thekg, I'm thinking the OP has retreated to his fantasy land since he doesn't have an adequate response or solution as to how Anarchy could resolve the issues that have been raised.
New here, how do you guys feel about libertarian socialism?
- Thread starter That_Which_Isnt
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I always thought the term 'libertarian socialist' was kind of funny, since libertarianism and socialism are more or less on the opposite ends of the political spectrum. An oxymoron, if you will.
And secondly, like many people have probably said, I find the theory more or less naive, and impossible without killing off over 90% of the global population evenly across the world and destroying every single remnant and parcel of knowledge of post-Neolithic technology, and only then to probably have the system of hierarchical society reappear eventually. For you see, while somewhat ecclesiastical societies have been documented, they all have been very small groups of hunter-gatherers or limited subsistence agriculturalists. Small size is necessary because while a small group of people can probably manage themselves without a clear hierarchy, a significantly larger group of people introduces more chaotic elements, what with more people expressing more viewpoints and being unable to negotiate about them as easily as with the small group. Such a group would need a form of organization to perform, one that involves specialization and hierarchy. And if you were to say, "Well then, everybody can be in small groups, why does the population need to be small?" well, a lot of people means a lot of competition for resources that would not be scarce if there were less people. In competition for these resources, the groups would probably coalesce and organize into organized hierarchical societies in a bid for more efficient gathering, raising, and production of resources, and would dominate the other groups unless they have organized like said group, or make make an alliance with other anarchistic groups to bring down the organized group, which would likely fail as a) at that point there are probably many such supergroups, b) the supergroup could very well lure the offending groups into joining to reap in the extra resources, c) the supergroup, with more resources than the other groups could easily bribe some of the offending groups off with resources, and d)the disorganization of the alliance would work in the organized supergroups favor, and a martial organization of the alliance would probably take over the alliance and make it into a supergroup. So the population has to be thin enough so there is no significant conflict over resources.
As for technology, well, if you want this kind of society, you can forget about anything above lower Neolithic. As I said, the anarchist society cannot function above small groups, but significant technology requires large groups. A single person can make a stone axe from scratch, for example, but a machine gun requires the effort of a ton of people with different types of expertize to mine and refine the materials, to shape them, put it together, and maintain it. All of this requires the sort of organization you can't have. Also, the only thing sustaining our current population is technology, so remove that and plenty of people will die. And even with technology halted, the technology left around will create a valuable scarce resource made only scarcer. One can expect competition for technology, reenacting the above scenario. And even after improbably destroying all remnants of technology before they are exploited, you have to make sure all knowledge of making technology is gone, lest anyone recruit an empire on the promise of returned technology.
Also your vision of Native Americans is a bit heavily romanticized.
And secondly, like many people have probably said, I find the theory more or less naive, and impossible without killing off over 90% of the global population evenly across the world and destroying every single remnant and parcel of knowledge of post-Neolithic technology, and only then to probably have the system of hierarchical society reappear eventually. For you see, while somewhat ecclesiastical societies have been documented, they all have been very small groups of hunter-gatherers or limited subsistence agriculturalists. Small size is necessary because while a small group of people can probably manage themselves without a clear hierarchy, a significantly larger group of people introduces more chaotic elements, what with more people expressing more viewpoints and being unable to negotiate about them as easily as with the small group. Such a group would need a form of organization to perform, one that involves specialization and hierarchy. And if you were to say, "Well then, everybody can be in small groups, why does the population need to be small?" well, a lot of people means a lot of competition for resources that would not be scarce if there were less people. In competition for these resources, the groups would probably coalesce and organize into organized hierarchical societies in a bid for more efficient gathering, raising, and production of resources, and would dominate the other groups unless they have organized like said group, or make make an alliance with other anarchistic groups to bring down the organized group, which would likely fail as a) at that point there are probably many such supergroups, b) the supergroup could very well lure the offending groups into joining to reap in the extra resources, c) the supergroup, with more resources than the other groups could easily bribe some of the offending groups off with resources, and d)the disorganization of the alliance would work in the organized supergroups favor, and a martial organization of the alliance would probably take over the alliance and make it into a supergroup. So the population has to be thin enough so there is no significant conflict over resources.
