Libertarian Socialism - I don\'t understand...
 

Noam Chomsky apparently claims to be a libertarian socialist. At least, some guy on wikipedia says so. I guess I don't understand either libertarian socialism or anarcho-syndicalism. All my knowledge on the two comes from wikipedia and doesn't seem to make sense so I was hoping someone here could enlighten me...

It seems like anarcho-syndicalists argue that in an anarchic situation something socialist-esque would arise as opposed to ACists who argue that pure capitalism would occur. It seems to me that in an anarchic state, the situation would be far more capitalist than socialist.

Libertarian socialism seems like it's arguing that private property needs to be banned but without a coercive state... How on earth can one ban private property without a coercive agent forcing the situation?? I would own stuff I produce, and I'd want to protect it from other a$$holes.

I don't see these two political viewpoints getting much airtime here (for good reason) but I just want to understand where smart guys like Chomsky are coming from.

Re: Libertarian Socialism - I don\'t understand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
I would own stuff I produce, and I'd want to protect it from other a$$holes.

[/ QUOTE ]

This attitude isn't held by libertarian socialists and is indicitive of why you don't believe it.

Re: Libertarian Socialism - I don\'t understand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would own stuff I produce, and I'd want to protect it from other a$$holes.

[/ QUOTE ]

This attitude isn't held by libertarian socialists and is indicitive of why you don't believe it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I said I didn't understand, not that I don't believe it. Maybe if I did understand I would believe it (though I highly doubt it).

So, is it the case that in order for this to occur every person in the society has to eschew all private property voluntarily and give their product away to whoever asks for it?...

Re: Libertarian Socialism - I don\'t understand...
 

It comes down to "from each according to his skill and to each according to his need." People produce freely, knowing that they will in turn be able to consume freely.

Everyone will say "z0mg, people will hoard and not produce. This isn't human nature. FREE RIDERS!!!" And I don't disagree that implication of libertarian socialist ideas would definately require everyone to shift to the associated paradigm, but this is requisite for AC as well (as the more responsible ACists will concede).

Re: Libertarian Socialism - I don\'t understand...
 

I agree that for libertarian socialism to occur everyone would need to adopt that paradigm and I also agree that it's not likely at all. I don't think people will hoard exclusively, they would produce and trade their excess.

What paradigm shift is necessary for AC? (Honest question)

Re: Libertarian Socialism - I don\'t understand...
 

If the masses think the government exploits, and private production exploits, they can overthrow the state and democratize the means of production. I think the point is that if you get an overthrow by people intent on abolishing private ownership of the means of production, then you get exactly that. Do it today and it just trickles back up to a state anyway, but any kind of anarchy needs a fundamental change in the mindsight of the masses.

Chomsky on AC:

Question: Many "anarcho-capitalists" claim that anarchism means the freedom to do what you want with your property and engage in free contract with others. Is capitalism in any way compatible with anarchism as you see it?

Answer: Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history. There isn't the slightest possibility that its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they would quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error. The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke, perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequences of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else.

I should add, however, that I find myself in substantial agreement with people who consider themselves anarcho-capitalists on a whole range of issues; and for some years, was able to write only in their journals. And I also admire their commitment to rationality -- which is rare -- though I do not think they see the consequences of the doctrines they espouse, or their profound moral failings.

Re: Libertarian Socialism - I don\'t understand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Libertarian socialism seems like it's arguing that private property needs to be banned but without a coercive state... How on earth can one ban private property without a coercive agent forcing the situation?? I would own stuff I produce, and I'd want to protect it from other a$$holes.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't need a state to do this, you just need enough people who don't care about the potential of retaliation and they'll "steal" all the "property." (Of course, if enough people don't believe in property ownership, it ceases to have any meaningful existence.)

Anarcho-socialists believe that this will still incentivize production, which I think is batshit crazy. A human's natural incentive to consume FAR outweights his incentive to produce. Production in our world is almost always motivated by either status-seeking or consumption. Give someone a UBI, tell him he doesn't have to work, but he can if he wishes to contribute to the common good, and you're almost certainly going to have one very lazy person.

Re: Libertarian Socialism - I don\'t understand...
 

Today's AC hijack was brought to you by Poofler.


