Some
time ago on Twitter I made the statement that anarchism and socialism are
opposites and cannot be reconciled. Since then I’ve noted it tweeted by Left
Anarchists as some type of ‘in joke’ amongst themselves, however, over time, no
Left Libertarian, nor Left Anarchist, when I’ve challenged them, has been able
to succinctly reconcile the two: the last time one did try
I received a contradictory mish-mash of nonsense that held no understanding of
economics, or philosophy.
So,
I can do little normal blog posting until the new year, my day job is too busy,
thus I’m opening this post up to the implied challenge. Here is the definition
of socialism by the Free Dictionary:
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
In
comments I invite any Left Anarchist or Left Libertarian to reconcile anarchism
or libertarianism with these definitions of socialism. It needs to get directly
to the heart of the matter, and I’m not interested in links to the whole
Internet. The reconciliation will need to importantly contact the above
definitions particularly around the following words used:
‘Owned collectively’
‘Centralised government’
‘Plans and controls economy’
‘Dictatorship of the proletariat’
That
is, for me, classical liberalism, libertarianism, et al, are founded, as they
must be, in individualism, and the non-initiation of force principle, before all else: that was the West’s true
inheritance from the Enlightenment. So reconcile the freedom that arises from
the civilising acknowledgement of the absolute sanctity of the life of a
single human being going about their business, forcing themselves on no other,
to the force necessarily connoted with collectivism on which socialism is
based, where that individual's volition must be sacrificed to the mob, be that via centralised ownership or the state (which are the same).
Perhaps by this means I may finally understand -albeit, I doubt it - the ludicrous sight of those fools wearing anonymous masks conducting street protests, and more often than not, riots, to destroy the single economic system consistent with freedom: laissez faire capitalism.
Perhaps by this means I may finally understand -albeit, I doubt it - the ludicrous sight of those fools wearing anonymous masks conducting street protests, and more often than not, riots, to destroy the single economic system consistent with freedom: laissez faire capitalism.
Go
…
You post a definition, I post a definition
ReplyDeleteLibertarian socialism (sometimes called social anarchism or left-libertarianism) is a group of political philosophies that promote a non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic society without private property in the means of production. Libertarian socialists believe in converting present-day private productive property into common or public goods, while retaining respect for personal property.[5] Libertarian socialism is opposed to coercive forms of social organization. It promotes free association in place of government and opposes the social relations of capitalism, such as wage labor.[6] The term libertarian socialism is used by some socialists to differentiate their philosophy from state socialism, and by some as a synonym for anarchism.
First, thank you for reasoned reply. As stated, I'm short on time so I'll keep coming back to various points I think are contradictory.
DeleteFor me, property rights are the bedrock of a free society, but I'll even leave that out for now.
Your answer goes to the core of the contradiction with Libertarian Socialism, which is individualism and the non-initiation of force - freedom - replaced by collectivism and necessary coercion. For example, you say:
Libertarian socialists believe in converting present-day private productive property into common or public goods, while retaining respect for personal property.
Okay, but I in no way agree with having my hard earned productive property 'turned over' - stolen - to being public goods and for me it is in no way a breach of the non-initiation of force that I defend such property. So how are 'you' going to take it from me without coercion?
How is that 'respect for my personal property', that is, my life and the choices I have made in owning that productive property?
That society you've just described is, to me, a truly brute one: you're only going to achieve that my wiping me out, and I won't be initiating any force.
For starters, reconcile that for me?
Then, how is your 'public good' any different in its workings to the centralised state, which anarchists are opposed to?
Why am I going to work in your society?
I'm not being hyperbolic, but I see no difference in your description to the USSR. You've just changed the terminology.
I'll answer the first part with a question: How do you intend of getting rid of the state? Does it violate the NAP?
ReplyDeleteIf you believe that there would be some sort of social evolution, could the same not be true for helping others in need? I believe the mistake is in assuming that the only way people are going to help each other is by some form of forceful and coercive redistribution.
The issue lies in our preconceived notion of what socialism has been, or must be. AnCaps and Libertarians say that they would still gladly help the poor, just not by force because it results in an obvious loss of liberty. A fundamental difference however, is that the means of production be in a state of common ownership. How is that accompleled without the use of force? Either voluntarily or naturally, as in the business is grown that way through voluntary participation. This is not to say that communities that do own the means of production could not also exist. For either to force their economic philosophy on the other would result in a loss of liberrty.