As for technology, well, if you want this kind of society, you can forget about anything above lower Neolithic. As I said, the anarchist society cannot function above small groups, but significant technology requires large groups. A single person can make a stone axe from scratch, for example, but a machine gun requires the effort of a ton of people with different types of expertize to mine and refine the materials, to shape them, put it together, and maintain it. All of this requires the sort of organization you can't have. Also, the only thing sustaining our current population is technology, so remove that and plenty of people will die. And even with technology halted, the technology left around will create a valuable scarce resource made only scarcer. One can expect competition for technology, reenacting the above scenario. And even after improbably destroying all remnants of technology before they are exploited, you have to make sure all knowledge of making technology is gone, lest anyone recruit an empire on the promise of returned technology.
Also your vision of Native Americans is a bit heavily romanticized.
"
DENNIS: Anarcho-syndicalism is a way of preserving freedom.
WOMAN: Oh, Dennis, forget about freedom. Now I've dropped my mud.
***
DENNIS: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take
it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.
ARTHUR: Yes.
DENNIS: But all the decision of that officer have to be ratified
at a special biweekly meeting.
ARTHUR: Yes, I see.
DENNIS: By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,--
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: --but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more--
ARTHUR: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
WOMAN: Order, eh -- who does he think he is?
ARTHUR: I am your king!
WOMAN: Well, I didn't vote for you.
ARTHUR: You don't vote for kings.
WOMAN: Well, 'ow did you become king then?
ARTHUR: The Lady of the Lake,
[angels sing]
her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur
from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I,
Arthur, was to carry Excalibur.
[singing stops]
That is why I am your king!
DENNIS: Listen -- strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power
derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical
aquatic ceremony.
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: Well you can't expect to wield supreme executive power
just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: I mean, if I went around sayin' I was an empereror just
because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me they'd
put me away!
ARTHUR: Shut up! Will you shut up!
DENNIS: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed!
ARTHUR: Bloody peasant!
DENNIS: Oh, what a give away. Did you here that, did you here that,
eh? That's what I'm on about -- did you see him repressing me,
you saw it didn't you?
"
DENNIS: Anarcho-syndicalism is a way of preserving freedom.
WOMAN: Oh, Dennis, forget about freedom. Now I've dropped my mud.
***
DENNIS: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take
it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.
ARTHUR: Yes.
DENNIS: But all the decision of that officer have to be ratified
at a special biweekly meeting.
ARTHUR: Yes, I see.
DENNIS: By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,--
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: --but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more--
ARTHUR: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
WOMAN: Order, eh -- who does he think he is?
ARTHUR: I am your king!
WOMAN: Well, I didn't vote for you.
ARTHUR: You don't vote for kings.
WOMAN: Well, 'ow did you become king then?
ARTHUR: The Lady of the Lake,
[angels sing]
her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur
from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I,
Arthur, was to carry Excalibur.
[singing stops]
That is why I am your king!
DENNIS: Listen -- strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power
derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical
aquatic ceremony.
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: Well you can't expect to wield supreme executive power
just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: I mean, if I went around sayin' I was an empereror just
because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me they'd
put me away!
ARTHUR: Shut up! Will you shut up!
DENNIS: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed!
ARTHUR: Bloody peasant!
DENNIS: Oh, what a give away. Did you here that, did you here that,
eh? That's what I'm on about -- did you see him repressing me,
you saw it didn't you?
"
...I'm just going to put my political views out there...carefully...
1) Government, you have three jobs that you are allowed to demand money from me for: maintaining infrastructure, basic utilities (gas, water, trash/recycling pickup, etc.) for landowners and maintaining a certain level of law and order in the inner cities. Other than that, leave my funds alone.
2) In the suburbs/country, you are to leave the law in the hands of the community, with the notable exception of murder. If there is a suspected murder, the community is responsible for bringing the murderer to you, in which case you deal with him as seen fit. All other punishment is dealt out by the victims.
That's about it. You want a job, go get it yourself. You want food, grow it yourself or buy it from others with excess. You want entertainment, entertain yourself. Minimal government interference in people's lives with a free economy. Of course, I'd rather have a barter system, but that won't work anymore with so many people buying into the shared dream we call money. No idea if these ideas'll work or not, but it's what I've always looked at as "perfect," though there are several glaring flaws, most notably the immaturity of most human beings.
*runs away before the smart people tear his arguments into fish food*
1) Government, you have three jobs that you are allowed to demand money from me for: maintaining infrastructure, basic utilities (gas, water, trash/recycling pickup, etc.) for landowners and maintaining a certain level of law and order in the inner cities. Other than that, leave my funds alone.
2) In the suburbs/country, you are to leave the law in the hands of the community, with the notable exception of murder. If there is a suspected murder, the community is responsible for bringing the murderer to you, in which case you deal with him as seen fit. All other punishment is dealt out by the victims.
