Freedomain Radio

Has anybody heard of libertarian socialism? I discovered it at the site below. What are your thoughts?

Yeah I believe Anarcho-communists are also considered libertarian-socialist.. They believe that the relationship between a rich person and poor person, or a CEO and an employee is the same as one with a president or police officer. Having more money means more power to them. Bascially they want a world without government, and shuns capitalism.  What I find most common with this type of anarchist is lack of understanding of economics, or an incorrect definition of capitalism(usually mixing it up with mercantilism).

well guess it goes down to what you consider "socialism." Basically, regardless of what the dictionary says, there's no one definition of socialism (other than "umm...you know...that thing that's not capitalism") various economists (like mises) have come up with definitions (as they do with "capitalism") to explain their theories. To me "Socialism" is more like how proudhon thought of it, meaning any sort of political philosophy that addresses "the social question." The question being how best to organize society along lines of morality rather than selfish control. "

I consider myself ansoc for mainly two reasons: I share most of the concerns the authoritarian socialists expound, but I think the solutions are better and more attainable when we're allowed more liberty to pick our associations. This means I like the idea of closing the income gap (but not completely, just as much as possible.) and I support issues commonly associated with "the left." Also the fact that I'm a reformed social democrat may have an effect on it.

Proudhon considered himself a socialist, he just disagreed a lot with karl marx (they exchanged many letters debating each other.) He wasn't a communist (meaning he didn't believe in communal property theory and was vaguely pro-market) and so that caused Marx to label him "petit bourgeois" but he was too collectivist for Max Stirner who considered him basically as bad as Marx (sometimes a brotha just can't catch a break.)

And just some sort of libertarian would fall into that category. Obviously social systems can be devised that involve government and hierarchy yet claim to be socialist. BUt I'm not big on reading up on those things, for pretty much the same reason I don't know much about the supporting arguments in favor of the chinese zodiac. They can have their piece, but I kind of have to budget my time.

EdgeOfForever:

What I find most common with this type of anarchist is lack of understanding of economics, or an incorrect definition of capitalism(usually mixing it up with mercantilism).

Or maybe you're just really arrogant and are REALLY dismissive towards opposing ideas out of the gate (before the gate even opens in fact.)

Joel Davis:

EdgeOfForever:

What I find most common with this type of anarchist is lack of understanding of economics, or an incorrect definition of capitalism(usually mixing it up with mercantilism).

Or maybe you're just really arrogant and are REALLY dismissive towards opposing ideas out of the gate (before the gate even opens in fact.)

If you're right and it's wrong to be arrogant and dismissive then please don't be arrogant and dismissive towards EdgeOfForever. What about his comment made you this angry?

Joel Davis:

well guess it goes down to what you consider "socialism." Basically, regardless of what the dictionary says, there's no one definition of socialism (other than "umm...you know...that thing that's not capitalism") various economists (like mises) have come up with definitions (as they do with "capitalism") to explain their theories. To me "Socialism" is more like how proudhon thought of it, meaning any sort of political philosophy that addresses "the social question." The question being how best to organize society along lines of morality rather than selfish control. "

I consider myself ansoc for mainly two reasons: I share most of the concerns the authoritarian socialists expound, but I think the solutions are better and more attainable when we're allowed more liberty to pick our associations. This means I like the idea of closing the income gap (but not completely, just as much as possible.) and I support issues commonly associated with "the left." Also the fact that I'm a reformed social democrat may have an effect on it.

Proudhon considered himself a socialist, he just disagreed a lot with karl marx (they exchanged many letters debating each other.) He wasn't a communist (meaning he didn't believe in communal property theory and was vaguely pro-market) and so that caused Marx to label him "petit bourgeois" but he was too collectivist for Max Stirner who considered him basically as bad as Marx (sometimes a brotha just can't catch a break.)

And just some sort of libertarian would fall into that category. Obviously social systems can be devised that involve government and hierarchy yet claim to be socialist. BUt I'm not big on reading up on those things, for pretty much the same reason I don't know much about the supporting arguments in favor of the chinese zodiac. They can have their piece, but I kind of have to budget my time.

