Libertarian Socialism?

[D-Rex Naptime]

can someone please help me understand libertarian socialism? Admittedly, I get a little frustrated when I research it, because it doesn't seem to address how you get everyone to communaly own rights to production and property without government coercion, so my impatience might have caused me to miss something. So, in the following exercises, could you please explain how anarcho/ socialism, or libertarian socialism might work?

 

**Anarcho-Capitalism**Say, I own a farm. Another person might ask for some food from my farm. I agree to give him some food if he helps me with the farm work. This is capitalism. I still own the farm, because the farm itself was a product of my labor. Any supplemental work done by the helper would be rewarded by food which is the agreed upon trade for his labor, but the farm doesn't belong to him. This is he basis of property rights and capital and is enforced by empathy of the community around me, who recognizes that I should have claim to the farm of my creation.

 

**Anarcho-Socialism**Under this scenario, once I accept the help of another, the ownership is then transferred to him. I too would own it, but only to the extent of my contribution to the supplemental work done on the farm I created. What intrinsic law enforces this arrangement, as it does not seem to be empathy for my situation, as my right to my creation is disregarded in favor of the helper who did not create the farm. All this would do, is cause me to never accept help in exchange for anything. If someone wanted something from me who was not already as economically prosperous as I am, they would have to steal it from me. Seems that this scenario would require centralized power to choose to take from me and give to him.

 

Thoughts on this? I apologize for try form. I'm writing on my iPhone.

[andkon]

Yeah, they never really go into it ironing out the details. It's the Nirvana Fallacy of "capitalism is bad, therefore this commune stuff must be better." Well no. A conventional medicine may only cure 50% of the ill, but the snake oil may be even worse. Rothbard wrote a short essay on this topic: http://mises.org/library/syndical-syndrome

[Pepin]

I find understanding it difficult because it there are so many high level abstractions. There is a common argument that capitalism and social justice are incompatible because capitalism entails unequal wealth distribution, while social justice aims for a more equal distribution. There is so much in there. Reducing capitalism to voluntary trade between individuals is easy, but reducing the concept of social justice is just... uh... yeah. I mean reducing the concept of equality is difficult enough as there are so many different possible meanings depending on the context, and so many implications of any definition.

[D-Rex Naptime]

So does anyone have any idea how equal wealth distribution would be possible without an organized concerted effort back by the threat of violence?

[AynRand]

Noam Chomsky might give the best explanations of libertarian socialism. From my understanding Chomsky's anarcho syndicalism is just free market capitalism with an extreme emphasis on labor unions like unions should maintain control of decisions that the company makes . It almost always involves educating the workers of a society, and the idea is that you slowly transition away from statist power to a system where companies achieve the collective goals that is lost with the dismantling of the state except these companies are dominated by unions rather then by bosses as in an anarcho capitalist society. 

[D-Rex Naptime]

Thank you, but Chomsky derided anarcho capitalism, saying it would be "tyranny." The man is brilliant, but I feel his theories and philosophies are more rooted in the emotional appeal of equality, rather than reason. I have read and watched bits of his talks on syndicalism, but never have I seen him challenged on whether or not syndicalism is, at its core, a subversion of property rights. In other words, I haven't seen him address a scenarios like the ones above.

 

How do you think Chomsky would respond to the above scenarios? I'm stuck on this, because I'm sure there is something of value, or perhaps an inalienable right I'm not considering.

[AynRand]

Yeah Chomsky doesn't seem to get questioned on real economical anarcho syndicalism. I'm not sure which scenario Chomsky would support. My guess would be that Chomsky would support a farm that was run in a libertarian democratic way. The prices would probably be set by some sort of voting system by the workers, and the profits would probably be distributed evenly throughout the number of workers, or maybe by how many hours each worker worked or something like that. This would all be set upon a series of contracts that support every worker with the union that runs the farm. So the union probably owns the farm, and accepts the labor from all of its members who in turn get a share of the profits. So property rights still exist, but in an anarcho syndicalist society there would be a series of voluntary contracts that would share the wealth between all it's workers. I think these companies are called syndicates, but I could be wrong on that. 

