3 ms·

After reading the page it looks like a lot of communism and very little libertarianism.. Why is libertarianism mentioned? To me libertarianism requires at least

by trengrj 11y ago

After reading the page it looks like a lot of communism and very little libertarianism.. Why is libertarianism mentioned? To me libertarianism requires at least giving people the freedom to buy and sell while this libcom site argues "the problem is that everything has a price". Are we going to have to start using the words "classical libertarianism" soon? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism#Meaning_of_the_term https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism#Meaning...

Synaesthesia 11y ago
This definition of Libertarianism should not be confused with what is called Libertarianism in the USA, which is an extreme protector of individual property rights. It is confusing because this definition arose originally in Europe and understood to be a form of socialism, not at all like the American definition.
vidarh 11y ago
Classical libertarianism is libertarian communism. The term libertarianism originates with the French anarcho-communist Joseph Déjacques back in the 19th century, and was championed by groups like the Socialist League in the UK (which was supported by Friedrich Engels and Eleanor Marx amongst others). Modern-day right-wing libertarianism is the new kid on the block. Basically in the late 1800's the main split between anarchists and communists in the First International was not predominantly their end goal. E.g. consider the famous concept of the "whithering away of the state" (coined by Friedrich Engels, but Engels attributed the idea to Marx): that given that according to Marxism the state is predominantly a tool of class rule, and that communism by their definition is the stage of society where there no longer are any classes, the state will cease to have a political purpose and will "whither away". So anarchists and communists agreed the state was a tool of oppression and that this oppression must be removed, and that the state will eventually disappear. The split was over methods. How to get there. The anarchists generally favoured a quicker, more immediate, dismantling of the state (whether by taking control and orderly dismantling it, or by rising up and destroying it), while communists generally favoured an intermediate transitional stage. In Marxism the intermediate stage is socialism: A phase where the proletariat is meant to take control of the state (hence the "dictatorship of the proletariat" in contrast with Marx description of capitalist democracies as the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie"), and for the first time wield it as a weapon of the majority against the minority, and use it to remove the class differences. So communists traditionally saw the state as a tool for the working class. Eventually this lead to the split of the First International, where Marx came out victorious, and most of the anarchists left when Bakunin was thrown out. Not long after, new libertarian socialist/communist tendencies started "filling the gap" in the International left by the anarchists. The extent of support for a strong state varied greatly amongst people who called themselves communists, leading to screeds like Lenins "Left Communism: An Infantile Disorder", which targeted exactly libertarian Communists which opposed his ideas of a vanguard.
- humanrebar 11y ago
  > according to Marxism the state is predominantly a tool of class rule, and that communism by their definition is the stage of society where there no longer are any classes, the state will cease to have a political purpose and will "whither away" So who runs the justice system, commands the military, and protects the rights of the citizens?
  - Synaesthesia 11y ago
    Representative councils which ar democratically elected by ordinary citizens.
    - humanrebar 11y ago
      How is that not a Democratic state?
      - Synaesthesia 11y ago
        It differs in that it supposes having democratic, popular control of industry in addition to politics.
  - vidarh 11y ago
    The key defining aspect of a state is that it has sovereignty vested in it: Power flows from the state down, no matter how who controls the state is determined. It then becomes a weapon of those who control the state, which is never the population as a whole (at best it might be a majority). This is its political purpose. The state also serves administrative functions, but the existence of these administrative functions do not rely on the state any more than current supranational organs rely on a single world government handing down power: They can continue to exist by having their power delegated from below. The difference, of course, being that when you are dependent on having your power delegated from "below", you need to thread much more carefully.
pastProlog 11y ago
No. Classical libertarianism would be of a "left wing" type, as libertarian was a word used on the left since the 19th century. Only in the post-WWII US did some on the right begin using the term.

by trengrj 11y ago

Synaesthesia 11y ago

This definition of Libertarianism should not be confused with what is called Libertarianism in the USA, which is an extreme protector of individual property rights. It is confusing because this definition arose originally in Europe and understood to be a form of socialism, not at all like the American definition.

vidarh 11y ago

Classical libertarianism is libertarian communism. The term libertarianism originates with the French anarcho-communist Joseph Déjacques back in the 19th century, and was championed by groups like the Socialist League in the UK (which was supported by Friedrich Engels and Eleanor Marx amongst others). Modern-day right-wing libertarianism is the new kid on the block. Basically in the late 1800's the main split between anarchists and communists in the First International was not predominantly their end goal. E.g. consider the famous concept of the "whithering away of the state" (coined by Friedrich Engels, but Engels attributed the idea to Marx): that given that according to Marxism the state is predominantly a tool of class rule, and that communism by their definition is the stage of society where there no longer are any classes, the state will cease to have a political purpose and will "whither away". So anarchists and communists agreed the state was a tool of oppression and that this oppression must be removed, and that the state will eventually disappear. The split was over methods. How to get there. The anarchists generally favoured a quicker, more immediate, dismantling of the state (whether by taking control and orderly dismantling it, or by rising up and destroying it), while communists generally favoured an intermediate transitional stage. In Marxism the intermediate stage is socialism: A phase where the proletariat is meant to take control of the state (hence the "dictatorship of the proletariat" in contrast with Marx description of capitalist democracies as the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie"), and for the first time wield it as a weapon of the majority against the minority, and use it to remove the class differences. So communists traditionally saw the state as a tool for the working class. Eventually this lead to the split of the First International, where Marx came out victorious, and most of the anarchists left when Bakunin was thrown out. Not long after, new libertarian socialist/communist tendencies started "filling the gap" in the International left by the anarchists. The extent of support for a strong state varied greatly amongst people who called themselves communists, leading to screeds like Lenins "Left Communism: An Infantile Disorder", which targeted exactly libertarian Communists which opposed his ideas of a vanguard.

humanrebar 11y ago
> according to Marxism the state is predominantly a tool of class rule, and that communism by their definition is the stage of society where there no longer are any classes, the state will cease to have a political purpose and will "whither away" So who runs the justice system, commands the military, and protects the rights of the citizens?
- Synaesthesia 11y ago
  Representative councils which ar democratically elected by ordinary citizens.
  - humanrebar 11y ago
    How is that not a Democratic state?
    - Synaesthesia 11y ago
      It differs in that it supposes having democratic, popular control of industry in addition to politics.
- vidarh 11y ago
  The key defining aspect of a state is that it has sovereignty vested in it: Power flows from the state down, no matter how who controls the state is determined. It then becomes a weapon of those who control the state, which is never the population as a whole (at best it might be a majority). This is its political purpose. The state also serves administrative functions, but the existence of these administrative functions do not rely on the state any more than current supranational organs rely on a single world government handing down power: They can continue to exist by having their power delegated from below. The difference, of course, being that when you are dependent on having your power delegated from "below", you need to thread much more carefully.

pastProlog 11y ago

No. Classical libertarianism would be of a "left wing" type, as libertarian was a word used on the left since the 19th century. Only in the post-WWII US did some on the right begin using the term.