libertarian socialism and anarcho syndicalism?
- This topic has 15 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
The SPGB is closer to Lafargue's critique of work than to syndicalism's organisation of industry.Libertarian socialism is not a term used consistently. I've heard it used to justify autonomism, basically do what you want, (squatting, guerilla gardening, etc.). I've even heard it used to justify organisational practices of a broad church approach where members funding the party have no coherence (agreeing on nothing but free to express this), and where a leadership minority make the actual decisions.The SPGB aim at capturing political power, this is the most effective approach. Unlike the ruling-class and their wanabees (many political currents, left and right), civil liberties such as freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of assembly, freedom of organisation (including at work), are freedoms the SPGB are not seeking to reverse.
Here's an article on syndicalism from our (vast) archives:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1980s/1986/no-986-october-1986/syndicalism-its-origin-and-weaknessSome people have called us "libertarian socialists" on the grounds that we stand for a society without a coercive state as opposed to so-called "state socialists" (really, proponents of state capitalism) who do. It's not a term we use ourselves though (nor do we accept the concept of "state socialism" — as it's an oxymoron like "military intelligence").
Well thought out. Thank you much. So I’m not a syndicalist. Arrgghh (pulls hair out). What am I?If it were to be rewritten though, I would consider“since they will be composed of non-socialists as well as of socialists. In fact at the present time, when the working class does not yet want and understand socialism, the overwhelming majority of trade unionists will inevitably be non-socialist and hence non-revolutionary.”I think a better way to look at that is functional. A trade union function has it’s hands full dealing with union issues and is limited by and to that primarily, necessarily, but a union member could be a socialist but pursue union activities and socialist activities.Still working on Lafargue's. Found this here where I don’t have to pay for it. http://www.marxists.org/archive/lafargue/1883/lazy/More later. Thanks again. Please don’t ban for me asking so much.
ALB wrote:….as it's an oxymoron like "military intelligence").admice wrote:Please don’t ban for me asking so much.No one gets banned from this forum for asking too much! Ask away!
I would hope socialists wouldn't have to call themselves 'libertarian' to permit questions to be asked without issuing a ban.
admice wrote:I think a better way to look at that is functional. A trade union function has it’s hands full dealing with union issues and is limited by and to that primarily, necessarily, but a union member could be a socialist but pursue union activities and socialist activities.Old Karl would agree
Quote:After this very long and, I fear, tedious exposition, which I was obliged to enter into to do some justice to the subject matter, I shall conclude by proposing the following resolutions:Firstly. A general rise in the rate of wages would result in a fall of the general rate of profit, but, broadly speaking, not affect the prices of commodities.Secondly. The general tendency of capitalist production is not to raise, but to sink the average standard of wages.Thirdly. Trades Unions work well as centers of resistance against the encroachments of capital. They fail partially from an injudicious use of their power. They fail generally from limiting themselves to a guerilla war against the effects of the existing system, instead of simultaneously trying to change it, instead of using their organized forces as a lever for the final emancipation of the working class that is to say the ultimate abolition of the wages system.http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/ch03.htm#c14
The real libertarians are the Anarchists, and Marx was an Anarchist in the real sense of the expression. The so called libertarian of our days, and those promoted by the politicians, are just supporters of capitalism, and they do not have a penny in their pockets, they are just wage slaves defending and propagating the ideas of their masters. It is what Fran Fannon used to call as Colonized mentalityThe Anarcho capitalist call themselves libertarians, and they are not, the peoples who speak about the stupid concept of big government they do not even know what they are saying, big government means state capitalism, and most Keynesian support state capitalism and heavy state expenses, ( 100% employment is only a capitalist dream in this society, they need the army of unemployed ) the oppositors are just a group of dreamers, because capitalism can not exist without state intervention, and there is not a class society without state. Neo-liberalism is another wrong conception propagated by the left wingers,( adopted from the right wingers and the capitalist ) their main concern is to promote state planning, regulation and control which is also state capitalism, there is not such thing as state socialism, or workers state,and the main feature of capitalism is not private property, it is the production of profits, and capitalism has never had a period of public ownership. Liberalism in its purity has never existed and it does not exist either Workers unions are just spontaneous organizations created by the working class in order to make economical claims, they are not instrument in order to propagate socialism, the left wingers used them to send their cadres with the main objective of propagating socialism, but they did not, in reality they were bringing their reformist party line inside the working class movement, and instead of workers unity, they propagated workers disunity
NB. "Libertarian" doesn't mean the same in the US as in Britain. Over there "libertarian socialism" would be a contradiction in terms, another oxymoron. Mind you, US "libertarians" are poxy morons.
ALB wrote:NB. "Libertarian" doesn't mean the same in the US as in Britain. Over there "libertarian socialism" would be a contradiction in terms, another oxymoron. Mind you, US "libertarians" are poxy morons.The same thing is applicable in others regionsIn Latin America the Libertarian are the Anarco capitalists, the Chicago Boys, ( Funded by the US government and the Ford 'foundation and the Vatican ) and the followers of Friedman.Most Libertarians are totally repudiated. and considered as reactionaries, and fascists. because they were collaborators of the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet in Chile, and they are also considered as criminals along with Henry KissingerThe Maoist also supported the dictatorship of Pinochet, and the Libertarian based on their Three World theory.
The same thing is applicable to progressive. In Latin America progressive is related to socialism and communism, and the so called progressive and liberals of the US are considered as reactionaries, fascists and colllaborators of capitalism. Only radicals right winger will call themselves as liberals, and the followers of the Liberation theology repudiate the liberals
Mao and the Maoist had a different conception about Liberals and Liberalism. In the US many young peoples are proud to call themselves as liberals. In others places it was a shame to be called a liberal. This was Mao conception of Liberal and Liberalismhttp://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_03.htm
"In Latin America the Libertarian… are the followers of Friedman considered as… fascists."Wish that were true in the US. In the media they have some legitimacy unfortunately."In Latin America progressive is related to socialism and communism."..Ok, that's like in America."the so called progressive and liberals of the US are considered as reactionaries, fascists and colllaborators of capitalism"This is confusing. Then what do you call socialists who are in the US or American socialist types?
admice wrote:This is confusing. Then what do you call socialists who are in the US or American socialist types?We call them socialists, if they are socialists. If you mean like democratic party senators who might describe themselves as such or that one councillor who got elected in seattle then we would probably call them social democrats.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democrats
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.