Comments by "BlackFlagsNRoses" (@blackflagsnroses6013) on "" video.
-
8
-
@CeramicShot libertarian socialism is anarchism. Meaning anti-statist. Seeing as socialism originated in radical leftist circles as libertarian before State Socialism it is viewed as the purest expression of socialism. Libertarian socialism requires no government, no political action or parties, no political representatives. Indeed there is no government involvement in social and economic affairs, for society would be a decentralized free association of producers. In terms of economics libertarian socialism is anarcho-communism and Mutualism (a market socialism also known as free market anarchism, or free market anti-capitalism).
The Scientific Socialist school of Marx had the same end goals in mind, but made the assertion that the working class would first have to capture the State and government to the proletariats interest and defend the socialist revolution from internal and external capitalist counterrevolutionary forces. Then once proper the State would “wither away.” Marxist orthodoxy first lead to Democratic Socialism, in which parliamentary and democratic parties vied for the working class votes, and govern on their interests. Eventually Lenin would doctrinate a more consolidated State philosophy of bureaucratic centralization and Vanguard Party leadership. The resultant political doctrine of the Bolsheviks, today called Marxist-Leninist is more authoritarian and centralized a method to socialist revolution, leading to all the Marxist-Leninist authoritarian regimes.
The core of socialism, which even Marx agreed, is to put labor in ownership of their own products. That is to say opposition to capitalism (private ownership, wage labor) in favor of labor associations (individual/family business, self-management, industrial democracy). Unfortunately concepts of preferred government systems such as statism, democracy, and political methods overly prioritized everything but the core of socialism, the socialization of the means of production. The French school of socialism, libertarian socialism came before German historical materialist scientific socialism school of Marx, and this quote from Mutualist and libertarian socialist Proudhon explains the quintessential essence of socialism.
“Under the law of association, transmission of wealth does not apply to the instruments of labour, so cannot become a cause of inequality. [...] We are socialists [...] under universal association, ownership of the land and of the instruments of labour is social ownership. [...] We want the mines, canals, railways handed over to democratically organised workers' associations. [...] We want these associations to be models for agriculture, industry and trade, the pioneering core of that vast federation of companies and societies, joined together in the common bond of the democratic and social Republic.”
Proudhon also warned that a society with private property would lead to statist relations between people, arguing:
“The purchaser draws boundaries, fences himself in, and says, 'This is mine; each one by himself, each one for himself.' Here, then, is a piece of land upon which, henceforth, no one has right to step, save the proprietor and his friends; which can benefit nobody, save the proprietor and his servants. Let these multiply, and soon the people [...] will have nowhere to rest, no place of shelter, no ground to till. They will die of hunger at the proprietor's door, on the edge of that property which was their birth-right; and the proprietor, watching them die, will exclaim, 'So perish idlers and vagrants.'”
1
-
@ALL_CAPS__ no it’s not necessarily. Mind you the term libertarian originated in the 19th century by anti-statist socialists. The anarchist-communist Joesph DeJacque is credited with popularizing the term. Socialism refers to social ownership of the means of production and labor association. But libertarian socialists do not put the collective over individuals. Fascism is a collectivist doctrine of putting the collective over the individual. The Fasces being a symbol of power and strength in unity over the feeble individual.
For anarchists, the idea that individuals should sacrifice themselves for the “group” or “greater good” is nonsensical. Groups are made up of individuals, and if people think only of what’s best for the group, the group will be a lifeless shell. It is only the dynamics of human interaction within groups which give them life. “Groups” cannot think, only individuals can. This fact, ironically, leads authoritarian “collectivists” to a most particular kind of “individualism,” namely the “cult of the personality” and leader worship. This is to be expected, since such collectivism lumps individuals into abstract groups, denies their individuality, and ends up with the need for someone with enough individuality to make decisions — a problem that is “solved” by the leader principle. Stalinism and Nazism are excellent examples of this phenomenon.
Therefore, anarchists recognise that individuals are the basic unit of society and that only individuals have interests and feelings. This means they oppose “collectivism” and the glorification of the group. In anarchist theory the group exists only to aid and develop the individuals involved in them. This is why we place so much stress on groups structured in a libertarian manner — only a libertarian organisation allows the individuals within a group to fully express themselves, manage their own interests directly and to create social relationships which encourage individuality and individual freedom. So while society and the groups they join shapes the individual, the individual is the true basis of society. Hence Malatesta:
“Much has been said about the respective roles of individual initiative and social action in the life and progress of human societies ... Everything is maintained and kept going in the human world thanks to individual initiative ... The real being is man, the individual. Society or the collectivity — and the State or government which claims to represent it — if it is not a hollow abstraction, must be made up of individuals. And it is in the organism of every individual that all thoughts and human actions inevitably have their origin, and from being individual they become collective thoughts and acts when they are or become accepted by many individuals. Social action, therefore, is neither the negation nor the complement of individual initiatives, but is the resultant of initiatives, thoughts and actions of all individuals who make up society ... The question is not really changing the relationship between society and the individual ... It is a question of preventing some individuals from oppressing others; of giving all individuals the same rights and the same means of action; and of replacing the initiative to the few [which Malatesta defines as a key aspect of government/hierarchy], which inevitably results in the oppression of everyone else ... [Anarchy]
These considerations do not mean that “individualism” finds favour with anarchists. As Emma Goldman pointed out, “‘rugged individualism’... is only a masked attempt to repress and defeat the individual and his individuality. So-called Individualism is the social and economic laissez-faire: the exploitation of the masses by the ruling classes by means of legal trickery, spiritual debasement and systematic indoctrination of the servile spirit ... That corrupt and perverse ‘individualism’ is the straitjacket of individuality . . It has inevitably resulted in the greatest modern slavery, the crassest class distinctions driving millions to the breadline. ‘Rugged individualism’ has meant all the ‘individualism’ for the masters, while the people are regimented into a slave caste to serve a handful of self-seeking ‘supermen.’” [Red Emma Speaks]
While groups cannot think, individuals cannot live or discuss by themselves. Groups and associations are an essential aspect of individual life. Indeed, as groups generate social relationships by their very nature, they help shape individuals. In other words, groups structured in an authoritarian way will have a negative impact on the freedom and individuality of those within them. However, due to the abstract nature of their “individualism,” capitalist individualists fail to see any difference between groups structured in a libertarian manner rather than in an authoritarian one — they are both “groups”. Because of their one-sided perspective on this issue, “individualists” ironically end up supporting some of the most “collectivist” institutions in existence — capitalist companies — and, moreover, always find a need for the state despite their frequent denunciations of it. These contradictions stem from capitalist individualism’s dependence on individual contracts in an unequal society, i.e. abstract individualism.
1
-
1
-
1