3 ms·

Yes and I also find the term “libertarian communist” useful to describe him (and myself).

by SequoiaHope 5y ago

pcthrowaway 5y ago
Those two things seem at odds to me.. how do you consider yourself both libertarian and communist?
- guerrilla 5y ago
  Here's an introduction to the term [1]. For the slightly more general concept of anarcho-communism, i.e. the main strain of anarchism in the world, [2]. For the even broader concept of libertarian socialism, see here [3]. 1. https://libcom.org/library/libertarian-communism-introduction https://libcom.org/library/libertarian-communism-introductio... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-communism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-communism 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
- balsam 5y ago
  Then you might be delighted to find out that the aristocrat Oscar Wilde took that one step further and even considered himself both hedonist and (libertarian-)socialist. Much odds!! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Soul_of_Man_Under_Socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Soul_of_Man_Under_Socialis...
  - SequoiaHope 5y ago
    Hedonist libertarian socialist makes perfect sense to me and describes me and many of my friends. A lot of socialists want collective power so we can reduce working hours and spend more time with each other having a good time.
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    None of those terms are on opposition.
- Ar-Curunir 5y ago
  Libertarian became co-opted to mean the modern “right-libertarian” only in the 1960s; before that it basically meant anarchist.
  - garmaine 5y ago
    Which has even less to do with communism though.
    - widespace_ 5y ago
      Not really, Anarcho-Communism, while not Marxist, is communist insofar as it is one of the remaining strains of "Idealistic Communism" as Marx and Engels would call the various worker's movements from before Marx' Scientific Materialism.
    - SequoiaHope 5y ago
      Kropotkin described himself as an anarchist communist in the 1890’s. There is a lot of historical meaning in the combination of those terms.
    - Ar-Curunir 5y ago
      Communism != Marxism.
      - southerntofu 5y ago
        In principle i agree, yet there is a distinction to make. There are anti-authoritarian marxists who argue that by the end of his life Marx himself had become critical of his own theories (eg. dictatorship of the proletariat). But yes, we'll agree that the most widely-known brand of marxism is in fact the very opposite of communism (as defined by a Stateless/classless society).
    - southerntofu 5y ago
      On the contrary, both in anarchist and marxist philosophy communism is defined as a society without State and social classes. While anarchists believe (and practice!) in dismantling the established social order here and now by systematically questioning power structures, marxist-leninists promoted the idea that building a "dictatorship of the proletariat" was a necessary step for a revolution to seize the repression means of the bourgeois State to make sure to go towards communism. This disagreement is what led to the fork of the 1st Internationale in the late 19th century. As history has shown, reestablishing the old forms of power (centralized State, political police, prisons, work) for the sake of the revolution didn't help to achieve any communism ever (USSR was profoundly anti-communist beyond the appearances: the secret police fought against all self-organized communes like Cronstadt or the peasant soviets of Ukraine). That's why anarchists to this day refer to marxism-leninism (what capitalists call "communism") as State-capitalism: it has the same structures and power balance than capitalism, with the difference that power is held not by the bourgeoisie but by a so-called avant-garde. But for the common people, the situation is very similar, as the promised Stateless/classless society is nowhere to be seen.
- SequoiaHope 5y ago
  You probably don’t want to watch a 52 minute video on that exact question but I did recently make one: https://youtu.be/KFcd5EQgMEQ https://youtu.be/KFcd5EQgMEQ But there have always been communists who want to organize production communally using purely voluntary means. I want to get together with other people like me and build and operate a “means of production” we control as I believe it is in our benefit to do so. But I have no interest in and explicitly oppose using force to coerce anyone into participating. That’s exactly what Peter Kropotkin thought too, way back in the late 1800’s. I am opposite from authoritarian communists who believe that a powerful state should be used to force communism on people. I, like Kropotkin, oppose that.
- southerntofu 5y ago
  Well in the history of communism, both were synonyms until Marx and Lenin popularized the "dictatorship of the proletariat". The 1871 Paris Commune (150y anniversary this year!) although it had some minor authoritarian components was profoundly anti-authoritarian and its massacre gave birth to the modern anarchist movement and the famous black flag (as worn by Louise Michel to commemorate the dozens of thousands of civilians and Communards executed by French army). The common understanding of communism used to be (and still is in many cultures/circles) the redistribution/decentralization of power and resources. The February "revolution" in 1917 in Russia was famously very decentralized with "soviets" (base assemblies) popping up everywhere (as trade unions, as local councils, etc) and organizing from the bottom up without a central authority. That is, until the october revolution during which Lenin and Trotsky and their power-hungry friends started literally hunting down all the anarcho-communists with their secret police in order to build their State-capitalist dystopia. If you're curious about more details about anarcho-communism and its varied history, I would recommend Emma Goldman's autobiography (which goes into great lengths about propaganda vs reality in bolshevik Russia) or Martha Ackelsberg's account of the Spanish revolution (1936) "Free women of spain". There's of course a lot more to be read on that topic if you're curious, but i found these two books to be very broad introductions to anarchism although they don't cover all the topics that intersect with anarchist politics (eg. anti-colonialism).
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  It’s also worth mentioning that “libertarian” was a left wing term until it was self consciously co-opted by a right wing American in the early 20th century. So how Kropotkin would understand that word and how we understand it varies significantly.