[ QUOTE ]
Chomsky on AC:

"Many "anarcho-capitalists" claim that anarchism means the freedom to do what you want with your property and engage in free contract with others. Is capitalism in any way compatible with anarchism as you see it?

Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history. There isn't the slightest possibility that its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they would quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error. The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke, perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequences of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else.

I should add, however, that I find myself in substantial agreement with people who consider themselves anarcho-capitalists on a whole range of issues; and for some years, was able to write only in their journals. And I also admire their commitment to rationality -- which is rare -- though I do not think they see the consequences of the doctrines they espouse, or their profound moral failings."

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't a logical argument. It's rhetoric, which is Chomsky's field of expertise.

Re: Libertarian Socialism - I don\'t understand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
What paradigm shift is necessary for AC? (Honest question)

[/ QUOTE ]

The willingness to punish aggressors proportionately to their aggression.

Re: Libertarian Socialism - I don\'t understand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is his big objection to AC. But what alternative does he want to propose that doesn't involve force? (and I think he would agree that the use of coercive force is a bad thing)

I agree with hmk, i just don't think people would ever produce the equivalent of what they would consume in anarcho-syndicalism. I know, why not have people trade amongst themselves in order to make sure that everyone produces an equal amount to their consumption?

Re: Libertarian Socialism - I don\'t understand...
 

It isn't a hijack, don't be a nit. The OP asked about Chomsky and reconciling how you get LS when he thinks AC is a more logical conclusion to a state overthrow. That shows you, as I pointed out, that if enough people have the "rhetorical" mindsight of Chomsky, property ceases to be "meaningful" as you even stated. You don't need coercion if no one recognizes your right. Thanks for jumping down my throat though.

That was your angry quote of the day, brought to you by hmkpoker.

Re: Libertarian Socialism - I don\'t understand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What paradigm shift is necessary for AC? (Honest question)

[/ QUOTE ]

The willingness to punish aggressors proportionately to their aggression.

[/ QUOTE ]

Something along the lines of: If someone steals a french fry from your plate you don't just shoot them in the face?

I could see how that could be a problem. (No sarcasm)

Re: Libertarian Socialism - I don\'t understand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
It isn't a hijack, don't be a nit. The OP asked about Chomsky and reconciling how you get LS when he thinks AC is a more logical conclusion to a state overthrow. That shows you, as I pointed out, that if enough people have the "rhetorical" mindsight of Chomsky, property ceases to be "meaningful" as you even stated. You don't need coercion if no one recognizes your right. Thanks for jumping down my throat though.

That was your angry quote of the day, brought to you by hmkpoker.

[/ QUOTE ]

The issue that I have with LS is that it seems like an unstable situation. Imagine a village where a whole group of people have eschewed the concept of private property. They produce, they put it in a big pot and they take what they need. It seems likely that at some point one guy would think: "Aha, I don't need to really work, I'll just fool around, look like I'm working and take from the pot". The other villagers upon realizing this decide they don't like whats happening (ie, they're producing and not getting much in return) and decide they're just going to keep what they produce.

LS just seems super unstable and I think it would fall into an AC system.

Edit: I guess Chomsky feels that AC would have to be "implemented" - I think it would occur naturally. In fact, the very concept of "implementing" AC doesn't really make any sense.

Re: Libertarian Socialism - I don\'t understand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
It isn't a hijack, don't be a nit. The OP asked about Chomsky and reconciling how you get LS when he thinks AC is a more logical conclusion to a state overthrow. That shows you, as I pointed out, that if enough people have the "rhetorical" mindsight of Chomsky, property ceases to be "meaningful" as you even stated. You don't need coercion if no one recognizes your right. Thanks for jumping down my throat though.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not an argument. That's my point. Chomsky doesn't address any issues relating to Austrian theory, game theory or human incentives when he attempts to debunk it, he simple lambasts it for being morally bankrupt. He says that there will be horrible consequences, but does not explain why.

