Libertarian Socialism - I don't understand...

[ojc02]

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.

[Dan.]

[ 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.

[ojc02]

[ 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?...

[Dan.]

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).

[ojc02]

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)

[hmkpoker]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

The willingness to punish aggressors proportionately to their aggression.

[Dan.]

[ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry I neglected this. The belief that the "public" can do nothing on its own behalf must be adopted for AC.

[Paragon]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if I want something beyond my needs, like a Nintendo Wii? What if everyone wants one, but there are only so many? Or are there only public Wii's and you have to stand in line to play?

I know it sounds silly, but I'm genuinely curious, and not intentionally making a strawman. I don't have a mental grasp on how a society can fairly distribute all the goods and services without allowing for free trade and prices.

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if I want something beyond my needs, like a Nintendo Wii? What if everyone wants one, but there are only so many? Or are there only public Wii's and you have to stand in line to play?

I know it sounds silly, but I'm genuinely curious, and not intentionally making a strawman. I don't have a mental grasp on how a society can fairly distribute all the goods and services without allowing for free trade and prices.

[/ QUOTE ]

Winnar! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if I want something beyond my needs, like a Nintendo Wii? What if everyone wants one, but there are only so many? Or are there only public Wii's and you have to stand in line to play?

I know it sounds silly, but I'm genuinely curious, and not intentionally making a strawman. I don't have a mental grasp on how a society can fairly distribute all the goods and services without allowing for free trade and prices.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think there would be any Wii's in a "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" kind of world. No one, by any stretch of the imagination, needs a game console.