Courage to Resist

farfromglorified wrote:

In all seriousness, there are some differences. Libertarian Socialists are primarily influenced by Marx, but also by the Russian and European anarchists of the last century. I'm sure someone who subscribes to it could explain the major differentiations.

Indeed ... There seems to be a general anti-government flavor to the ideology that you don't get with pure Marxism.

farfromglorified wrote:

Yep -- the LS movement relies more on morality than it does on the state. Whereas communism simply prescribes behaviors via the force of the state, LS believes that you can prescribe behaviors by affecting the morality of those who make the choices. Unfortunately, LS's morality is simply Communistic morality, and, well, that can just speak for itself.

I wonder how many LS folks lost the faith in the common man's morality when Bush won that second term in office?

surferdude wrote:

Question about LS. The wiki entry says ".... the abolition of private property, thereby giving direct control of the means of production and resources to the working class and other unpropertied classes." This seems like quite the statement with nothing to back it up. I find it hard that anyone could adopt this philosophy. But then again I believe in God so what do I know.

When you take that statement at face value, it basically says that SOMEONE will still be in control ... There will still be a ruling class.

farfromglorified wrote:

I'm not mocking anyone. I simply find it hard to believe that one can merge two contradictory ideals into a single ideal.

Ideals X 1,0000,2000,5456438764373... ideals

what the fuck does that have to do with anything?

farfromglorified wrote:

This stems from Proudhon's "property is theft" ideology. It's an easy philosophy to adopt, so long as you don't wish to own anything.

I get lost at this idea. So they just assume control of land in order to grow food but they wouldn't care if someone then assumed control of that same land a week later to build a house. Just as long as the house was meant for all, so they could happily starve to death while indoors.

gue_barium wrote:

No, that's just your interpretation. The Earth owns you, realistically, it's this universe that owns you, you don't own squat.

Hehe...ok. Let's just toss your "means of production" into the next black hole we find then.

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Whatever floats your boat.

This thread isn't about this and I would like to keep it that way. In fact , I'd like avoid all pointless and endless debates with you that always result in the same condescending mockery and ego stroking.

This thread is about individual dissent in the face of the orders of society, is it not? This thread implies that each individual owns his body and his mind, does it not? This thread is a rejection of state control, is it not?

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

According to the American Heritage Dictionary "socialism" is "a social system in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods." This definition fits neatly with the implications of the word "libertarian" indicated above. In fact, it shows that socialism is necessarily libertarian, not statist. For if the state owns the workplace, then the producers do not, and so they will not be at liberty to manage their own work but will instead be subject to the state as the boss. Moreover, replacing the capitalist owning class by state officials in no way eliminates wage labour; in fact it makes it worse in many cases. Therefore "socialists" who argue for nationalisation of the means of production are not socialists (which means that the Soviet Union and the other 'socialist" countries are not socialist nor are parties which advocate nationalisation socialist).

That definition only fits neatly with the implication of "libertarian" if the words "political power" had no meaning. Otherwise, you are talking about tyranny. When you produce wheat and can dictate what I, a bread producer, may do, you are not talking about Libertarianism. You are talking about collectivism.

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

"To be a true libertarian requires you to support workers' control otherwise you support authoritarian social relationships.

I do support "authoritarian social relationships". That means I support your right to give authority over yourself to anyone you choose, or to be an authority figure to anyone who chooses you.

To suggest that liberatrianism is against authority is ridiculous, and the very fact that you quote someone here as an authority shows that you don't even accept that. Libertarianism is against force, not authority.

To support workers' control, by necessity, means that you must ensure that the producers own (and so control) the means of producing and distributing the goods they create (i.e. they must own/control what they use to produce goods).

Hehe...by what authority will this happen? And how will they "own" something in the absence of authority?

Without ownership, they cannot truly control their own activity or the product of their labour. The situation where workers possess the means of producing and distributing goods is socialism. Thus to be a true libertarian requires you to be a socialist."

Thus it requires me??? Again, by what authority, abook?

I completely believe that workers should control their own activity and the products of their labor. That is the core of economic Libertarianism and Objectivism. But when a worker sells his labor to his employer, he has sold that labor and the products of it. They are no longer his. This is the essence of the differentiation between an employee and an entrepeneur. Those who wish to sell their labor, should. Those who wish to own their labor, should. But you cannot sell something and then continue to own it.

Finally, the use of the word "control" throughout this should tell you much about the violent and contradictory logic behind the statements. If workers will control their labor absolutely through force and coersion, what was so wrong about other "authorities" doing the same before that? If "ownership" and "control" are no longer two concepts, violence becomes the root of everything economic.