However, you're right, the OP did ask about ACism so I shouldn't yell at you for a hijack; sorry about that [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Re: Libertarian Socialism - I don\'t understand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is his big objection to AC. But what alternative does he want to propose that doesn't involve force? (and I think he would agree that the use of coercive force is a bad thing)

[/ QUOTE ]

He would agree, but isn't the point that if the masses don't want private ownership and the "exploitation" it brings, it won't be recognized? If it's not legitimate, then I don't see how coercion is bad.

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with hmk, i just don't think people would ever produce the equivalent of what they would consume in anarcho-syndicalism. I know, why not have people trade amongst themselves in order to make sure that everyone produces an equal amount to their consumption?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree based on human nature. All these scanrios require a mental shift, but I think LS has much much further to go.

Re: Libertarian Socialism - I don\'t understand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
It seems likely that at some point one guy would think: "Aha, I don't need to really work, I'll just fool around, look like I'm working and take from the pot". The other villagers upon realizing this decide they don't like whats happening (ie, they're producing and not getting much in return) and decide they're just going to keep the freeloader from taking from the communal goods

[/ QUOTE ]

Simple result that doesn't require privitization.

Re: Libertarian Socialism - I don\'t understand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It seems likely that at some point one guy would think: "Aha, I don't need to really work, I'll just fool around, look like I'm working and take from the pot". The other villagers upon realizing this decide they don't like whats happening (ie, they're producing and not getting much in return) and decide they're just going to keep the freeloader from taking from the communal goods

[/ QUOTE ]

Simple result that doesn't require privitization.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that is true, they could do that. But then what happens if one decides to not really work very hard, but still take the equivalent of what is taken by a really hard worker? Do they shut him out too?

Re: Libertarian Socialism - I don\'t understand...
 

[ QUOTE ]

Well, that is true, they could do that. But then what happens if one decides to not really work very hard, but still take the equivalent of what is taken by a really hard worker? Do they shut him out too?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would someone not work hard? They're only cheating themselves. I don't work hard, but I take the same. Now other people slow down work, but take the same they used to. Now there are hardly any goods for anyone because no ones working. It's in everyone's interest that I work hard and encourage others to do the same.

Re: Libertarian Socialism - I don\'t understand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Well, that is true, they could do that. But then what happens if one decides to not really work very hard, but still take the equivalent of what is taken by a really hard worker? Do they shut him out too?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would someone not work hard? They're only cheating themselves. I don't work hard, but I take the same. Now other people slow down work, but take the same they used to. Now there are hardly any goods for anyone because no ones working. It's in everyone's interest that I work hard and encourage others to do the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that's my whole point. This is a game theory situation, it's in each individuals interest to cheat the system, but if they all do it then they're screwed. That's why I think it's unstable and you would wind up in the situation where everyone does the minimum possible to ensure their bare survival and no more.

Re: Libertarian Socialism - I don\'t understand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It isn't a hijack, don't be a nit. The OP asked about Chomsky and reconciling how you get LS when he thinks AC is a more logical conclusion to a state overthrow. That shows you, as I pointed out, that if enough people have the "rhetorical" mindsight of Chomsky, property ceases to be "meaningful" as you even stated. You don't need coercion if no one recognizes your right. Thanks for jumping down my throat though.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not an argument. That's my point. Chomsky doesn't address any issues relating to Austrian theory, game theory or human incentives when he attempts to debunk it, he simple lambasts it for being morally bankrupt. He says that there will be horrible consequences, but does not explain why.

However, you're right, the OP did ask about ACism so I shouldn't yell at you for a hijack; sorry about that [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right that he generally attacks the outcome without argument. I can't recall reading a refutation. You are probably more familiar with his writings, but would he just defer to the general private means of production -> exploitation of the working class?

Re: Libertarian Socialism - I don\'t understand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What paradigm shift is necessary for AC? (Honest question)

[/ QUOTE ]

The willingness to punish aggressors proportionately to their aggression.

[/ QUOTE ]

Something along the lines of: If someone steals a french fry from your plate you don't just shoot them in the face?

