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)

[Poofler]

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.

[hmkpoker]

[ 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.

[hmkpoker]

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.

[hmkpoker]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

The willingness to punish aggressors proportionately to their aggression.

[ojc02]

[ 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?