Libertarian Socialist Society Thread!

Capitalism is in not exactly voluntary. I shop at Tesco, but it is not a voluntary action but merely my only viable option. Capitalism itself depends upon force to keep it stable. Without government regulations and other forces, there are no restricting factors to stop firms decending into oligopolies and monopolies.

Consumers need to be able to exert force to not be exploited by companies charging very high prices and cutting costs through lowering quality. I don't think anybody voluntarily chooses to be over-charged.

I disagree again with this here. One individuals interest might not be in the collectivists interest. One individual interests have externalities which are they often do not take account for. An example would be again Tesco. In Bristol, Tesco attempted to set up a store which was opposed by the community. The public interest was to not have a Tesco store on their high street. In your eyes, Tesco were acting in their 'individual interest' and the 'public interest' simply doesn't exist.

In regards to your question, you're going to have to explain in a little more detail what you mean by 'scarcity

the subjective value of utility

uncertainty

can someone please explain anarcho-communism to me? because it sounds completely oxymoronic and i just don't understand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism#United_Kingdom

I agree that the personal freedoms of individuals are needed to be preserved and expressed, and the economy needs to be regulated, although I also agree with Socialism. I may be a democratic socialist as I am both a Socialist and believe that democracy is the best form of government. However I would still personally classify myself as a Liberal Socialist.

Anarcho-communism aim is to eradicate all forms of the state, wage labour, private property and money. To replace the modern form of governance which is hierarchical, anarcho-communists wish to introduce a horizontal governance comprised of voluntary associations. The collective follows the rule of "from each according to his ability, and to each according to his need."

I think 'communism' is the word which is confusing you right? Communism has the aim of a classless and stateless society. Anarcho-communists oppose the idea of a vanguard party during a transition stage, such as adopted by Leninism.

I know what social liberalism is. I'm saying that you cannot be both a (social) liberal and a socialist since (social) liberals essentially just seek regulated capitalism. Socialism is the sheer opposite of capitalism. Liberalism is not 'softcore socialism' like some ardent conservatives and Libertarians (on the right of the spectrum) seem to believe.

Basically a core feature of capitalism, as Marx identifies is the commodity-money-commodity (C-M-C) cycle in which the commodities are circulated in capitalism. Commodities (our goods and services as a product of our labour) are sold for money to purchase more commodities (goods and services on the market).

The other cycle is the money-commodity-money (M-C-M) cycle in which (a) money is used by the employer (owner of capital) in exchange for (b) labour (the commodity) which is sold by the capitalist on the market for (c) money. The capitalist acts as a 'middle man' between the labourer and the consumer.

This relationship between the labourer and capitalist creates class divisions (proletariat and bourgeis) and is the essential feature of capitalism itself - the proletariat is 'exploited' in that is labour output is less than the pay he receives from the capitalist - and the capitalist earns more than his own labour output when selling the product on the market.

Thing is, capitalism rewards product not 'hard work'. You can work all day digging holes and filling them back in and achieve nothing - why should you be paid?

Social liberals maintain all of this hierarchical relationship between the capitalist and wage labourer as well as private ownership - they simply seek to make reforms such as

*minimum wage
*work place regulations
*consumer standard regulations
*labour unions
*social security (especially for the disabled and elderly)

State socialists on the other hand seek complete collectivisation (i.e. state ownership) of the means of production - decision making is made through governments, labour unions, consumer groups. Libertarian socialism is different in so far as it is more of a syndicalist arrangement of the economy - meaning more direct participation in the economy, more responsibility for producers than state socialism has to offer, more delegation of decision making (see rank and file), non-hierarchical relationships, etc. (but lets not get into that).

There's a socialist and an anarchist society with their own threads, so I thought I'd make one for specifically for the libertarian socialists!

Before anyone says anything, this is not an oxymoron. Socialism is the common ownership of the means of production. A libertarian is a person who advocates liberty. Libertarian socialism should be differentiated from right libertarianism with it's emphasis on capitalism, as opposed to libertarian socialism's anti-capitalism and anti-statism ideals.

Branches of Libertarian Socialism include Anarcho-Communism, Left Marxism, Collectivist anarchism, Anarcho-Syndicalism etc.

So ask, discuss, debate or whatever.

Libertarian Socialist Society

CAN YOU PLEASE RENAME THIS THE BLAIRITE THREAD, OR THE SOCIALIST PRAGMATIST THREAD, PLEASE.

I even said please twice.

Blair was a neo-liberal.

I would argue that he was a liberal socialist, the centre right of the labour party.

He was also a child of Thatcherism, I suppose.

Blair is not a socialist of any description.

