Libertarian Socialism / Anarcho Communism

[Hitta]

The term Libertarian Socialism has bothered me for some time because I think the term is contradictory. Libertarianism and Socialism are two polar ideas. For socialism to exist, you have to have a centralized body in order to distribute wealth, there is literally no other way besides free exchange. Anarcho-communism takes this concept to an extreme that to me is laughable. No government, no centralized body... communism. Who the fuck is doing the wealth distributing? What is going to stop someone from printing money and distributing it? There are so many flaws in both of these ideas that I sometimes wonder if people have thought them through.

[Pa3s]

You obviously see communism/socialism and libertarianism as contradictory philosophies because you think of the "communism" established by the Bolsheviks and Stalin and not what communism is actually supposed to be. Unfortunately, this misconception is very common.

Communism is actually – and exclusively – an economic system. That means it can be paired with various political systems. What we have seen in so many countries like the Soviet Union, North Korea, China, ect. is not communism, but an extreme form of state capitalism, in which the state simply takes the place and function of the capitalist elite.

Anarcho-communism strives to established an extremely decentralized political and economic system with a collectivisation of the means of production. I could go on about this topic, because I wrote a short book about it. I also translated it in english, so I could give you the link if you want to know more about it. It's designed to be an introduction, but it might be a little hard to read.

[xerx]

Libertarian socialists believe that human nature is fundamentally cooperative. They see capitalism as contorting people to act selfishly in order to survive as part of the system. Capitalism can only be enforced by state violence and top-down regulations, which stand in the way of creating a more altruistic society.

Those are the assumptions they make. Libertarian capitalists start with the opposite assumption, that human nature is fundamentally competitive, and snowball from there...

[Hitta]

See heres the thing, most people tend to think of capitalism as an economic system, but in truth its the opposite of one... its free association... capitalism doesn't cause anyone to do anything. TBH I kind of hate the term capitalism, because it doesn't do justice to what its trying to represent.

[Not A Communist Shill]

I don't think it's worth arguing about what such terms mean in regards politics. Better just to vote for someone who's 6 foot 4 and has a wide grin.

[xerx]

See heres the thing, most people tend to think of capitalism as an economic system, but in truth its the opposite of one... its free association... capitalism doesn't cause anyone to do anything. TBH I kind of hate the term capitalism, because it doesn't do justice to what its trying to represent.

Libertarian socialists believe that socialism is the end result of total free association.

[strangeling]

You obviously see communism/socialism and libertarianism as contradictory philosophies because you think of the "communism" established by the Bolsheviks and Stalin and not what communism is actually supposed to be. Unfortunately, this misconception is very common.

Communism is actually – and exclusively – an economic system. That means it can be paired with various political systems. What we have seen in so many countries like the Soviet Union, North Korea, China, ect. is not communism, but an extreme form of state capitalism, in which the state simply takes the place and function of the capitalist elite.

What's it supposed to be?

[Pa3s]

What's it supposed to be?

Communism is supposed to be a society which is both classless and devoid of private property of production means (land, machines, factories, natural resources). It has never existed on a larger scale, but certainly on smaller ones in some form. Philosophers like Pyotr Kropotkin stated that communism can only be realised in combination with anarchism or it will fail. In the case of anarcho-communism, people govern themselves with radically democratic structures (direct democracy). And since the private property of production means is abolished, they will also be governed by a collective which is made up of all workers of the factory (for example).

Like every system, anarcho-communism has its downsides. The attempt to make every decision a radically democratic one makes the decision process very slow. So slow, that anarchist groups often had to resort to a more hierarchic organization when they had to fight (Ukraine 1918, Spain 1936). I always rejected the idea that anarcho-communism needs "perfect people" to work, but it is true that it is very demanding. To make it work, the people within the society have to be actively working for its success. They must want to live in such a society.

This makes the system susceptible to deterioration and manipulation, as you can see in the Soviet Union. It started out as a genuine people's uprising ("all power to the councils") until the Bolsheviks showed their real intentions and took over the revolution. They realised what we today know as "communism": a totalitarian state ruled by a political elite.