EdgeOfForever:

What I find most common with this type of anarchist is lack of understanding of economics, or an incorrect definition of capitalism(usually mixing it up with mercantilism).

Or maybe you're just really arrogant and are REALLY dismissive towards opposing ideas out of the gate (before the gate even opens in fact.)

Ummm how can you make such a judgment without any knowledge of me whatsoever? Yes, I find anarcho-communism to be a pretty weak philosophy...but that doesn't mean I am not open to hearing the contrary. I was simply sharing my observations of what I have been exposed to in regards to "libertarian socialism". I could be wrong, of course I could be, but instead of being a jerk, why not just tell me where I went wrong. You aren't exactly shining a positive light on your philosophy when you choose to insult me as opposed to just pointing out where I am wrong.

Sean

cogito:

If you're right and it's wrong to be arrogant and dismissive then please don't be arrogant and dismissive towards EdgeOfForever. What about his comment made you this angry?

It's not arrogance because I'm not saying or acting as if I have to stoop to his level to have a conversation. There was also nothing dismissive about what I was saying except to the idea that being arrogant and dismissive are bad things, am I not allowed to come to some sort of moral judgement now?

but getting back to my little fragment up there, it was a minor point (hence why it's one sentence at the bottom of what I wanted to say) and if we were discussing it face-to-face my tone would've been pretty dull so it's not like it stoked the fires of some rage seething beneath the surface. Essentially my problem with it though was that he essentially implied that anarcho-communists are ignorant in some manner. for example it wouldn't be alright to say "I've commonly noticed black people are intellectually inferior to whites" even though he's not saying that he knows all or most blacks are intellectually inferior, that's the implication he(sic) would be making.

EdgeOfForever:

[

Ummm how can you make such a judgment without any knowledge of me whatsoever? Yes, I find anarcho-communism to be a pretty weak philosophy...but that doesn't mean I am not open to hearing the contrary. I was simply sharing my observations of what I have been exposed to in regards to "libertarian socialism". I could be wrong, of course I could be, but instead of being a jerk, why not just tell me where I went wrong. You aren't exactly shining a positive light on your philosophy when you choose to insult me as opposed to just pointing out where I am wrong.

Sean

Actually my point, if you'll read it, was that YOU were being the jerk and I was reminding you that it wasn't appreciated. The portion I quoted just smacked of "I'll listen to you, but just so I can explain to you why you're wrong on every point" as opposed to "let's figure this stuff out." My statement had more to do with your character than the discussion, it's just usually better to nip these things in the bud before the conversation gets useless. That tends to happen when you don't call some people (not saying you, but I don't know you) on being unfair, they just sort of keeping going as far with it as they can until the whole conversation is just them waiting for their turn to speak.

Also I don't think I need to know you all that well to say that what you said was pretty arrogant. If I see a guy stabbing babies in the neck, I don't say "well I don't really know him on a personal level so I'm going to withhold judgement"

I should also note here I'm ansoc but not anarcho-communist, it's just whenever I get the feeling that others are being slighted unfairly I get irked (hence why I'm an anarchist in the first place)

Yeah, I think I'm going to bow out on this one. Little bit too much aggression. I'd much rather have a productive debate. Peace.

On a related note, I recommend that anyone who is interested in different schools of libertarianism to check out the Mutualist strand. This strand was developed and expounded by Proudhon and Benjamin Tucker (and it arguably influenced Rothbard, since he was greatly influenced by Tucker). Mutualism attempts to reconcile "socialist" ideals with the free market. Tucker considered himself a "socialist" but was also a free market extremist (he believed that the natural wage of labor was its product, which would be realized in the free market).

The leading proponent of Mutualism today is Kevin Carson (his website is http://www.mutualist.org, which I recommend anyone who is interested in Mutualism to check out.)

I had a chance to read Carson's Studies in Mutualist Political Economy, which is a very interesting, but also very challenging, book. In it, he attempts to resurrect Mutualism by incorporating the insights of Mises and Rothbard, and recasts the Labor Theory of Value with an Austrian, subjectivised, interpretation.