I could see how that could be a problem. (No sarcasm)

[/ QUOTE ]

I see how that could be a problem too. That's basically the old Jewish law right there, where countless misdemeanors (like talking back to your parents) were punishable by death. We've all also heard horror stories of middle eastern cultures where a pauper tries to steal a loaf of bread for his family, gets caught, and has his hand chopped off as a punishment. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

The problem is that no reasonable person would consider these penalties "fitting" to the crime. If an eye is to be paid for an eye, getting your hand chopped off is pretty ridiculous for petty theft. Even an early civilization with primitive technology, I'm pretty sure more than adequate restitution could be paid to the aggressed by a day's labor service from the aggressor; or, in today's society, a fine large enough to turn people off from petty theft (which shouldn't be too much).

The idea is to have a tit for a tat. Shooting someone for stealing a french fry would be like tens of thousands of tit s for a tat, and I think such an individual would have to be punished severely for such aggression. I think most people would accept a simple apology for such small theft.

Most human beings will defect from time to time and cause aggression. I'm pretty sure even civilized people in a libertarian society would do this. If we kill people over minor offenses, there's not going to be anyone left.

Re: Libertarian Socialism - I don\'t understand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well, that's my whole point. This is a game theory situation, it's in each individuals interest to cheat the system, but if they all do it then they're screwed. That's why I think it's unstable and you would wind up in the situation where everyone does the minimum possible to ensure their bare survival and no more.

[/ QUOTE ]

I generally agree with this. It's a simple free rider problem that requires a massive shift in human nature to work on a large scale.

Re: Libertarian Socialism - I don\'t understand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
That's why I think it's unstable and you would wind up in the situation where everyone does the minimum possible to ensure their bare survival and no more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, everyone has two options: cheat the system or not. Take you vs. everyone else in a payoff matrix. If you don't cheat, nor does everyone else, we're all benefited. If I cheat and you don't (or vice-versa), we're all slightly worse off, but still okay. If we both cheat, we all die. If you assume a few people will cheat (as is likely the case, since people will have incentive to do so), it is absolutely vital that you, yourself, do not cheat, or you'll doom everyone. However, if everyone thinks this way (as they logically should), they will all not cheat, and we will all have the greatest benefit.

Re: Libertarian Socialism - I don\'t understand...
 

Libertarian socialists differ from ACists in one big way, they believe property=theft, as Proudhon claimed. They see any type of ownership as exclusion, and thus immoral. They also see natural rights as a human construct.

I would think that in a stateless society there would be a mix of both private property and unowned property. What type of mix and to what degree would depend on how the society in question valued both viewpoints.

Re: Libertarian Socialism - I don\'t understand...
 

I don't think that's really a paradigm shift. I think virtually all people can accept that punishment should be proportional to the crime.

Dano: Is this the necessary paradigm shift to which you referred earlier?

Re: Libertarian Socialism - I don\'t understand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Dano: Is this the necessary paradigm shift to which you referred earlier?

[/ QUOTE ]

The necessary paradigm shift is just the non-coerced abadoning of private property. The post above is game theory.

Re: Libertarian Socialism - I don\'t understand...
 

Is libertarian socialism that stranded on a desert island situation? Where everyone works together until they get the hell out of there.

Re: Libertarian Socialism - I don\'t understand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's why I think it's unstable and you would wind up in the situation where everyone does the minimum possible to ensure their bare survival and no more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, everyone has two options: cheat the system or not. Take you vs. everyone else in a payoff matrix. If you don't cheat, nor does everyone else, we're all benefited. If I cheat and you don't (or vice-versa), we're all slightly worse off, but still okay. If we both cheat, we all die. If you assume a few people will cheat (as is likely the case, since people will have incentive to do so), it is absolutely vital that you, yourself, do not cheat, or you'll doom everyone. However, if everyone thinks this way (as they logically should), they will all not cheat, and we will all have the greatest benefit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that is rather "all-or-nothing". I think what would really happen is I would work a bit less hard, the pot would go down, other people would be realize they were working hard and not getting as much, so they stop working as hard. This process continues until they're doing just enough to scrape by.

Re: Libertarian Socialism - I don\'t understand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dano: Is this the necessary paradigm shift to which you referred earlier?

[/ QUOTE ]

The necessary paradigm shift is just the non-coerced abadoning of private property. The post above is game theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh yeah, but what paradigm shift is necessary for AC?