That's about it. You want a job, go get it yourself. You want food, grow it yourself or buy it from others with excess. You want entertainment, entertain yourself. Minimal government interference in people's lives with a free economy. Of course, I'd rather have a barter system, but that won't work anymore with so many people buying into the shared dream we call money. No idea if these ideas'll work or not, but it's what I've always looked at as "perfect," though there are several glaring flaws, most notably the immaturity of most human beings.
*runs away before the smart people tear his arguments into fish food*
I'm just going to say I don't believe it has any chance of working. I don't feel like getting caught in any more arguments today
A lot of people subscribe to this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_compass] sort of classification. Anarchy would be the bottom left one I think.somekindarobot said:
There was a better version but I can't find it.
As to my own feelings on Anarchy, I don't like it much. People are not equal in ability and therefore should not be treated equally. They should be rewarded for their ability and therefore should not have the same amount of wealth (or property or whatever).
Native americans didn't live in anarchy. "No judges, no jurys" doesn't mean anarchy. They had armies, they were a tribal culture and social rules were very strict. That's not anarchy.That_Which_Isnt said:
Small scale communes? Are you serious? Turn back the clock of time and return to early stone age? Humans are humans because we have systems and we build societies.
It may seem that the world lives in an anarchy, but that's just simply not true. Anarchism means there is no system, no laws, no organised violence that claims it should have the power. That has never existed, it is in the human nature for the guys with the biggest sticks to rule.
The problem with idealistic anarchists is the following: They think everyone should have the right to do as the anarchist likes. Anarchy, as a system for society falls prey to the same thing communism has stumbled across: neither will ever work, since they are based on the idea humans are good, caring and sharing. Which is a load of bollocs.
I can't believe someone still buys the propaganda about freetown Christiana. Have you ever been there? It's a haven for juinkes, low lifes and social outcasts who refuse to work. On its own, the town would collapse. It is not a good place to live.
Anarchy has more problems than just the rotten qualities of humanity. First of all, if it worked, the entire world would have already been tranformed into a giant commune. Direct democracy doesn't work, if there is no force behind the one holding the elections. And if someone refuses to obey the result of an election, what do you do? Ask them politely not to break your spine? Because if you, or the rest of the commune takes action, it's no longer anarchy, it's tribalism where the majority bashes heads until everyone thinks alike. Humans are nothing more than just hairless apes with lots of guns when it comes to politics and who gets to rule: the strongest takes the prize.
Libertarian socialism is a bit like taking the engine and all the trim and luxuries out of the car and having a camel to tow it around. You get the disadvantages of both, and advantages from neither. Without a goverment designed to function in collaboratin with free market economy (libertarianism) the economical advantage is lost, the system will not be productive enough. Then, socialism. It's alright when it's not socialism but social democracy. Just socialism, without further explanation, refers to a violent revolution. The more "socialist" you get this way, the less people have rights.
Property is not theft. What if I have, with my own hands, chopped down a tree and made spoons out of it? Are you suggesting those spoons are everyone's property/beong to no one? That I have no right to call the work of my own hands my own? And please don't say "you shouldn't have cut down the tree in the first place", that's not a valid argument. If no one has any personal property and there is no state power to protect people from nicking all their stuff, the result is Somalia, 1998. Violent militia groups robbed the entire UN food aid because there was no one to make sure it gets to those who needed it. Human greed knows no bounds and selfishness paralell with humanity. The human cultural/societal evolution has shown multiple times there needs to be a centralised power and the people have to have personal property in order to achieve any kind of development.
I've toyed with the idea of anarchy, but in the end I can't support a truly anarchic system, pure democracy is still my personal favorite, no representation, if YOU want something changed then YOU should go out and do it, just without the chaos of anarchy.
I can't possibly find the time to read every comment posted, so take my opinion here with a grain of salt in the flavor of having no awareness of what has previously taken place in this thread...
Anarchy cannot work in a society such as ours, assuming you believe in the universal human rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all intents and purposes. For any group larger than a tribe, structure and government is a necessity, because not everyone is equally capable of protecting themselves. So long as we exist, there will be someone that wants something that someone else has. The only way to enforce that no one can take from you what is necessary for you to pursue your livelihood is to establish a system that can protect you from such shows of force. Only in a government of some fashion is this possible. In anarchy, the only given is that people will do mainly only things that benefit themselves. This logic is absolute. There is no way to dispel it; It's human nature.