Not totally sure which side of the argument you're debating, but ...
DeleteNAP ... sorry, that's short for?
Regarding your second paragraph, you have an economic problem. Once you've gone to common ownership, you've taken an individual's goals and desires out of the economic framework, and gone to a planned economy, to the destruction of laissez faire capitalism.
So, against the huge weight of history, currently look at destruction of Venezuela, how are you going to carry out the fundamental task of economic coordination, when every centrally planned attempt at running an economy, has ended up an abject failure, and in human misery?
NAP is short for non-agression principle.
DeleteIts understandable that someone would not desire the means of production or the decision making process to fall into the hands of common ownership. There are democratic workplaces in existence in the United States as we speak. Not a fan of democracy? Me either, not as a rule of law anyways. However is done on the basis of voluntary participation, and meaningful alternatives exist, well I dont see why anyone would object. Without meaningful alternatives the risk of a continuing oligopoly is most certain. Central planning is against most every anarchist & libertarian principle that I am aware of, unless you are refering to market demand. Market demand could still exist in this sort of society, it would exist, there is really no way it could not, outside of anarcho primitivism. Economies would not be centrally planned any more than under libertarian or ancap philosophy, but would the autonomously decided upon by the many that participate.
As a minarchist, no, I don't advocate social democracy: as you know that's a tyranny of the majority.
DeleteI'm still uncertain which side of this you're arguing. Market demand as the coordinating device can only exist in laissez faire free markets. Centralised planning, productive assets and public goods, call it what you want, does not allow the market signal to get through, that is part of the problem with it. From my post here I quote economist Donald Boudreaux who is clear on this:
… I deny that behavioral economics strengthens the case for government regulation. Indeed, I believe that it weakens that case. Because the regulators have the same psychological foibles as the regulatees – yet face far less direct feedback on their decisions than do those whom they regulate – turning more decision-making power over to government increases the frequency of human error and amplifies its ill-effects. Markets keep those errors less numerous and their effects more confined.
Human beings are not laboratory rats to be controlled and conditioned by some elite of their number who, somehow and without explanation, manage to become higher-order creatures simply by working for government and professing deep concern for the welfare of their lab animals.
Quoting myself from that same piece my point is capitalism, a free and voluntary society, can only be based on defending the rights of its smallest minority: an individual. Capitalism, free markets, are necessarily founded in an ethic of individualism, and its what makes them voluntary societies, as opposed to the coerced, planned society and planned lives of any type of central planning. It's why laissez faire economics is at the same time a philosophy of living.
DeleteThe market is, indeed, that most intensely personal thing: it’s you and me. It is as simple, but complex, as the expression of all the needs and desires of every individual in a market community searching for resolution, and the means by which those needs and desires are first matched, then priced and allocated as to the resources available. This wondrous social meeting place, based on the voluntary transaction, not the cold dictates of the machine of state, has increased the standard of living of all those communities that have embraced free markets, as well as bringing those communities the concomitant freedom that free markets exist on: there is no free market without freedom, and no freedom without a free market. It therefore follows, put the oafish fist of the central planner into that complex, living market place, that is, into the lives, hopes, and desires of individuals, at this crucial micro level, and despite it can take one hell of a shellacking, ultimately a market, and with it liberty, plus the community, will be destroyed.
So what happens when the minority are the people who wish to voluntarily and collectively own the means of production, share the means of production as well as the profits according to their value added/production? Why can they not voluntarily choose to feed or house people with a portion of those profits? Why is it that a group of individuals cannot interpret market demand, but rather a single individual, or shareholders? These workers who would collectively own said company would in effect be it shareholders. Most importantly, why is it that one single school of thought regarding who owns the means of production must be the only one that is allowed? If its not coercive, doesnt cause you a loss of liberty in any way, why can these two systems not coexist?
ReplyDeleteThe problem lies in anarchists and libertarians alike attempting to assert their position as the only allowable position.
There's nothing wrong with your premise. If 'that' minority group wants to buy their own land, then set up a commune which binds their members, so long as membership in and out is voluntary, then go for it.