Daniel Roncari:

On a related note, I recommend that anyone who is interested in different schools of libertarianism to check out the Mutualist strand. This strand was developed and expounded by Proudhon and Benjamin Tucker (and it arguably influenced Rothbard, since he was greatly influenced by Tucker). Mutualism attempts to reconcile "socialist" ideals with the free market. Tucker considered himself a "socialist" but was also a free market extremist (he believed that the natural wage of labor was its product, which would be realized in the free market).

The leading proponent of Mutualism today is Kevin Carson (his website is http://www.mutualist.org, which I recommend anyone who is interested in Mutualism to check out.)

I had a chance to read Carson's Studies in Mutualist Political Economy, which is a very interesting, but also very challenging, book. In it, he attempts to resurrect Mutualism by incorporating the insights of Mises and Rothbard, and recasts the Labor Theory of Value with an Austrian, subjectivised, interpretation.

 

Upon discovering them, I do have to say that I greatly appriciate Proudhon and Tucker, even if they fall short of market anarchism in their own unique ways. There are some things Pierre-Joseph Proudhon said that sound mighty individualistic for a socialist, and I'm a pretty big fan of Benjamin Tucker. In a sense, they bridge the gap between Hoppean-style anarchists and the commie types. Tucker was using the word socialist in a very different sense then we would typically use it, and he wrote endlessly against what he dubbed "state socialists". And on an important note, Tucker was influenced by Max Stirner later in life and thus become more of a rational egoist (Proudhon also became more market-oriented as he aged). Rothbard differed with the Tucker-Spooner doctrine on a number of important accounts though: their views on banking were somewhat wrong-headed and they seemed to think that interest would dissapear in a free market.

While I think that Carson makes some interesting and necessary points about historical economic "exploitation", and in certain respects gives those libertarians who are perhaps overly sympathetic to buisiness (and even horrid things such as monarchy and fuedalism) a much needed intellectual kick in the teethe, I also think that he has managed to create even more confusion than before in terms of the meaning of words (his blog is titled "free market anti-capitalism" for god's sakes). I think that Carson is making a grave error by trying to re-incorporate the labor theory of value into the economic analysis, even if he does attempt to reconcile it with the insights of Austrian economics. See Walter Block's rather snide review of his book for a better explaination as to what's wrong with it than I could possibly give.

As for libertarian socialism in general, I think that it needs to be drilled into anarchists heads of all persuasions that anarchism does not require or perscribe any particular economic system or type of association, provided of course that it is all voluntary. Free association has profoundly pluralist implications. It is perfectly possible for both heirarchal and communal associations to co-exist in an anarchy. As soon as anyone is forced into such a relationship in either direction, it ceases to be anarchic. I suppose I'm an "anarchist without adjectives" in this sense. Some market anarchists make the mistake of assuming that there can be no such thing as libertarian socialism (the term seemed nonsensical to me at first as well until I learned a bit more about the history of and different factions within socialism), and unfortunately the vast majority of left-leaning or far left anarchists deny that market anarchists and even individualist anarchists are truly anarchists (often accusing market anarchists of really just being fascists in disguise). This has to stop.

Brainpolice:

Daniel Roncari:

On a related note, I recommend that anyone who is interested in different schools of libertarianism to check out the Mutualist strand. This strand was developed and expounded by Proudhon and Benjamin Tucker (and it arguably influenced Rothbard, since he was greatly influenced by Tucker). Mutualism attempts to reconcile "socialist" ideals with the free market. Tucker considered himself a "socialist" but was also a free market extremist (he believed that the natural wage of labor was its product, which would be realized in the free market).

The leading proponent of Mutualism today is Kevin Carson (his website is http://www.mutualist.org, which I recommend anyone who is interested in Mutualism to check out.)

I had a chance to read Carson's Studies in Mutualist Political Economy, which is a very interesting, but also very challenging, book. In it, he attempts to resurrect Mutualism by incorporating the insights of Mises and Rothbard, and recasts the Labor Theory of Value with an Austrian, subjectivised, interpretation.