Yes and I also find the term “libertarian communist” useful to describe him (and myself).

pcthrowaway 5y ago

Those two things seem at odds to me.. how do you consider yourself both libertarian and communist?

guerrilla 5y ago
Here's an introduction to the term [1]. For the slightly more general concept of anarcho-communism, i.e. the main strain of anarchism in the world, [2]. For the even broader concept of libertarian socialism, see here [3]. 1. https://libcom.org/library/libertarian-communism-introduction https://libcom.org/library/libertarian-communism-introductio... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-communism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-communism 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
balsam 5y ago
Then you might be delighted to find out that the aristocrat Oscar Wilde took that one step further and even considered himself both hedonist and (libertarian-)socialist. Much odds!! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Soul_of_Man_Under_Socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Soul_of_Man_Under_Socialis...
- SequoiaHope 5y ago
  Hedonist libertarian socialist makes perfect sense to me and describes me and many of my friends. A lot of socialists want collective power so we can reduce working hours and spend more time with each other having a good time.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  None of those terms are on opposition.
Ar-Curunir 5y ago
Libertarian became co-opted to mean the modern “right-libertarian” only in the 1960s; before that it basically meant anarchist.
- garmaine 5y ago
  Which has even less to do with communism though.
  - widespace_ 5y ago
    Not really, Anarcho-Communism, while not Marxist, is communist insofar as it is one of the remaining strains of "Idealistic Communism" as Marx and Engels would call the various worker's movements from before Marx' Scientific Materialism.
  - SequoiaHope 5y ago
    Kropotkin described himself as an anarchist communist in the 1890’s. There is a lot of historical meaning in the combination of those terms.
  - Ar-Curunir 5y ago
    Communism != Marxism.
    - southerntofu 5y ago
      In principle i agree, yet there is a distinction to make. There are anti-authoritarian marxists who argue that by the end of his life Marx himself had become critical of his own theories (eg. dictatorship of the proletariat). But yes, we'll agree that the most widely-known brand of marxism is in fact the very opposite of communism (as defined by a Stateless/classless society).
  - southerntofu 5y ago
    On the contrary, both in anarchist and marxist philosophy communism is defined as a society without State and social classes. While anarchists believe (and practice!) in dismantling the established social order here and now by systematically questioning power structures, marxist-leninists promoted the idea that building a "dictatorship of the proletariat" was a necessary step for a revolution to seize the repression means of the bourgeois State to make sure to go towards communism. This disagreement is what led to the fork of the 1st Internationale in the late 19th century. As history has shown, reestablishing the old forms of power (centralized State, political police, prisons, work) for the sake of the revolution didn't help to achieve any communism ever (USSR was profoundly anti-communist beyond the appearances: the secret police fought against all self-organized communes like Cronstadt or the peasant soviets of Ukraine). That's why anarchists to this day refer to marxism-leninism (what capitalists call "communism") as State-capitalism: it has the same structures and power balance than capitalism, with the difference that power is held not by the bourgeoisie but by a so-called avant-garde. But for the common people, the situation is very similar, as the promised Stateless/classless society is nowhere to be seen.
SequoiaHope 5y ago
You probably don’t want to watch a 52 minute video on that exact question but I did recently make one: https://youtu.be/KFcd5EQgMEQ https://youtu.be/KFcd5EQgMEQ But there have always been communists who want to organize production communally using purely voluntary means. I want to get together with other people like me and build and operate a “means of production” we control as I believe it is in our benefit to do so. But I have no interest in and explicitly oppose using force to coerce anyone into participating. That’s exactly what Peter Kropotkin thought too, way back in the late 1800’s. I am opposite from authoritarian communists who believe that a powerful state should be used to force communism on people. I, like Kropotkin, oppose that.
southerntofu 5y ago
Well in the history of communism, both were synonyms until Marx and Lenin popularized the "dictatorship of the proletariat". The 1871 Paris Commune (150y anniversary this year!) although it had some minor authoritarian components was profoundly anti-authoritarian and its massacre gave birth to the modern anarchist movement and the famous black flag (as worn by Louise Michel to commemorate the dozens of thousands of civilians and Communards executed by French army). The common understanding of communism used to be (and still is in many cultures/circles) the redistribution/decentralization of power and resources. The February "revolution" in 1917 in Russia was famously very decentralized with "soviets" (base assemblies) popping up everywhere (as trade unions, as local councils, etc) and organizing from the bottom up without a central authority. That is, until the october revolution during which Lenin and Trotsky and their power-hungry friends started literally hunting down all the anarcho-communists with their secret police in order to build their State-capitalist dystopia. If you're curious about more details about anarcho-communism and its varied history, I would recommend Emma Goldman's autobiography (which goes into great lengths about propaganda vs reality in bolshevik Russia) or Martha Ackelsberg's account of the Spanish revolution (1936) "Free women of spain". There's of course a lot more to be read on that topic if you're curious, but i found these two books to be very broad introductions to anarchism although they don't cover all the topics that intersect with anarchist politics (eg. anti-colonialism).
ashtonkem 5y ago
It’s also worth mentioning that “libertarian” was a left wing term until it was self consciously co-opted by a right wing American in the early 20th century. So how Kropotkin would understand that word and how we understand it varies significantly.