DeleteUnfortunately socialism takes the voluntary aspect out, and via the redistribution of taxation 'makes' me pay for the communal life I don't want for myself.
But if no coercion, yes, in the libertarian minarchy, you or a group are free to make your own arrangements: so long as it's not a call on anybody else. It is still only libertarianism or anarchism - consenting adults do as they want so long as they harm no one - until you introduce the compulsory central planning, and non-property ownership, to bind those who don't want it, preferring to live free lives. That is why Left Libertarianism/Anarchism is a contradiction.: central ownership is coercion no matter what angle you view it from.
What you are saying in paragraph 2 is not consistent with the dictionary definition of libertarian socialism. It is however consistent with the dictionary definition of socialism, as in state socialism.
ReplyDeleteI can absolutely identify with what you are saying in terms of forcing one way or another on people. What Im arguing I would never wish to have forced on anyone. Though most who identify with a particular school of thought see it only their way, I believe these communities could in fact coexist.
I choose not to define myself by any conclusion beyond that of anarchist. I have been exploited by avaricious capitalists for most of my life, I would love to try something different. If I had the means to do so, I would kickstart the forementioned business model in a heartbeat.
(Typing in this reply box is giving me issues regardless of the mobile device I use, Id rather not use my pc. Sorry for the typos, etc)
[Unfortunately I've got no control over the formatting here: I agree, on the odd time I've tried to comment on an iPad it was awful, so sorry for that.]
DeleteI've got no fundamental dispute with most of your last post, and we're 'sort of' off topic of the contradiction of Left Libertarianism/Anarchism.
You raise another important point though, and where I think anarchists who want to bring down 'capitalism' go off track.
Can we agree where you say I have been exploited by avaricious capitalists for most of my life that what you're talking about is crony capitalists?
Under true laissez faire capitalism, which West very definitely does not have currently, then you cannot be exploited, as all capitalist transactions are voluntary, and they are not zero-sum: that is, both parties to a voluntary capitalist transaction take away value.
I've often said in this blog that capitalism (laissez faire) is to crony capitalism what sea horses are to horses.
Now if you talking about overthrowing crony capitalism as it exists: which is Keynesian socialist planned economies run on fiat money; so we're also talking getting rid of central banking and returning to sound money. In other words, true markets, where the banks and those 'too big to fail' don't get bailed out with silly money, and malinvestments are thus allowed to be liquidated quickly before forming bubbles the likes of which formed up to 2008, and are arguably worse now - there's a real crash coming, and it's going to be ugly - then I suspect you and I would be in broad agreement?
The point of this post of mine is that I wish to replace crony capitalism not with a coercive socialism (which crony capitalism via Keynesian economics in part is anyway) but with a 'true' laissez faire capitalism.
To replace with socialism is to step towards the gulags of our collectivist history; to step towards laissez faire is to finally move toward the voluntary, free society. Again, this is precisely what I mean by Left Lib/Anarchism are contradictory, because the voluntary society has to be founded on individualism: protect that smallest minority, and atrocity will finally disappear from human society.
I work for a machine shop, 200 employees. There is plenty of nepotism there, but no crony capitalism. They, as does everywhere else Ive worked, hoard the profits for themselves. Decent jobs are hard to come by, plenty sent overseas due to that crony capitalism. People will work for less and less. The big dogs squeeze every penny they can out of the little ones. This goes from the companies we supply parts to, all the way to the shop floor. But best believe, millions are being piled up, billions for some. Its exploitative and inherently unsustainable.
DeleteI see socialism in the libertarian socialism school of thought being a state of mind, voluntary transactions, without force. As far as no one being exploited in a capitalist economy, well that I would have to see. Working for $1 an hour would be voluntary and you would leave with something of value, but what value is it? Not much. If thats the only system or option with no meaningful alternatives then its not any more voluntary than you handing over your wallet in a stick up. I guess you could go the route of extreme poverty or starvation and call that voluntary.
I do want to say just to be clear: Libertarian Socialism is like the socialism at the tip of a gun any more than the oxymoron civil war is actually civil. No central planning, no force, no coercion, only voluntary associations.
DeleteNo, our Western economies are all crony capitalism, not capitalism.