 

Upon discovering them, I do have to say that I greatly appriciate Proudhon and Tucker, even if they fall short of market anarchism in their own unique ways. There are some things Pierre-Joseph Proudhon said that sound mighty individualistic for a socialist, and I'm a pretty big fan of Benjamin Tucker. In a sense, they bridge the gap between Hoppean-style anarchists and the commie types. Tucker was using the word socialist in a very different sense then we would typically use it, and he wrote endlessly against what he dubbed "state socialists". And on an important note, Tucker was influenced by Max Stirner later in life and thus become more of a rational egoist (Proudhon also became more market-oriented as he aged). Rothbard differed with the Tucker-Spooner doctrine on a number of important accounts though: their views on banking were somewhat wrong-headed and they seemed to think that interest would dissapear in a free market.

While I think that Carson makes some interesting and necessary points about historical economic "exploitation", and in certain respects gives those libertarians who are perhaps overly sympathetic to buisiness (and even horrid things such as monarchy and fuedalism) a much needed intellectual kick in the teethe, I also think that he has managed to create even more confusion than before in terms of the meaning of words (his blog is titled "free market anti-capitalism" for god's sakes). I think that Carson is making a grave error by trying to re-incorporate the labor theory of value into the economic analysis, even if he does attempt to reconcile it with the insights of Austrian economics. See Walter Block's rather snide review of his book for a better explaination as to what's wrong with it than I could possibly give.

As for libertarian socialism in general, I think that it needs to be drilled into anarchists heads of all persuasions that anarchism does not require or perscribe any particular economic system or type of association, provided of course that it is all voluntary. Free association has profoundly pluralist implications. It is perfectly possible for both heirarchal and communal associations to co-exist in an anarchy. As soon as anyone is forced into such a relationship in either direction, it ceases to be anarchic. I suppose I'm an "anarchist without adjectives" in this sense. Some market anarchists make the mistake of assuming that there can be no such thing as libertarian socialism (the term seemed nonsensical to me at first as well until I learned a bit more about the history of and different factions within socialism), and unfortunately the vast majority of left-leaning or far left anarchists deny that market anarchists and even individualist anarchists are truly anarchists (often accusing market anarchists of really just being fascists in disguise). This has to stop.

Yea, I've definitely started avoiding use of the word capitalism because it simply has too much negative connotations for most people, especially if I'm trying to engage in dialogue with left-leaning people (they'll just think you're trying to defend the current system). It does get mighty semantical when the debate turns into a spat over the meaning of language. The whole capitalism vs. socialism thing can get mighty old and annoying quick. However, precision in language is important, for how can we have a meaningful debate if our terms are not defined?

Either way, whatever labels we prefer to use, I do think that libertarians have had an unfortunate tendency to assume a natural alliance with "the right" and sometimes function, perhaps without knowing it, as apologists for corporatism, as well as apologists for fuedalism by overly romanticizing European history; a charge I am willing to throw right in Hans Herman Hoppe's lap, despite his excellent criticism of democracy (which I was just debating about over at mises.org: it is not accurate to portray the fuedal king as a mere powerless overseer of private property).

great posts guys, I definitely have my mutualist-leaning tendencies if you couldn't tell. debating language is important too, words are how we describe the world around us so if we don't take the time to refine the language we use to describe it, then things can get more than a little murky.

Brainpolice:

It is perfectly possible for both heirarchal and communal associations to co-exist in an anarchy. 

but if you have any sort of hierarchy is it really anarchy? I view it as a problem that can be solved in-market rather than through coercion but like Bakunin said (roughly) "my own freedom is directly dependent on the freedom of my brothers and sisters." and that would seem to be relevant if I thought there was someone pocketing the surplus from their work and not giving them any say as to how things are ran.

but if you have any sort of hierarchy is it really anarchy?

Yes, a voluntary "heirarchy". Perhaps we have to define heirarchy now though. Maybe heirarchy is just a bad word and I need to find another word to use to describe what I mean. I dunno. I'm definitely not using the word to refer to rulers here, even though that's what "archy" or "archon" is supposed to mean (I distinguish between a leader and a ruler though, one being consented to, the other not). Just the existance of multiple tiers or positions of functionality, or any level of inequality (I.E. diversity) at all between what people have and what they do within a given organization, which quite frankly will exist in any society. Even the tribal societies that leftish anarchists tend to romantisize had some degree of "heirarchy" (an extended familial one).