Left-libertarianism: a summary

[vaguelyhumanoid]

Left-libertarianism is an anti-corporate, culturally leftist variety of market anarchism. Left-libertarians view corporate privilege as sanctioned by the State through artificial barriers to entry, such as occupational licensing, intellectual monopoly, artificial land scarcity, the money monopoly, and various types of subsidies. Thus, big government doesn't "fight" big business, but rather the two go hand-in-hand. Subcontracting, eminent domain profiteering and war profiteering are other examples of this tendency throughout history.

The left-libertarian's solution is not to vote candidates into office, but rather to construct an alternative economy outside the corporate-state nexus. Cooperatives, bartering, alternative currency, filesharing, growing your own food, not reporting income to the state-all these things and more are everyday acts of resistance for the left-libertarian. As the counter-economy grows, the state-sponsored, corporate capitalist economy loses its thin veneer of legitimacy.

The left-libertarian, unlike many libertarians, recognize that liberty goes beyond simple non-coercion. The left-libertarian opposes all cultural forms of privilege, and supports a society where no one is excluded for race, gender, or other factors. Non-coercively combating prejudice is important to left-libertarians.

Left-libertarians have varying ideas about property. Some support the homesteading theory. Some support Georgist-based systems. Some support possesion-based systems. Similarly, left-libertarians vary in their theories of economic value.

However, all left-libertarians can agree on one thing: the consistent advocacy of liberty for all.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

Libertarian Socialism:

Libertarian socialism (sometimes called social anarchism, and sometimes left libertarianism) is a group of political philosophies that promote a non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic, stateless society without private property in the means of production. Libertarian socialism is opposed to all coercive forms of social organization, and promotes free association in place of government and opposes what it sees as the coercive social relations of capitalism, such as wage labor. The term libertarian socialism is used by some socialists to differentiate their philosophy from state socialism or by some as a synonym for Left anarchism.

Libertarian socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Libertarian / Anarchist Communism:

Anarchist communism (also known as anarcho-communism and occasionally as free communism) is a theory of anarchism which advocates the abolition of the state, private property, and capitalism in favor of common ownership of the means of production, direct democracy and a horizontal network of voluntary associations and workers' councils with production and consumption based on the guiding principle: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

Anarchist communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Ishraqiyun]

I'm a Libertarian Socialist myself. Are there any others here?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I'm a Libertarian Socialist myself. Are there any others here?

I wouldn't necessarily identify as such, but the outline of ideas expressed in that short Wikipedia-article sound quite like my own.

I think I could be labeled an ecosocialist with technogaian tendencies:

"Eco-socialism, green socialism or socialist ecology is an ideology merging aspects of Marxism, socialism, green politics, ecology and alter-globalization. Eco-socialists generally believe that the expansion of the capitalist system is the cause of social exclusion, poverty, war and environmental degradation through globalization and imperialism, under the supervision of repressive states and transnational structures.
Eco-socialists advocate the dismantling of capitalism and the state, focusing on collective ownership of the means of production by freely associated producers and restoration of the commons."

"Technogaianism (a portmanteau word combining "techno-" for technology and "gaian" for Gaia philosophy) is a bright green environmentalist stance of active support for the research, development and use of emerging and future technologies to help restore Earth's environment. Technogaians argue that developing safe, clean, alternative technology should be an important goal of environmentalists."

 

[vaguelyhumanoid]

I'm a mutualist, which is essentially a libertarian market socialist.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

"Technogaianism

Interesting. This is the first I've heard of the term, thanks.

 

[tolly]

Just thinking out loud.

If there is no corporations, where will people work? Collectives sound good on paper, but they are no guarantors of equitable distribution of all goods and services. An individual has to have some certainty that what he sows will return gains to himself when he reaps. If he gives, then he must get. The inherent bartering which presumably must occur in this scenario is the seed from which capitalism grows.

Assuming all of the above is true in practice, then some entity must be able to arbitrate the bartering to insure just balance in the transfer of goods from one to another. This would be the seed of the 'statehood'.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Just thinking out loud.

If there is no corporations, where will people work? Collectives sound good on paper, but they are no guarantors of equitable distribution of all goods and services. An individual has to have some certainty that what he sows will return gains to himself when he reaps. If he gives, then he must get. The inherent bartering which presumably must occur in this scenario is the seed from which capitalism grows.

There's plenty of work to go around - in fact, capitalism depends on an underclass of unemployed have-nots that can be used as leverage against low-ranking employees demanding fairer wages. "Well, if you don't want it - there's plenty of people waiting beyond that door, ready to work for a fraction of what you get, under worse conditions!"
The trick is to place less absolute power in the hands of those who'd otherwise be able to exploit those beneath them. In our current system, everything's determined by the interests of shareholders, not by the interests of society or of the people actually involved in the production of goods or the offering of services.
I'm not saying that an investor shouldn't receive more than, say, the guy who sweeps the floor at the end of the day. Different kinds of work that demand different levels of sophistication and effort certainly should be paid differently as well.