Re: Libertarian Socialism - I don\'t understand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's why I think it's unstable and you would wind up in the situation where everyone does the minimum possible to ensure their bare survival and no more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, everyone has two options: cheat the system or not. Take you vs. everyone else in a payoff matrix. If you don't cheat, nor does everyone else, we're all benefited. If I cheat and you don't (or vice-versa), we're all slightly worse off, but still okay. If we both cheat, we all die. If you assume a few people will cheat (as is likely the case, since people will have incentive to do so), it is absolutely vital that you, yourself, do not cheat, or you'll doom everyone. However, if everyone thinks this way (as they logically should), they will all not cheat, and we will all have the greatest benefit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why am I worse off if I cheat? Say 1000 people make widgets, which are consumed. Everyone makes 10 widgets a day. If I cheat, and sit on my hands, 9990 widgets get made. I get 9.99 widgets at the end of the day from the pot. I just gave up .001% of my consumption and never had to actually work. I think I'm better off in most cases.

Re: Libertarian Socialism - I don\'t understand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
You're right that he generally attacks the outcome without argument. I can't recall reading a refutation. You are probably more familiar with his writings, but would he just defer to the general private means of production -> exploitation of the working class?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm really not that familiar with his stuff, honestly. Propertarian and moorobot would probably be the guys to go to from here. I'm pretty sure borodog's read some of his stuff too. I read some of his stuff from Chomsky.info about his views on libertarian capitalism (which is pretty much the only reason I'd be interested in reading his work), but I haven't found anything beyond rhetoric. He strikes me as being more deontological than consequentialist in his theory, which makes it hard for me to follow his train of thought.

Re: Libertarian Socialism - I don\'t understand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think virtually all people can accept that punishment should be proportional to the crime.

[/ QUOTE ]
True, but people don't agree on what is proportional to each crime.

Re: Libertarian Socialism - I don\'t understand...
 

[ QUOTE ]

9990 widgets get made.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm assuming you mean 990 widgets get made. But 990 is clearly <1000. Would you agree that society benefits when there are more goods available? (Calling ACists to back up that claim)

Re: Libertarian Socialism - I don\'t understand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

9990 widgets get made.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm assuming you mean 990 widgets get made. But 990 is clearly <1000. Would you agree that society benefits when there are more goods available? (Calling ACists to back up that claim)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but the individual who's not working as hard is clearly benefiting more.

Re: Libertarian Socialism - I don\'t understand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

9990 widgets get made.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm assuming you mean 990 widgets get made. But 990 is clearly <1000. Would you agree that society benefits when there are more goods available? (Calling ACists to back up that claim)

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, your point?

Re: Libertarian Socialism - I don\'t understand...
 

[ QUOTE ]

Yes, your point?

[/ QUOTE ]

If only 990 widgets get made, we're all worse off.

Re: Libertarian Socialism - I don\'t understand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yes, your point?

[/ QUOTE ]

If only 990 widgets get made, we're all worse off.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, everyone except the guy doing less is worse off.

Re: Libertarian Socialism - I don\'t understand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yes, your point?

[/ QUOTE ]

If only 990 widgets get made, we're all worse off.

[/ QUOTE ]
Correct. That's why Poofler's example shows a problem for LS.

Edit- All things equal we're all worse off in the widget production factor. The person that did nothing and still got nearly as many widgets is clearly better off.

Re: Libertarian Socialism - I don\'t understand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

9990 widgets get made.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm assuming you mean 990 widgets get made. But 990 is clearly <1000. Would you agree that society benefits when there are more goods available? (Calling ACists to back up that claim)

[/ QUOTE ]

1000 people make 10 widgets per day. One guy sits out, so 9990 are made. From my selfish point of view, I, individually, am better off by cheating. Yes "society" benefits if I don't cheat. By "society", we just mean everyone else is better off if I don't cheat.

Re: Libertarian Socialism - I don\'t understand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yes, your point?

[/ QUOTE ]

If only 990 widgets get made, we're all worse off.

[/ QUOTE ]
Correct. That's why Poofler's example shows a problem for LS.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you assume cheaters exist, it is not advantageous to cheat as everyone will die due to lack of basic goods.

Edit: this is probably another factor of the necessary paradigm shift: people must actually be concerned with what happens to society in the long-run and not just to themselves in the short term.