Can anyone explain LibSoc vs. Bernie/EU-style socialism? It's not just a means of craming free-market bs into social safety, is it?
Nope, it's not. "Libertarian socialism" and "anarchism" are often used more-or-less interchangeably, though I'm sure someone will take issue with that categorization. The pro-capitalist usage of the word "libertarian" is an appropriation of a leftist term by the right.
I am beyond sick and tired of both left and right wing people using "Libertarian" to refer to lunatics from the American GOP who decided to co-op and abuse the term.
Libertarianism per se has nothing to do with capitalism per se. You can have libertarianism with or without capitalism and vice-versa, at least in principle (in practice, of course, some implementations are going to be more challenging than others to design and/or implement).
Democratic socialism is often seen as a form of libertarian socialism as well. There are actually a bunch of different left-lib modes which are a bit more moderate that outright anarchy.
Bernie likes EU-style socialism. He says so. Also, he's been called a sewer socialist, i.e., someone who, when in charge, makes sure the basics (sewers, water, potholes, etc.) are taken care of. Leftists who dwell in theory more than practice sometimes look down on sewer socialism. LibSoc: Chomsky identifies as LibCom--close enough.
I like that. Alright. I'm a sewer socialist. The only times I've ever interracted with campaigners, my first questions are of how the homeless will be treated, how the roads will be maintained, how they choose to bid on infrastructure contracts, and how they're protecting small businesses. If their answer in any way does not confront the question, or if I catch even a whiff of free-market talk, I walk/hang up instantly.
Depends on who you ask. If you ask a Marxist they will probably tell you LibSoc has a similar goal as they have but will fall back into regular capitalism along the way.
From a Marxist perspective LibSoc is Utopian Socialism (as opposed to Scientific Socialism) as it builds on ideals and doesn't take into account an analysis of the material conditions and class struggle Marxists derive from it.
More broadly ideals are seen by Marxists as a product of their time and its material conditions (historical materialism) and, since those material conditions brought forth the current burgeoisie, they are inherently biased towards it. (An example Engels gives is the self-evidence of private ownership in the philosophy of the so called "age of the enlightenment", the prevalent racism and sexism in those philosophies would be other examples)
In that context one could bring up that Anarchism (essentially a form of LibSoc) was used by the FBI in COINTELPRO to disrupt existing socialist movements, but in all fairness that was probably primarily done bc it was the best way to promote leftist infighting. Though I wager the FBI would never "support" ML in the same way to disrupt anarchism, so part of it must have been that anarchism is less threatening to existing power structures.
I don't intent to discredit LibSoc and anarchism I relate with their ideals and some implementations like mutual help. I do believe though that a Marxist critique and analysis is extremely valuable and should be studied by anachists and LibSocs alike.
Get out of here with this bullshit, anarchism was considered the most disruptive movement on the left but tankies are idiots. Anarchists groups were infiltrated just as ML ones.
I take it you disagree, that is your prerogative.
For what its worth I didn't see that I was in c/anarchism. Had I seen the question was asked from an anarchist view I wouldn't have responded.
I do believe what I wrote but I understand that it can come across as an insult here. And that was not my intention.
but tankies are idiots
I do think that is not a good take though, for one bc "tankie", by now, is just a slur to prevent someone from being taken seriously and secondly bc I believe it is ignorant to disregard a Marxist analysis.
As a Marxist has to answer to an anarchist critique of justification and potential corruption of a centralised power an Anarchist would do good to ponder on a materialist critique and socialization of production
s a Marxist has to answer to an anarchist critique of justification and potential corruption of a centralised power
Please describe it without saying all ML projects were revisionists. I know there are non-Leninists Marxists of course.
Sorry I don't understand. What should I describe? (I don't believe MLs are revisionist, and Marx and Engels were obviously very much in favour of authority)
In case my statement was a little convoluted and misunderstood:
I expressed my opinion that there are tough ideological questions on both sides that the other side has answered for itself and that exploring ones own ideology through the eyes of the other is therefore beneficial. And to do that it takes an honest effort at (at least superficially) understanding it.
I asked where Marxists theoreticians did this:
As a Marxist has to answer to an anarchist critique of justification and potential corruption of a centralised power
Certainly, pretty much all of them dealt with the question of justifying authority. That doesn't mean ofc that one should simply accepts the answers given.
That is also why I brought those topics up, bc they are the difficult ones in both ideologies. (justification/corruption of power [Marxism] vs. industrial production/class divide [Anarchism])
Also different Marxist authors reach different conclusions, but a general justification for transitional authority of one class is common ofc. A defense of revolutionary authority that is more approachable from a anarchist/libertarian standpoint is Rosa Luxemburgs "Reform or Revolution", in which she also criticizes the lack of democracy in the USSR. Engels "On Authority" is often suggested, but I find it too short and not thorough enough. Antonio Gramsci is also often credited with a nuanced examination with authority
I can attempt a simple sketch of what I think is a common argument (that doesn't do actual reading any justice) to justify state authority:
Marxists base their analysis on materialism. In their view what shapes the social order first and foremost are the material conditions of society, for the sake of the argument say the distribution of wealth (criminally oversimplified to the point its wrong). Individuals on opposing ends of the distribution have irreconcilable material interests (example: employer wants to pay low wages, employee wants high wages) but they share these interests with others in the same end of the distribution, those form classes.
One class has more influence over society (the owning class) and they shape the ruling ideology justifying them (implicitly) as the ruling class. (An argument that material conditions more so than rational thought shape an ideology is that the philosophers of the so called "age of reason" deemed private ownership self-evident as well as racism as sexism). The state becomes the instrument of one class to rule the other.
Since class interests are oppositional the ruling class will never voluntarily accept the oppressed class as equal (The narrative of "Class collaboration" is actually associated with fascism), therefore "class struggle" is inevitable.
The only seen way out of this is a dissolution of contradictions that arise from a divide in material conditions, this necessitates both the development of the productive forces to a point where scarcity doesn't necessarily begets class contradictions and the disenfranchisement ("proletarization") of the bourgeoisie, in short a dissolution of classes per se. The vehicle to bring about these changes needs to facilitate a power inversion between the classes (i.e. for de-privatization). Since that doesn't happen voluntarily revolutionary authority is necessary and the state is chosen as the instrument, which then acts as a tool of the proletariat to assert themselves over the burgeoisie, hence the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" (dotP). A succeeding socialist state brings the classes closer together until class contradictions dissolve and the material common interests align. At that point the ideals of anarchist and communist align as well.
Re corruption I don't know too much. I know Rosa Luxemburg has written about it too in her elaboration on the Russian revolution, I haven't read it though. Ofc the Maoist "cultural revolution" was somewhat of a (failed) attempt to preemptively prevent corruption. Nowadays the communist party of China follows thought around "self-revolution" which is directed against corruption, but again: superficial knowledge.
Yes but the purity of ideological orthodoxy points to the one true Skotsman.. I mean leninist.
:)