Now, this is of course, assuming that you share my views on morality, that we all have certain (equal) rights from birth, and that the only amorality in the universe is to use force against someone in a way that circumvents such rights. If you're one of the survival of the fittest types, sure, maybe your Anarchy would be fine for you. The majority, however, which is not you by the way, will never accept this.
Your ignorance really shows in this thread. Your assertions against capitalism and other forms of government show the ultimate lack of understanding. It's so cliche to call capitalists "greedy" and socialists "lazy". It's time to open our minds and throw out these preconceptions. Capitalism has nothing to do with greed. The idea is that all forms of trade are left to the private sector. That is to say no government interference (except the fight of fraud). It's called laissez faire. There are plenty of different stances on Capitalism and what it should and shouldn't do. At the most extreme, the government would do absolutely nothing except protect the people from any show of force. That is to say it would intervene by way of law and sanction only against fraud and violent acts of injustice. Personally, I'd expand that idealism to include health care. I see no way for the private sector to adequately cover all people and it is absolutely the case that everyone deserves health care.
Socialism is a good idea, but like Anarchy (for different reasons) it isn't feasible for our society. Socialism assumes that you are too stupid to know what to do with your own money and would, like communism, limit what you could potentially have and do. In my opinion, if the government has to force people to pay for some project or another, it has no right to exist. Anything that is worth doing will be done, because people will want to pay for it. Subsidies are completely wasteful and moronic.
I'll leave you on that note with one final thought: Property = Life. Property includes all the things we need to live; Therefore our property becomes an extension of our livelihood. We have the right to protect ourselves and therefore the things that we need to live. If this is greed to you, I wish you the best of luck in your fantasy world.
Edit:
I'd have to expand this in two ways. One to say that Spitfire175 is absolutely correct. Read what he said as many times as it takes for you to comprehend it.
Secondly, I can't help but comment on what Ragnarok said about barter: Barter cannot work anymore. The simple reason for this is that money never goes bad. That is why we came up with a monetary system in the first place. If you only trade in bulky or expendable items, you cannot save and saving is the cornerstone of a growing society. We'd have no advancements technical, medical or otherwise without this system. Throw away your ideas about how awesome bartering is. It's not.
Anarchy cannot work in a society such as ours, assuming you believe in the universal human rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all intents and purposes. For any group larger than a tribe, structure and government is a necessity, because not everyone is equally capable of protecting themselves. So long as we exist, there will be someone that wants something that someone else has. The only way to enforce that no one can take from you what is necessary for you to pursue your livelihood is to establish a system that can protect you from such shows of force. Only in a government of some fashion is this possible. In anarchy, the only given is that people will do mainly only things that benefit themselves. This logic is absolute. There is no way to dispel it; It's human nature.
Now, this is of course, assuming that you share my views on morality, that we all have certain (equal) rights from birth, and that the only amorality in the universe is to use force against someone in a way that circumvents such rights. If you're one of the survival of the fittest types, sure, maybe your Anarchy would be fine for you. The majority, however, which is not you by the way, will never accept this.
Your ignorance really shows in this thread. Your assertions against capitalism and other forms of government show the ultimate lack of understanding. It's so cliche to call capitalists "greedy" and socialists "lazy". It's time to open our minds and throw out these preconceptions. Capitalism has nothing to do with greed. The idea is that all forms of trade are left to the private sector. That is to say no government interference (except the fight of fraud). It's called laissez faire. There are plenty of different stances on Capitalism and what it should and shouldn't do. At the most extreme, the government would do absolutely nothing except protect the people from any show of force. That is to say it would intervene by way of law and sanction only against fraud and violent acts of injustice. Personally, I'd expand that idealism to include health care. I see no way for the private sector to adequately cover all people and it is absolutely the case that everyone deserves health care.
Socialism is a good idea, but like Anarchy (for different reasons) it isn't feasible for our society. Socialism assumes that you are too stupid to know what to do with your own money and would, like communism, limit what you could potentially have and do. In my opinion, if the government has to force people to pay for some project or another, it has no right to exist. Anything that is worth doing will be done, because people will want to pay for it. Subsidies are completely wasteful and moronic.
I'll leave you on that note with one final thought: Property = Life. Property includes all the things we need to live; Therefore our property becomes an extension of our livelihood. We have the right to protect ourselves and therefore the things that we need to live. If this is greed to you, I wish you the best of luck in your fantasy world.