I have been ex-leftist for ages after studying a little economics. I just put that in my sig to avoid confusion for people who read my earlier posts and wondering why I come at political economy from a different (more centralist) angle these days.

- That certain goods aren't in general abundance like air and they need to be economised (i.e. allocated wisely and efficiently).

- That the value of all goods in an economy is subjective and that a central planning committee is not in a position to determine their value on behalf of 'the people'. Rather, the buyer needs to choose what is valuable for him when he buys a product - and it is this signal (market signal) that the entrepeneur reads when deciding what product to invest in. How does the central planning committee know which product makes for the most wisest expenditure of labour and other resources, etc. - what 'signals' do they receive.

- We live in a world of uncertainty. We can never tell whether our actions will be optimal in the long term. If we did, it would be possible to centrally plan an economy and there'd be no poverty because governments would make all the correct investments. The entrepeneur is under strict liability; he must gamble his own time and money. The central planners gamble other people's money through taxation and public spending - combined with uncertainty of wise investments this can be disastrous since at least the entrepeneur will feel the pain if he cocks up. The same failing business can be backed for years by the state with endless funds pumped into it - whereas malinvestments are wiped out quite quickly in the private sector.

- Another factor is knowledge. We can only know the small sector of society that we interact with. There will always be extremely complicated industrial processes, for example, that we are unfamiliar with, such as in medicine, pharmaceuticals, technology - which is why it is best to have the individual take his own share of the burden by managing his own business and household financial affairs rather than having a central planning committee such as the state organise everything for everyone.

I’m confused. Did you just say air isn’t in general abundance? In any case, I don’t see how scarcity is such a barrier. If for instance, if we don’t have enough recourses to produce lawnmowers for everyone then we would only produce a few and let people take them out, and bring them back as they need to. Surely simple solutions would arise.

There’s absolutely no doubt that the world has enough resources to provide the basic necessities and more for every human being on the planet.

I envisage production in the hands of workers “syndicates” (or “cooperatives”). These would be owned and controlled by workers within them, and designed purely to produce what society needs.

Need would be determined by the consumers in society

, without price mechanisms our present-day databases can easily do a mechanical sort of incoming demands and requests from a local area. The Internet is available to socially network the bottom-up human-needs 'demand' with the existing top-down productive infrastructure, or 'supply'.

I think such a system would be a more efficient way of determining value and distribution. In capitalist markets “demand” isn't the actual demand for goods, it's the amount of money people are willing to pay for goods. This is obviously going to reflect the relative power of social classes.

Tbf that is always true all the time if you think about it. There is always enough food to keep people alive. Otherwise those people would never come into conception.

We do not need lawnmowers. So by your logic they would not be produced. Lawnmowers are just ones of those nice to have things.

Contradicted yourself there because you just said production would be in the hands of the workers. Who is it? Who has the monopoly power?

Have you ever seen a lumbering bureacracy in action. You are prosposing a phenominally beuracratic system. This would be so inefficient.

I would love to see such a system in action though. It would be absolutely hilarious watching people get really pissed off that they cannot express their demands properly . Ofcourse when people start to starve then it might not be so funny

(And anyway your computer system or whatever contradicts your idea that the workers control output)

Sure about that? Why are there so many companies in capitalist economies that serve poor people. Infact if you look at the biggest companies they tend to be ones that serve all classes and a skew towards the lower classes.

It is counter intuitive at first but if you actually look at the economy a lot of things are geared up for the less well off. And it does make sense because everybody wants good value stuff, even the rich.

So was it for practical reasons you departed from the left? I'm always open to something that could sway my thinking (despite what 'Turn and fall' might say ).

I’m confused. Did you just say air isn’t in general abundance? In any case, I don’t see how scarcity is such a barrier. If for instance, if we don’t have enough recourses to produce lawnmowers for everyone then we would only produce a few and let people take them out, and bring them back as they need to. Surely simple solutions would arise.

There’s absolutely no doubt that the world has enough resources to provide the basic necessities and more for every human being on the planet.

However, the notion of a ‘centrally planned committee’ is rejected by libertarian socialists.

I envisage production in the hands of workers “syndicates” (or “cooperatives”). These would be owned and controlled by workers within them, and designed purely to produce what society needs.

Need would be determined by the consumers in society, without price mechanisms our present-day databases can easily do a mechanical sort of incoming demands and requests from a local area.

The Internet is available to socially network the bottom-up human-needs 'demand' with the existing top-down productive infrastructure, or 'supply'.

This is a critique of centrally planned economies that most libertarian socialists actually agree with.

You understand the difference between supply and demand, right?

I've already explained how demand is determined. You're creating a slippery slope.

Where exactly is the bureaucracy?

I don't see how this has anything to do with what I said.