[LovePrevails]

libertarian socialism (socialism without the state) to contrast state socialism that is all

[Pepin]

Yeah Chomsky doesn't seem to get questioned on real economical anarcho syndicalism. I'm not sure which scenario Chomsky would support. My guess would be that Chomsky would support a farm that was run in a libertarian democratic way. The prices would probably be set by some sort of voting system by the workers, and the profits would probably be distributed evenly throughout the number of workers, or maybe by how many hours each worker worked or something like that. This would all be set upon a series of contracts that support every worker with the union that runs the farm. So the union probably owns the farm, and accepts the labor from all of its members who in turn get a share of the profits. So property rights still exist, but in an anarcho syndicalist society there would be a series of voluntary contracts that would share the wealth between all it's workers. I think these companies are called syndicates, but I could be wrong on that. 

 

This seems interesting. I might want to look into it just because it doesn't seem to be such a floating abstraction. I can't for the life of me understand communism.

 

Do you know if the idea is that these syndicates would be taken up because they are more efficient and provide more wealth, or is it to solve the issue of wealth inequality by providing an altruistic solution of at least half the population choosing a system which benefits the other half? Might be both as there has been this idea that centralized control is more efficient, but in the modern time the argument tends to be that centralization in the form of socialism or communism is far less efficient than the free market but is superior ethically, so I am not certain which route he'd go.

 

I tend to pitch just anarchism if I talk about it with other people because some people may not choose capitalism. I am quite certain anarcho-capitalism will be what most people choose, but some sort of mixture would be fine as well as long as it is voluntary. The main issue I have with certain anarchic theories is that it doesn't take the kids into account, which gets into the weird sort of Amish vibe.

[J. D. Stembal]

In a voluntary social commune, there would have to be a director or council running it. Heinlein explores this concept within a polyamorous family in the book, Friday.

 

The food in my stomach does nothing nutritious for you, so if there is a lack of food in the community, it will tend to find its way onto the black market where the commune can't touch it. This black market food will be traded or bartered in secret to the people who desire to have more food than they are being rationed.

[D-Rex Naptime]

A completely agree that anarcho-capitilism is simply just anarchy. The profit mechanism of capitalism requires no central planning. It would just happen, because people would likely trade with one another or steal from one another. Since I will defend myself against theft, there will be a market need for violence used against those who steal (and other crimes). It solves itself.

 

Essentially that is what happened in real life and is how we ended up with governments in the first place - the market need for violence. Since states are essentially corporations, like DROs, that represent your rights, where we went wrong is making your representation of rights dependent upon locality, rather than preference. Also, the states should be the ones paying the federal government, not the people through income tax. Bottom line, anarcho-capitalism isn't that far fetched or much of a stretch from our current system. It simply enhances the profit motive and competivenesd of states, by allowing consumers to easily transfer their membership to another state if they feel their current state is too intrusive.

[AncapFTW]

How would the Amish system fit in?  They share a lot of their stuff among the congregation.

[D-Rex Naptime]

Yeah of course. Socialism can exist within capitalism, but capitalism could not exist within socialism.

[AynRand]

Do you know if the idea is that these syndicates would be taken up because they are more efficient and provide more wealth, or is it to solve the issue of wealth inequality by providing an altruistic solution of at least half the population choosing a system which benefits the other half? Might be both as there has been this idea that centralized control is more efficient, but in the modern time the argument tends to be that centralization in the form of socialism or communism is far less efficient than the free market but is superior ethically, so I am not certain which route he'd go.

My understanding is that anarcho syndicalists believe in sacrificing wealth production for jobs. I don't think they argue that more wealth would be produced under their society, but I've never actually heard any of them ever say that. If they did try that I think I could refute that.