
Libertarian communism - selvan
https://libcom.org/notes/about
======
Synaesthesia
For a great and concise introduction to Libertarian Socialism here is a
classic Noam Chomsky lecture from 1979 called The Government of the Future, in
which he gives a justification for Libertarian Socialism, or Anarchism, as the
natural and correct form of government for advanced industrial society from
the classical liberal ideals of the enlightenment. He also compares the
competing economic and social ideologies, laissez-faires capitalism, state
capitalism and state socialism.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLDQGdKyh7s&index=1&list=PLE...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLDQGdKyh7s&index=1&list=PLECDCA6E60C087344)

Edit: here is the text of the lecture if you'd rather read it.
[https://libcom.org/library/government-future-noam-
chomsky](https://libcom.org/library/government-future-noam-chomsky)

~~~
PlzSnow
Thanks for the link!

Do you have a similar great and concise introduction to Nazism or other
related extremist totalitarian ideologies?

~~~
pastProlog
How is anarchism a "totalitarian" ideology?

I have been reading in the press about how the NSA, the CIA, the FBI etc. want
an encryption backdoor in everything Americans use, so we can be spied on at
will. I don't see why this isn't totalitarian and somehow anarchism is.
Anarchism means no state, whereas totalitarianism means total state control,
yet you're saying no state control means more state control. It makes no
sense.

~~~
xlm1717
I don't think the intention was to link them together, just to ask for
introductions to other alternative ideologies.

It's not good to put words into other people's mouth. PlzSnow never said
anything about less state control meaning more state control, for example.

------
nateabele
> _" Those of us with nothing to sell but our labour power"_

This is the weirdest thing about the dichotomy of Communism's popular
resurgence in tech circles. In literal terms, our 'labour power' is fingers on
a keyboard. Doesn't the real value in our work come from our _ideas_?
Technology is a lever for ideas, and that lever can be exploited by creativity
in a way that few other areas of human endeavor can match.

So, if the value (benefit? effectiveness?) of our work is measured by our
ability to be creative, how does one reconcile that with pure labour
valuation, which is evocative of the standard-dollars-for-hours exchange?

I'd be interested to hear from any self-professed communists about this.

~~~
humanrebar
> This is the weirdest thing about the dichotomy of Communism's popular
> resurgence in tech circles.

The weirdest thing to me is that it's pretty hard to produce and maintain
software systems in the face of limited resources, interactions with the real
world, bosses that don't know what's going on, etc. But somehow it seems not
just possible but _optimal_ to top-down design the ways billions of people
live their lives. It really doesn't matter if the designer is one person or a
committee of the proletariat. That's an NP-ridiculous problem.

In the fact of that, I'd rather individuals make decisions about their own
lives.

~~~
nateabele
Haha, I've often had that thought myself. Add to the above the fact that human
behavior is probably an order of magnitude more complex than any software
system ever designed.

------
tragic
Well, I never thought I'd see the day libcom was posted up on here. I spend a
bit of time on their forums about 10 years ago - used to be a bit of a
bearpit, don't know what it's like now.

The archive is interesting, though. A lot of material from outside what you'd
strictly call libertarian communism, but just niche even within the already
niche worlds of anarchist/Marxist/etc theory.

(Thought I'd better post something before it gets flagged to the bottom of the
ocean.)

------
PlzSnow
The communist ideology resulted in the torture/execution/starvation of, what,
100 million working-class people?

People don't go about saying "I'm a fascist, let's give it another go, maybe
it will work this time, sorry about the millions of dead children".

So why do people think it's OK to say they're a communist?

~~~
Synaesthesia
That was state socialism, not a true communist society. Any form of
repression, coercion and control are condemned by anarchists / libertarian
socialists. The USSR was certainly a state which was did of that.

The reason why the USSR was trumpeted as socialist was that it suited both
sides' propaganda to do so. For the Americans, to vilify socialism, and for
the Russians to give their rule the appearance of genuine socialism. When both
of the major propoganda systems in the world agree on something it's bound to
become a popular conception.

But let us not also forget that hundreds of millions starved in non-communist
India, which suffered terrible famines up to 1948.

South and Central America was a horror chamber throughout the 1950's-1980's
under violent brutal capitalist dictatorships supported by the USA. Many Asian
countries too.

The rise of communism in China, although violent and of the state-socialist
kind, also brought hundreds of millions out of poverty.

~~~
PlzSnow
_" That was state socialism, not a true communist society."_

Ah. the "No true Scotsman fallacy". It would be funny it it weren't for the
countless millions of tortured and murdered women, children, peasants...

~~~
Synaesthesia
It's not funny. It's also got nothing to do with Libertarian socialism, which
is simply a a democratic economic system. The USSR was a system with
concentrated power which directed from above.