I'm quite disappointed it was you who replied. And until you actually provide some reasoning to back up your assertions I'm going to have to keep posting short replies.

No, that air is in general abundance, therefore making it a general condition of welfareor something (I can't remember the exact term) and that other goods are not in general abundance like air is. Scarcity is always a problem though I concede its a bit of a strawman to just throw it out there like JP did. Nonetheless, I will elaborate. Ends (or achieving wants) are scarce and the actor will have to prioritise. He will also have to apply scarce means to achieve scarce ends. He has to seek ways to optimise his actions, etc

That's not exactly what is meant by scarcity; just that their is major choice and subsequently, major prioritisation that is required in order to allocate scarce goods. Socialism is one way of doing that.

I thought you might bring this up and it was a point I myself made frequently when I was a libertarian socialist. The thing is, when you abolish private control over property, you strip away the property owner's ability to control and maximise the full potential over that property (motivated by whatever is ends may be - charity, profit, self-fulfilment, whatever). You now have a dilemna where either anyone can just freely use that property (see Hardin - Tragedy of the Commons) or where collectivist boards have to be organised to make the most efficient use out of that property, in which case we have a central planning committee. .

Another alternative is the syndicalist economy, whereby 'the workers control the means of production' where they work. Mises gives a good critique of syndicalism in the book, socialism. I won't babble on here (not that I particular think Austrian Economics or the likes of Rothbard and von Mises are some sort of deities or anything - as you will find on the holy Libertarian right). Nonetheless, I believe Mises bangs the nail on the head here; syndicalism naively assumes a static version of the economy (to paraphrase from memory).

I also would point out some other perceived problems with syndicalism:
*no confidence in investment (there is really no reason to start up a business - or expand 'small businesses' enterprises, if you believe that small businesses should remain untouched - if at some point down the line the workmen will 'democratise' your assets, so to speak)

*no free movement of labour (can't very easily move from work place to work place)

*I would argue that central planning/collectivism is necessary to bind together the syndicates to prevent private property inevitably re-emerging as producer's sell their shares in the co-operative.

Then there are the problems in the workplace itself:
*militant labour = bad, since it prevents a lot of decision making

*each producer in the workplace inevitably ends up with an equal share and therefore equal profits regardless of labour output; much bitterness in the workplace as a result as the more productive employees believe the less productive employees to be scrounging off their labour

The efficiency of scarce resource allocation within socialism is debatable, but I think it is preferable to a system in which those with the most money purchase society’s scarce resources because the ability to acquire money is hugely influenced by arbitrary birth conditions.

There are many different ideas for scarce resource allocation and the implantation of any idea would have to be done from the bottom up as free experimentation would be a vital part of libertarian socialism. As Kropotkin said, it is not a case of “determining in advance what form of distribution the producers should accept in their different groups - whether the communist solution, or labor checks, or equal salaries, or any other method”

This points system would be the means by which producers and consumers would be able to determine whether the use of a particular good is efficient or not. Unlike prices, this cost-benefit analysis system would ensure that production and consumption reflects social and ecological costs, awareness and priorities; unlike market prices’ which mask the true ecological costs of a commodity.

[Sorry if some of my econ’ speak is a little off]

I don’t see how free access would result in a depletion of shared recourses. There are plenty of examples within current society to indicate that free access will not lead to abuses. Water for example, It’s clear that people do not leave taps on all day because water is often supplied freely or for a fixed charge. Similarly with public libraries people are free to sit and read books all day. However, few if any actually do so. Neither do people always take the maximum number of books out at a time. No, they use the library as they need to and feel no need to maximise their use of the institution.

I’ll have to read the article before I can comment. I would also say that anarcho-communism and syndicalism aren’t mutually exclucive.

The reason to start up a business would be based initially on the desire to work.

The workers would form syndicates to meet the demands of the consumers.

Surely in the absence of wage labour workers can move freely? They are not coerced into staying at one particular syndicate.

I’m not sure about your use of the word ‘share’ in this context. Could you elaborate?

"A worker-managed firm lacks an expansionary dynamic. When a capitalist enterprise is successful, the owner can increase her profits by reproducing her organisation on a larger scale. She lacks neither the means nor the motivation to expand. Not so with a worker-managed firm. Even if the workers have the means, they lack the incentive, because enterprise growth would bring in new workers with whom the increased proceeds would have to be shared. Co-operatives, even when prosperous, do not spontaneously grow. But if this is so, then each new co-operative venture (in a capitalist society) requires a new wealthy radical or a new group of affluent radical workers willing to experiment."

I’m not familiar with ‘militant labour’. Sorry.

As apposed to huge divides in wages based on the demand for a worker in the marketplace rather than actual work ethic?