DeleteAs I said in our debate on Twitter :) at end of the day, as hard as it is, you can choose to sacrifice part of your life and retrain, even in this economy. You don't have to work for others, you can be self employed (as I am).
Your significant sentence is this:
I see socialism in the libertarian socialism school of thought being a state of mind, voluntary transactions, without force..
My point is where socialism is involved, common ownership, that has to, as it does now, involve a huge coercive state, and a surveillance state: what I call the tax surveillance state. Under such a system any notion of a voluntary transaction is, I'm afraid, only a state of mind, not reality. Take the hand of government out of each transaction, in form or tax and regulation, then the economy would be more prosperous (because the dead weight of taxation gone, and disruption of market signals), and I put it to you that you would be in a much better position to change your circumstances (which I'm certainly not denigrating). Life is tough sometimes, but the free society allows us to change our lives, the socialist society in chasing a free lunch, is chasing an illusion (read my byline above), and that illusion always breaks brutally on a reef of force and violence. It's an ethic which is anti-individualism, by enslaving our lives to others, so we live in the prison of each others minds and needs.
None of the answers above, yet, dissuade me that Left Libertarianism/Anarchism is not a complete contradiction, philosophically, economically and politically.
With this, I probably won't be able to get back here for 15 or 16 hours tomorrow morning). Thanks for all replies to date. I'll try to get to further comments tomorrow.
Isnt like*
DeleteRe your second post: how do you have socialism, collective ownership of productive assets, without centralised planning?
DeleteIt's not possible.
Can I approach it this way. You tell me why, in your ideal Left Anarchist world, you are not stuck in your machine shop job?
DeleteIf you want to reply I'll get back to it tomorrow (NZ Time).
First question: As I said, collective ownership would happen w/o the use of force. People would socially evolve in that direction, or a business would be grown that way. As for the socialism, it would happen voluntarily, or not at all. Notice that nowhere in the definition, nowhere within the philosophy is the redistribution of wealth advocated, by force or otherwise. When people hear "Libertarian Socialism" they think the gun of the state is in the room to take what theyve earned. Libertarian Socialism advocates the sharing of profits as well as the means of production. It does not advocate forcing this on anyone.
DeleteQuestion 2: I would still do that line of work. But rather than the owners reaping 100% of the benefit of me doubling efficiency in a cell or on a part, those profits would be shared.
I understand if you still arent dissuaded. I also do not believe that the absence of the state would have CEO and stockholders suddenly putting people before their own selfish profits. Not to say it couldnt happen, I would just need to see it first.
I feel like Im repeating myself but I believe I should stress this point. Libertarian Socialism is in fact an oxymoron in the sense of traditional socialism. We could get hung up on why a civil war is not actually civil but thats not whats meant by the term. I didnt name the ideology, I simply agree with some of the philosophy contained within.
DeleteI want to thank you for the opportunity you've given me. I'm not educated in political science or economics or philosophy. Its a hobby, may well be one I suck at. Either way I appreciate having the opportunity to articulate some of my ideas, philosophies I've researched, etc. Its been a learning exercise for me.
Just ducking back in ... my job can be as boring as hell also :)
DeleteWe're all learning; nothing wrong with that. I'm not going to even call you naive, because that's what people still do to me who want the status quo. Nothing will ever change if we all give up dreaming of something better like that. The main thing is you and I might not agree, but at least we're thinking.
I respond properly tomorrow.
I think my best reply to you is to answer your following statement:
DeleteAs I said, collective ownership would happen w/o the use of force. People would socially evolve in that direction, or a business would be grown that way. As for the socialism, it would happen voluntarily, or not at all.
Well it's not going to happen at all. I believe the dreadful disincentives, and the responsibility short-circuit of the welfare state (full socialism) is the end of a prosperous economy and a civilised, voluntary society. I will resist that always, particularly the nationalisation of any asset I have worked and strived for. Thus you will have to initiate force on me, just as the tax department does now, setting up one of the most comprehensive surveillance states, ever, to do so.
Moreover, we're not going to 'evolve' out of that. Look at history: ultimately, humans want to be free, and thankfully so. We are not free when bound by any type of collectivism, to the needs of complete strangers. If I am my brother's keeper, then I am in reality my brother's slave.