Right wing Marxists such as Bolsheviks have always had deep divides with left
wing Marxists and anarchists.

------
vegancap
Not entirely sure why libcom's the top of HN. They've been posting the same
misrepresentations and misunderstandings of markets for years.

~~~
pastProlog
Who is misrepresenting? In 1962, the USSR had markets where people exchanged
rubles for potatos, just as in the 1962 USA, there were markets where people
exchanged dollars for currency. Not much difference marketwise, other than the
currency.

------
trengrj
After reading the page it looks like a lot of communism and very little
libertarianism.. Why is libertarianism mentioned? To me libertarianism
requires at least giving people the freedom to buy and sell while this libcom
site argues "the problem is that everything has a price".

Are we going to have to start using the words "classical libertarianism" soon?
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism#Meaning...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism#Meaning_of_the_term)

~~~
vidarh
Classical libertarianism _is_ libertarian communism. The term libertarianism
originates with the French anarcho-communist Joseph Déjacques back in the 19th
century, and was championed by groups like the Socialist League in the UK
(which was supported by Friedrich Engels and Eleanor Marx amongst others).

Modern-day right-wing libertarianism is the new kid on the block.

Basically in the late 1800's the main split between anarchists and communists
in the First International was not predominantly their end goal.

E.g. consider the famous concept of the "whithering away of the state" (coined
by Friedrich Engels, but Engels attributed the idea to Marx): that given that
according to Marxism the state is predominantly a tool of class rule, and that
communism by their definition is the stage of society where there no longer
are any classes, the state will cease to have a political purpose and will
"whither away". So anarchists and communists agreed the state was a tool of
oppression and that this oppression must be removed, and that the state will
eventually disappear.

The split was over methods. How to get there. The anarchists generally
favoured a quicker, more immediate, dismantling of the state (whether by
taking control and orderly dismantling it, or by rising up and destroying it),
while communists generally favoured an intermediate transitional stage. In
Marxism the intermediate stage is socialism: A phase where the proletariat is
meant to take control of the state (hence the "dictatorship of the
proletariat" in contrast with Marx description of capitalist democracies as
the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie"), and for the first time wield it as a
weapon of the majority against the minority, and use it to remove the class
differences. So communists traditionally saw the state as a tool for the
working class.

Eventually this lead to the split of the First International, where Marx came
out victorious, and most of the anarchists left when Bakunin was thrown out.
Not long after, new libertarian socialist/communist tendencies started
"filling the gap" in the International left by the anarchists.

The extent of support for a strong state varied greatly amongst people who
called themselves communists, leading to screeds like Lenins "Left Communism:
An Infantile Disorder", which targeted exactly libertarian Communists which
opposed his ideas of a vanguard.

~~~
humanrebar
> according to Marxism the state is predominantly a tool of class rule, and
> that communism by their definition is the stage of society where there no
> longer are any classes, the state will cease to have a political purpose and
> will "whither away"

So who runs the justice system, commands the military, and protects the rights
of the citizens?

~~~
Synaesthesia
Representative councils which ar democratically elected by ordinary citizens.

~~~
humanrebar
How is that not a Democratic state?

~~~
Synaesthesia
It differs in that it supposes having democratic, popular control of industry
in addition to politics.

------
cubano
This is basically a reboot of Marx's 19th century ideas with a trendy fresh
look. In fact, he predicted this stage (which he called the "dictatorship of
the proletariat") in the evolution of "Political Economy" that will, in his
mind, eventually lead inexorably to "True Communism." [0]

His "theory of alienation"[1] pretty accurately describes the angst that
motivates the "workers" to want to move away from the Capitalist system of
production and explore ideas such as libcom.org.

For those with an interest, you should read _Das Kapital_...Marx was a true
intellectual powerhouse and his chops were both deep and wide.

IMO, It all sounds very good in theory, but always seems to always fail during
implementation, like a bad software project,

The history of attempts with Communism shows little in the way of success as
far as providing "the masses" with an increased standard of living and overall
happiness, so I'll always be wary of such proposals.

Personally, I believe Sartre's Existentialism better describes the human
condition, although even he eventually adopted Marx. in lieu of Capitalism,
which will, I believe, always be hated by the intellectuals.