Edit:
I'd have to expand this in two ways. One to say that Spitfire175 is absolutely correct. Read what he said as many times as it takes for you to comprehend it.
Secondly, I can't help but comment on what Ragnarok said about barter: Barter cannot work anymore. The simple reason for this is that money never goes bad. That is why we came up with a monetary system in the first place. If you only trade in bulky or expendable items, you cannot save and saving is the cornerstone of a growing society. We'd have no advancements technical, medical or otherwise without this system. Throw away your ideas about how awesome bartering is. It's not.
First i want to start out by saying Hello and welcome to hel- *feels the mods channel there power* err to the happiest place on earth *gulp*
all i have to say is if you have no government you have no form of money no form of money means the outdated form of bartering
Also an anarchist state will quickly be conquered by the ones with government seeing how they are uniformed and have army?s
Now I?m taking a shot in the dark here and i would love to learn im wrong so tell me what im wrong with we all need to learn something
Also wouldent a place like that always be coverd in war for terrtory by pepole who DO wan't control and have the power to get it???
all i have to say is if you have no government you have no form of money no form of money means the outdated form of bartering
Also an anarchist state will quickly be conquered by the ones with government seeing how they are uniformed and have army?s
Now I?m taking a shot in the dark here and i would love to learn im wrong so tell me what im wrong with we all need to learn something
Also wouldent a place like that always be coverd in war for terrtory by pepole who DO wan't control and have the power to get it???
I don't really get the whole "Libertarian Socialism" analogy being as Socialism kind of implies some sort of government control of the pooling of resources for more equal redistribution, and Libertarianism is the belief that freedom should triumph over order as well as equality, which makes that a bit contradictory if I'm not mistaken. Anarchy as you describe it just seems like liberalism, as opposed to the actual definition of anarchy being the opposition of government as a whole.
I'm probably closest to "Libertarian," (which is basically a watered down anarchy) so I'm opposed to the redistribution of wealth because the system would no doubt be abused by those who don't want to work. I say a flat tax is the most fair system, because it taxes the rich more money than the poor, but it's the same amount relative to their wealth. There shouldn't be a penalty for being successful or a reward for being a failure. Government in my opinion should only exist for the purpose of insuring domestic tranquility, not for invading people's lives.
As for the ACTUAL Anarchy, I think it would work for a little while, because most people wouldn't immediately start murdering everyone as soon as government wasn't involved. But really, all it takes is a few people to fuck it up. Let's say hypothetically, someone organized a gang in an anarchy. Who's going to stop them? the only way to do it would be to create a bigger militant faction than them, and then what's to stop them from doing what the gang did? It's really impossible to have an anarchy for an extended period of time without it resulting in either an all out war or some kind of primitive government.
I'm probably closest to "Libertarian," (which is basically a watered down anarchy) so I'm opposed to the redistribution of wealth because the system would no doubt be abused by those who don't want to work. I say a flat tax is the most fair system, because it taxes the rich more money than the poor, but it's the same amount relative to their wealth. There shouldn't be a penalty for being successful or a reward for being a failure. Government in my opinion should only exist for the purpose of insuring domestic tranquility, not for invading people's lives.
As for the ACTUAL Anarchy, I think it would work for a little while, because most people wouldn't immediately start murdering everyone as soon as government wasn't involved. But really, all it takes is a few people to fuck it up. Let's say hypothetically, someone organized a gang in an anarchy. Who's going to stop them? the only way to do it would be to create a bigger militant faction than them, and then what's to stop them from doing what the gang did? It's really impossible to have an anarchy for an extended period of time without it resulting in either an all out war or some kind of primitive government.
Question: How would this happen without the deaths of millions of people? And nothing short of a new genesis? Because even if a big country (let say USA) spites into smaller countries, what stops a other countries (let just say Canada) from comeing in and doing what the British did to the "native American"?
Reading this thread I've come to the conclusion that all forms of government who refuse to exploit anyone or anything end up stagnating completely.
I say bring back slavery, deforest the entire world and set up a police state. If you annoying peasants would just shut up and do what daddy tells you, everything would move quite smoothly and we'd all benefit in the long run.
I say bring back slavery, deforest the entire world and set up a police state. If you annoying peasants would just shut up and do what daddy tells you, everything would move quite smoothly and we'd all benefit in the long run.
I detest Anarchy in the political form, a badly worked out system for young people to support. What I like to believe we could have in our world is true personal Anarchy with complete freedom of self and ideal within a sensible system of government. Like Fascism or Capitalist Socialism.