But as it is, the system's completely out of joint. A nurse can work overtime until she burns out, and yet all of her effort, dedication and talent won't give her a fraction of the pay that some stock brokers receive. (I think the current average payoff of a stock broker is about 200-300 times as high.)
Now, I'm not necessarily saying that the stock broker should NOT receive a somewhat higher wage than the nurse - but the difference has become too big. Unless he works 200-300 times as hard as the nurse, that is.

Assuming all of the above is true in practice, then some entity must be able to arbitrate the bartering to insure just balance in the transfer of goods from one to another. This would be the seed of the 'statehood'.

You might not be wrong here - which is why I consider all forms of libertarianism/anarchism to be quite utopian - but even an utopia that can never be truly achieved might still improve conditions in real life, just by aspiring to tackle the negative aspects of the status quo.

 

[jonsun80]

who will build roads and bridges and [effectively] stop crime?

 

[MorkandMindy]

who will build roads and bridges and [effectively] stop crime?

First define 'crime'.

The US was waging war against Vietnam (look at the history sub forum), and killed a few million peasants in the process of gaining access to the oil/gas at a good price.

Is killing people for money a crime?



Competition has it's place, but as a basis for society it inevitably leads to a lot of damage. Stopping crime isn't an effective way to handle the problem either, that's hardly news, but people ignore it because prisons are a source of cheap labor and locking up the young black male population gives improved access to the young black female population. It isn't stupidity that makes people do nasty things, there is always a reason.

 

[jonsun80]

really? you think crime against the general population would just disappear because the government goes away? How that working for Somalia again? and if theres no government why would everyone just go along with your ideal economics on their own? who's to stop corporations, gangs and cartels from taking over everything? again African style rag-tag militias?

what you're actually describing is the Marxist ideal. Marxism states that the goal of communism is the complete eradication of government. The Soviets realized just how impossible that is and turned to statist communism.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I think it depends on how you define "state": I agree that it is virtually impossible to protect the interests of society against exploitation at the hands of the exceptionally rich or powerful without some sort of organization or institution.

However, the nation state (which is actually quite a new idea with no more than two centuries under its belt) has turned out to be a rather dysfunctional model - and the autocratic soviet-style state even more so.

The more power you hand over to an administration, the more potential for abuse and exploitation is entailed. In our day and age, a more direct form of democracy might be advisable - however, this would make it necessary for people to actually inform themselves more thoroughly, rather than being spoon-fed with emotional catch-phrases by some talk radio host or tabloid journalist.

 

[Tim Myers]

If the Left-Libertarianists a totally successful, won't that make them the capitalists??.......

 

[jonsun80]

again a decentralized government has and is being tested. you end up with a nation such as Somalia or Afghanistan. Or you can look back into the early industrial revolution in the US. we were rampant with trusts, monopolies and cartels running and owning everything and making darn sure no competition came in. so we started regulating commerce.

there usually isnt a quick formula for everyone and everything. And this is definitely not the first time these sort of ideas have been thought of.

Just as any other economic utopia, it sounds great on paper but the reality is something very different.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Surveys have found most Americans agree on most things they want the government to do and not do, the sharp polarisation between Democrat and Republican has been created by the two party state - it isn't the result of opinions but rather has caused them.


It costs 1 billion dollars to fund a Presidential campaign so his sponsors are wealthy and it isn't surprising Presidents are way off to the right of the majority of the population.

Unfortunately exactly the same thing is true of the mainstream media, it costs a bundle and is run by the rich and powerful. They provide us with the official liberal media which comes to the same conclusions in most cases as the 'radical right' media, now there's a surprise.

Put the two together and you have a totally whacked out country getting into every war possible with an economy sinking into the swamp.

 

[MorkandMindy]

I don't follow your 'pick an African country and discredit a political system' sort of approach.


I would have thought the sensible approach would be to pick a successful country and find out how they do things.

The obvious choice is Germany.

yes I know it is a bit out of date but there is so much interest in prejudice an so little in fact that no body has ever asked me to update it

 

[Tim Myers]

Not lookin' good for the ol' U.S. of A...........

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Unfortunately, the current German government (and the "New Labor"-esque government that came before) follow the approach of "copying the US as closely as possible is the route to success", and "the market will put everything to rights if we remove as many controls as possible".

Even in Germany, the last two decades have seen the rich grow all the richer, while the middle class and their rights are gradually eroding to bolster the profits of major corporations.

 

[Tim Myers]

May I ask: What happens in a country when everyone living in it has the same amount of money??.....

 

[jonsun80]

I don't follow your 'pick an African country and discredit a political system' sort of approach.

well first you're caught up in the latest meme about national debt meaning anything. you know we have always been in debt right? that's because the government, us the people, are in a free market and we must borrow private credit at intrest.

second of all looking at current examples of little to no government nations is fallacious how exactly? If you want a good example of what anarchy is like in the modern day, with modern technology, looking to a country with practically no government is a perfect example.

And third, Somalia is an African country, yes. Afghanistan and 19th century USA are not. I assumed most people were aware of this.