[0]
[http://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/docs/marxs_vision.php](http://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/docs/marxs_vision.php)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_alienation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_alienation)

~~~
pastProlog
> read Das Kapital...sounds very good in theory, but always seems to fail
> during implementation

What fails during implementation? When leftists of his time demanded plans
from Marx, he scoffed and said he was not August Comte, and refused to "write
recipes for the kitchens of the future".

Marx and Engels did note changes in production led to changes in relations of
production, and the superstructure (society). Some scientists think human
hunting and fishing being what is was may have led to behavioral modernity
50,000 years ago. This led to a different form of primitive communism. 10000
years ago slavery and agriculture arose. 1600 years ago feudalism began to
arise. 600 years ago capitalism as a dominant economic system began to arise.

Since men began painting pictures of horses in caves 50,000 years ago, the
world has seen four major economic systems. The current one is capitalism. You
seem to say it is immutable, the three previous ones were flimsy, but you seem
to say our current economic system is the final one (although the previous one
said that as well - the czar was claiming God, the creator of the world, ruler
of a life after life had appointed him to his throne - claimed this until he
was felled by the bullets of Bolshevik soldiers).

We are entering a world where I film a video, or record audio, or write code,
push a button and with almost no cost in replication, can have it distributed
to billions. We are entering a world where with continual improvements in
robotics and AI, there may eventually be no job a human can do that an AI
robot can't do (and perhaps do better - my memory, prefrontal cortex
processing etc. is limited by bandwidth, space and this sort of thing in a way
that a neural network translating speech to text is not). When there is no
need any more for humans to farm, or mine, or even to program, will the world
still be under a system of capitalism?

------
humanrebar
> The problem is that everything has a price.

No, the problem is that everything has a relative value and someone needs to
figure out what that value is. In free-market capitalist societies (and I'd
argue in the other ones as well), money serves as an important heuristic for
value.

More concretely, do we, as a society, produce more fuel efficient cars or do
we produce electric ones? In a free market, it's clear the one that sells will
be produced. In a controlled economy, the process is murkier and runs through
bureaucracies (and therefore lobbyists) and possibly lawmakers (and therefore
more lobbyists).

So free market capitalism is really a form of crowd-sourced decision-making.
Alternatives would need to invent a working model that can prioritize (in the
face of difficult facts, even) in an egalitarian way, balancing the needs of
different interests.

I read through the linked page. I didn't see anything describing how that
would work, even in the Chomsky link.

~~~
pastProlog
It is a strange thing to use cars as an example of a free market. The
government just bailed out the auto industry. The government bailed out
Chrysler with loans and government contracts in the 1970s as well. The auto
industry lobbied for and got massive public subsidies for highway and road
construction, while lobbying against mass transit, or just smashing it like GM
did with NCL. Not to mention the federal government reviving Depression-racked
Detroit's fortunes when the industrial plants began having tanks roll out
during WWII. The auto industry never wanted to operate in a "free market".

~~~
humanrebar
I wouldn't claim that the car market is especially free either. You could
replace car with "widget" if you'd like.

------
skilesare
If you want both Liberty and Community to emerge as the dominant platform, you
are going to have to explore other avenues than legislating it or convincing
people of it. You are going to have to re-align incentives. It is going to
have to emerge through a catallaxy of people pursuing different goals. This
can be done by creating a society where:

1\. Money spent in and around the community brings more benefit than money
spent in a far off place. 2\. Success at a higher level of administration is
dependent on the success of lower levels of administration(probably also
controlled by the the flows of voluntary tax revenue).

Even then, the type of 'communism' that develops won't be a top down variety
that we saw fail miserably in the 20th century, but a bottom up version that
is highly anti-fragile and able to move very quickly to take advantage of
volatility.

------
zoner
The two worst thing ever happened to earth in one ideology. Congratulations!

~~~
arethuza
Out of interest, what two worst things are you referring to?

~~~
vidarh
He is conflating right wing libertarianism with the libertarianism referred
to, and stalinism/leninism with the communism referred to.

------
TomGullen
Libertarianism is hugely flawed. Garbage in, garbage out. I don't think
anything incorporating hugely flawed philosophies is ever going to be a good
idea.

~~~
Synaesthesia
This definition of Libertarianism should not be confused with what is called
Libertarianism in the USA.

------
notNow
I have read the whole thing and I was really surprised that they didn't
mention anything about individualism or non-authoritarian decentralized
governance given the "libertarian" label in their name and unless I'm
mistaken, they sound more collectivist-leaning than individualist-leaning and
this is very troubling esp. for communists as they tend historically to favor
heavy-handed measures to reach or realize their political goals even if it
means to oppress and intimidate their opponents.

BTW: I'm a leftie myself but very skeptical of collectivists and statists
whether on the right or the left.

~~~
erikdstock
As others have said the term 'libertarian' has historically and outside the
USA had much more 'collectivist' connotations and early on bore much more
resemblance to anarchist and communist movements- it recognized that
controlling property and capital (or having it kept from you) was a factor in
your individual liberty, could be used to force you to work, etc.

libertarian communist is to put it crassly an attempt to re-brand and re-merge
the anarchist and socialist traditions (which are much more diverse than mao
and stalin) and to remove the supposed schizm between libertarianism and
communism. not to propose any single template but to stop taking for granted
the current social/political/economic orders and explore new ways of
organizing society, etc.

------
jevgeni
Why is this drivel on top of HN?