Addendum.
DeleteMy post 1984 Comes To 2012: Children Nowadays Were Horrible also answers to your points. Quoting it, against the proposition that a school curriculum unit in the UK was asking school children to dob in tax evaders:
I’ve written before on how the founder of the Italian Communist Party, Antonio Gramsci, told his fellow revolutionaries that the West would not be won on the battle field, but they must instead play the long game: slowly infiltrate the schools, and capture the minds of the young.
He would be a happy man today.
Look at the ‘good citizens’ these children are taught to be in our schools, with all these ‘obligations’ to each other. And so strong is the programming, that I am confident more than ninety percent of those reading this would feel, deep down, that they have to agree with the teachers’ ethic here, with what this tax course in the schools is founded on: that self-sacrifice for the common good, is a noble thing, and the needs of others are what social democracies must hold at their centre. This is what New Zealand Socialist commentator, Chris - The Fist - Trotter forces on us.
But it’s a magic trick, an illusion, that’s been done in our minds by Gramsci, a linguistic sleight of hand, all the more evil because it initially appeals to our 'better natures'. All we need do to understand it, see the reality of it, is change the focus, the narrative point of view, and see what it really says, which is that for you to live your life, it is acceptable that the lives of others, total strangers, be sacrificed to you, their pursuit of happiness destroyed for you, and that the state will initiate force to back you up in this, and mince up the livelihoods, and freedom, of those who will not bow down to you. And part of being a good citizen, now, is for you to dob these people in, so they can be dealt to.
Free men know that the civilised society is not based on such an extinguishment of life, but founded on a bed-rock of the non-initiation of force, particularly the state against the people, and on each individual being responsible for themselves, and self-reliant. That a civilised society works on the natural love and affection between families and loved ones, on compassion and charity freely given for strangers, and on voluntarism.
Well thats the thing, you cannot be bound by it. It should be voluntary, if you dont wish to participate thats fine. Maybe the market would favor businesses that help others, maybe it would favor businesses that value profit over the suffering on individuals that lack a meaningful alternative to suffering. I totally get where you're coming from. No one cares to support able bodied parasites.
DeleteAs far as Anarchism & Libertarianism being irreconcilable with state socialism, you are absolutely correct. Central planning as well as any and all involuntary or coercive tactic are diametrically opposed to basic anarchist/libertarian fundamental.
What I dont like is the thought that man kind may very well nuke itself out of existence before it ever sees a society like anything we've talked about.
I guess the first thing is to set out definitions:
ReplyDeleteAs Karl Hess rightly points out, there is only one kind of anarchist, not two: a person opposed to any imposed authority. An Anarchist is a voluntarist. Anarchists are not inherently capitalist or socialist, rather they aspire to liberty – but since anarchism is not normative, it only says that freedom and liberty can exist, it does not prescribe how.
Socialism is not ‘collectivism’. Socialism is opposed to all forms of usury/theft. As Benjamin Tucker points out, socialism recognises that liberty and equality are achieved through solidarity. Solidarity is not forced on any person – it is voluntary, so that when people choose to stand in opposition to something together there is no contradiction because there are no limits forcibly placed on their freedom and liberty.
Tucker also highlights how socialism’s meaning has been abused, violently distorted and stupidly misunderstood, because a large number of people who oppose usury (the thing which socialism stands against) ‘foolishly imagine’ that they can destroy usury by authority and that they can abolish privilege through the state apparatus without understanding that this leads to the degradation of the individual. This, Tucker claims, is not true socialism. True socialism insists on liberty and rejects the state as a thief.
Here’s a long quote from Tucker on Socialism: What it is:
The whole so-called social fabric rests on privilege and power, and is disordered and strained in every direction by the inequalities that necessarily result therefrom. The welfare of each, instead of contributing to that of all, as it naturally should and would, almost invariably detracts from that of all. Wealth is made by legal privilege a hook with which to filch from labor’s pockets. Every man who gets rich thereby makes his neighbor poor. The better off one is, the worse off the rest are... socialism wants to change all this. Socialism says that what’s one man’s meat must no longer be another’s poison; that no man shall be able to add to his riches except by labor; that in adding to his riches by labor alone no man makes another man poorer; that on the contrary every man thus adding to his riches makes every other man richer; that increase and concentration of wealth through labor tend to increase, cheapen, and vary production; that every increase of capital in the hands of the laborer tends, in the absence of legal monopoly, to put more products, better products, cheaper products, and a greater variety of products within the reach of every man who works; and that this fact means the physical, mental, and moral perfecting of mankind, and the realization of human fraternity.
