Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The difference between libertarian socialists and Marxist socialists is not trivial though. You even think the difference is so sharp that you even deny that libertarian socialists who do not believe in centralized state ownership can even exist. Libertarian socialists believe in decentralized direct democratic structures focused around worker co-operatives and worker's councils and reject authoritarian institutions like a centralized state.
There is nothing new about libertarian socialism. The split between libertarian socialists and state socialists (or anarchists vs Marxists) took place in 1872, almost 150 years ago. Until the 1950s, the term "libertarian" was used to describe libertarian socialists, before the term became synonymous with far right capitalism.
And that is just here. In Europe it still means the former (mostly).
You wish to discuss philosophical theories. I read your descriptions. Anarchists (according to your description) do not support a central government. Both Socialists and Libertarians do and have. I did this the other day. Even the Libertarian website acknowledges they support a central government.
It's a useless argument to say "well so and so in the 4th century called himself a Libertarian and did not".
Libertarian-ism has not meant what Americans consider it to mean for a long time. In Europe, libertarian still means libertarian socialist.
Now Marx and Libertarian socialist did not agree on the implementation of socialism, there were different classes of libertarian socialist who didn't want a central state dictating authority.
Among these libertarians, many were anarchist (as it was in the french political sphere starting with Proudhon). The Paris communes were not entirely anarchist, being influenced by different French ideologues including Proudhon (died before it happened).
Marx and Engels were opposed to the mutualist, collectivist, and later the anarcho-communist who all fell into different forms of anarchy.
Half a step. I understand his voluntarism, much of his ownership is opaque to me too.
Yep.
But as I've told him numerous times now it's fine that us an-caps/voluntarists don't understand his ownership paradigm because as long as we aren't subjected to it...it doesn't matter.
The Larken Rose quote bears repeating:
Quote:
“Dear Anarcho-Communist,
If you and I ever find ourselves in a stateless society, have no fear. Just mention that you are a communist, and I promise I will never try to "oppress" and "exploit" you by offering to trade with you, or by offering to pay you to do work.
Sincerely,
Larken Rose”
I would take it up a notch and say I'd never even associate with a communist or acknowledge his/her existence. I have zero interest in being entangled in their philosophy even by accident.
The ownership definition is quite simple (though I understand your confusion because it makes no moral or logical sense to me):
Capitalists (us): Private property is all previously unused property an individual has mixed his physical and mental labor with that alters it from its natural state.
Communists: There is only personal property. Personal property is all property you are currently mixing your labor with at any given point in time. Once you are done using it the property loses its personal property tag and becomes unused.
But as I've told him numerous times now it's fine that us an-caps/voluntarists don't understand his ownership paradigm because as long as we aren't subjected to it...it doesn't matter.
The Larken Rose quote bears repeating:
I would take it up a notch and say I'd never even associate with a communist or acknowledge his/her existence. I have zero interest in being entangled in their philosophy even by accident.
The ownership definition is quite simple (though I understand your confusion because it makes no moral or logical sense to me):
Capitalists (us): Private property is all previously unused property an individual has mixed his physical and mental labor with that alters it from its natural state.
Communists: There is only personal property. Personal property is all property you are currently mixing your labor with at any given point in time. Once you are done using it the property loses its personal property tag and becomes unused.
Yes.
But it's still worth reiterating that these principles extend beyond presence.
Anyways, the principles of mutual aid and worker freedom require the capital not to be treated as a monetization tool, but a function with value varying to their usage.
Then people won't be treated as a gear in the system, but free personages who exist based on personal and societal benefits, not exploitation of others.
But as I've told him numerous times now it's fine that us an-caps/voluntarists don't understand his ownership paradigm because as long as we aren't subjected to it...it doesn't matter.
The Larken Rose quote bears repeating:
I would take it up a notch and say I'd never even associate with a communist or acknowledge his/her existence. I have zero interest in being entangled in their philosophy even by accident.
The ownership definition is quite simple (though I understand your confusion because it makes no moral or logical sense to me):
Capitalists (us): Private property is all previously unused property an individual has mixed his physical and mental labor with that alters it from its natural state.
Communists: There is only personal property. Personal property is all property you are currently mixing your labor with at any given point in time. Once you are done using it the property loses its personal property tag and becomes unused.
Also, you will be because you live in a free society.
If you claim to own two houses and have no one to occupy the one that isn't your main residence, people are free to settle there.
Also, you will be because you live in a free society.
If you claim to own two houses and have no one to occupy the one that isn't your main residence, people are free to settle there.
I will station a property manager/private security on that secondary residence to blow your head off when you step foot on it. So yes, avoid first then simply kill when you violate my rights.
I don't see it being a big problem once the commune is spending most of its days digging graves for fallen comrades.
But it's still worth reiterating that these principles extend beyond presence.
Anyways, the principles of mutual aid and worker freedom require the capital not to be treated as a monetization tool, but a function with value varying to their usage.
Then people won't be treated as a gear in the system, but free personages who exist based on personal and societal benefits, not exploitation of others.
Won't association with you unless it's at the end of a gun.
I will station a property manager/private security on that secondary residence to blow your head off when you step foot on it. So yes, avoid first then simply kill when you violate my rights.
I don't see it being a big problem once the commune is spending most of its days digging graves for fallen comrades.
As always though, good luck.
If you don't have a slave (manager) living in the house, then free people will settle there, and it will be completely in their rights.
Anarchism only works in the long term when you're by yourself. Might as well promote the Hermit life.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
