fields and Mao.

You forgot to include Sweden, Norway, and the Kibbutz movement. There are different forms of socialism, y'know.

before you say "they weren't truly socialist" i call the no true scotsman on you.

I don't think that fallacy works the way you think it does.

 

[drkitten]

Marxist. Lenin and the other soviets leapfrogged from feudal agrarianism to "communism" in one bound, skipping over the capitalism stage Marx posited was a necessary intermediary.

That is exactly wrong, I'm afraid. It was explicitly Lenin's support for the "Two-Stage Revolution" (i.e., NOT being able to do the leapfrog you describe) that was the cause of his break with Trotsky and his one-stage theory of "permanent revolution."

Or to put it another way, Lenin explictly denied the possibility of moving directly from feudalism to communism utopia and put the USSR on the path of industrialization in order to create the necessary "working class."