So, there is no contradiction. Socialism insists on liberty as does Anarchism. Much the same way that Laissez Faire Capitalism insists on liberty as does Anarchism.
A comment on when socialist rhetoric says ‘workers’ should own the means of production, it is not implied that workers have a right to storm a factory and take control (despite that I see some socialists making this remark – they are mistaken). Rather, if legal privilege no longer existed, the privilege that allows those with the most acquired wealth to monopolise the means of production, then workers would have the ability to work independently or collectively without restriction.
(1/2)
We are all workers – hence why the phrase is ‘workers own the means of production’ – its not a simply collectivist statement, it necessarily includes the right of individuals to labour independently.
DeleteI admit that I was a state socialist. I was misguided and I didn’t truly understand the adverse effects of redistribution of wealth through progressive taxation on productive income.
Note, true socialism does not want to come into your business and take what you have earned, socialism wants all individuals to have the opportunity to labour and understands and encourages competition to ensure the worker obtains his or her full wage - this is evident in the Tucker quote above. Some common ground perhaps? :-)
While you have asked me as a reader to reconcile the definition you provided of socialism with anarchism or libertarianism, I cannot because I like others who call themselves Left Libertarians or Social Anarchists reject that definition since it defines what the horrid State Socialism purports to be.
(2/2)
sorry for the double post, there was a character limit, so I had to split the comment.
Hi Carrie, yes, sorry about that word limitation, indeed I hate the comments section of Blogger, and the silly little box they give to type into. If I had the time I'd think of migrating to Wordpress, however, that's an impossibility currently.
DeleteRight, cheers for the post, it is substantial and so I'm not going to be so stupid as give an off the cuff reply. It does worry me now though that we're simply redefining language, vis a vis, if your - & Tucker, who I've read a reasonable amount of - redefinition of socialism is toward a voluntary society, then I may have little problem with that per se (though I do have some issues with Tucker).
But, but, but, but ... here's my time-frame. I want to read your reply properly and have a think about it, as well as reading/refreshing some Tucker. Unfortunately I have another problem in that we're heading up to the Mahau Sound early tomorrow as we are renovating our holiday house up there - yay capitalism :) - and because the renovations are extensive we can't stay in the house, only at friends down the road in a gully where I can't get 3G reception, so I'm not going to be on the Internet from early tomorrow morning until Thursday morning. I'm going to respond either then, or that following weekend. I will definitely respond.
Cheers for this in the meantime.
Another deferral from me Carrie: sorry.
DeleteWhat time I’ve had over last week, I’ve be re-learning some of the underpinnings of my own beliefs, which has been taking me solidly back to libertarianism from anarcho-capitalism. Though that’s slightly another story.
I said above (or somewhere) I had a lot of problems with Tucker. I lied: I have huge problems with Tucker :)
The quotation you give is seductive: sounds great. I’m even tempted to say if I exchange my terms crony capitalism versus laissez faire capitalism, with his state socialism and collectivism versus ‘socialism’ we’re on same wave length. And there are many commonalities vis a vis he seems to stand for individualism over mob-life, but it all breaks down over economics, and I’m sure from that an overflow back into philosophy.
Too big for a word limited comment, however. Work rigours are no less for me now; while I can write the odd Nigella styled piece, I’m going to write a separate post on Tucker, and your points regarding Left Anarchism – for lack of a better term – over 2014, and hopefully we can continue then, because this post, to me, is both interesting and important.
The contention of that future post will be that while Left anarchism may not end in the violence and oppression of state capitalism, at least not immediately, it will economically end up the same place, a subsistence economy, with the lawlessness resulting from that. And that because in denying wealth via capital - which he effectively does - and possibly the specialisation of labour, he denies wealth altogether which further denies laissez faire capitalism, (under which no transaction is zero-sum either), and thus, for me, the free society.
I'll give you the heads up whenever in the new year I make that post.