Libertarian socialism

Politruk

Literotica Guru
Joined
Oct 13, 2024
Posts
12,462
Presented for discussion. I only ever learned there was such a thing when I learned Noam Chomsky identifies as a libertarian socialist.

Libertarian socialism:

Libertarian socialism is an anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist political current that emphasises self-governance and workers' self-management. It is contrasted from other forms of socialism by its rejection of state ownership and from other forms of libertarianism by its rejection of private property. Broadly defined, it includes schools of both anarchism and Marxism, as well as other tendencies that oppose the state and capitalism.

With its roots in the Age of Enlightenment, libertarian socialism was first constituted as a tendency by the anti-authoritarian faction of the International Workingmen's Association (IWA), during their conflict with the Marxist faction. Libertarian socialism quickly spread throughout Europe and the American continent, reaching its height during the early stages of the Russian Revolution of 1917 and particularly during the Spanish Revolution of 1936. Its defeat during these revolutions led to its brief decline, before its principles were resurrected by the New Left and new social movements of the late 20th century.

While its key principles of decentralisation, workers' control, and mutual aid are generally shared across the many schools of libertarian socialism, differences have emerged over the questions of revolutionary spontaneity, reformism, and whether to prioritise the abolition of the state or of capitalism.
 
It's basically the same thing as anarchism (which IMO is the only true "libertarianism.") Chomsky has served up some great quotes about how US "libertarianism" really just supports private tyranny and has just about zero to do with actual liberty.
 
It's basically the same thing as anarchism (which IMO is the only true "libertarianism.") Chomsky has served up some great quotes about how US "libertarianism" really just supports private tyranny and has just about zero to do with actual liberty.
By that I presume you mean what is called vulgar libertarianism.

Perhaps what Chomsky has in mind is something along the lines of the Spanish Revolution of 1936: The workers took control of the factories and the peasants took control of the landlords' estates -- for real -- but every workers' or peasants' collective was autonomous, not controlled by the state or by any political power -- an arrangement called "anarcho-syndicalism." (That's an actual thing, not just a joke in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.)

That seemed to work well enough, economically, for the year or two that it lasted, but the government -- the nominally Communist government -- ultimately crushed it. Because all this happened while the Civil War with Franco was going on. The Spanish Republic was utterly dependent on Stalin for military aid because nobody else in the world would give them any (except Mexico, and Mexico couldn't give much). And Stalin didn't like that kind of revolution at all -- he was committed to the Marxist-Leninist model: The state owns and manages the productive property, and the Communist Party controls the state. Every regime calling itself "Communist" has followed that model.
 
It's basically the same thing as anarchism (which IMO is the only true "libertarianism."


It is the ultimate in liberalism...which is why it gets ZERO socialism.

Liberalism and socialism are mutually exclusive beyond the co-op/commune level...anything larger and you have to use force.
 
It is the ultimate in liberalism...which is why it gets ZERO socialism.

Liberalism and socialism are mutually exclusive beyond the co-op/commune level...anything larger and you have to use force.
So the anarcho-syndicalism described in post #3 is attractive to you, or at least acceptable?
 
It is the ultimate in liberalism...which is why it gets ZERO socialism.

Liberalism and socialism are mutually exclusive beyond the co-op/commune level...anything larger and you have to use force.

Did you ever get around to writing that letter to Noam Chomsky, informing the retired professor of linguistics that the definitions he uses for political concepts he came up with were WRONG because you disagreed with them?
 
Did you ever get around to writing that letter to Noam Chomsky, informing the retired professor of linguistics that the definitions he uses for political concepts he came up with were WRONG because you disagreed with them?
I doubt it, his attention span doesn't last long enough.
 
Did you ever get around to writing that letter to Noam Chomsky, informing the retired professor of linguistics that the definitions he uses for political concepts he came up with were WRONG because you disagreed with them?

Did you ever stop being a retarded faggot???

Or try to argue anything on you critically thought about yourself or is appeal to credentials all you have???
 
It's just not worth it, I can clown ignorant fucking retards like your dumb ass all day with zero effort.
You can? That's news to the rest of us. Why don't you demonstrate some of that clowning....oh wait, you already are...my bad.
 
Yea just like in every socialist collective!!! LOL lie to someone dumb enough to believe you.
Think about how those collectives were organized. No owner-bosses, no state bureaucrats, no party apparatchiks -- so who would be the parasite?
 
Nobody starts that kind of revolution to gain superpower status -- what they have in mind, in the very long run, is a world where there is no such thing.

DELUSIONAL FUCKING RETARDS......like I said.
 
That doesn't make them delusional!

Yes it does.... the kumbyah let's all hold hands and then we just won't need any more weapons!! hippie dippy bullshit is delusional fucktardo bullshit if there ever was. Check the results!!!
 
Yes it does.... the kumbyah let's all hold hands and then we just won't need any more weapons!! hippie dippy bullshit is delusional fucktardo bullshit if there ever was. Check the results!!!
Looking at Europe alone, EU members have never fought each other at all since they joined the EU. And that's after centuries of almost uninterrupted warfare in Europe. There's no reason that can't work on a global scale..
 
Looking at Europe alone, EU members have never fought each other at all since they joined the EU. And that's after centuries of almost uninterrupted warfare in Europe. There's no reason that can't work on a global scale..
Sure there is...because people exist.

And people don't like getting fucked for the "greater good" and eventually they revolt.
 
Back
Top