Noam Chomsky on Libertarian Socialism

You are mistaken, Someone.

 

I guess you just don't want to discuss this? Why did you participate in the thread?

 

I do refuse to acknowledge that the state could be something different. The state, fundamentally, is an agent of coercion. As such, it will always be used to aggrandize the power of whoever controls it at the expense of everyone else.

If "democracy" worked, this would be a voting majority and we would simply have tyranny of the majority, which might be nice for people who are conventional and ordinary in each and every way, but not for the rest of us. You go on and on about the voting booth holding this giant Leviathan state accountable and, presumably, this means we can feel safe giving that Leviathan all sorts of vast powers. But who holds the voters accountable? What happens when the voters vote to bomb Pakistani children? Those children can't vote and the voters are not held legally liable for their atrocity. So how is that democracy, let alone justice? The same holds true when they vote to enslave their distant descendants to tens of trillions of dollars in debt to pay for their goodies. Our descendants can't vote; it's taxation without representation.

Thus, I cannot begin to understand the leftist adoration of majority vote. I always press them: does that mean a majority could vote to legalize slavery? And they always dissemble by saying "Eh, well, a good democracy has protections in place for the minority..."

But what you don't realize is that those protections are inherently anti-democratic. The Bill of Rights is anti-democratic because it limits the power of the majority, which is the meaning of the term democracy. If you think democracy means a system in which the rights of the individual, than that is libertarianism and the majority should have no rights, in and of itself. Or if you think it means a system like our current one--some muddled combination between majority rule and individual liberty, who gets to choose which protections the individual has? The majority or the super-majority, correct? Well, then we are right back where we started.

This is assuming, of course, that democracy works or can work as a means to get the state to "work for us." I don't think it can. I don't even know who "us" is. States will always be controlled by the minority who manages them and can set the rules and game the system to its own advantage. Which they do in our case through the party machines, the power of the incumbency, monetary advantage, the control of the voters' minds through the schools and the media, and possibly outright cheating (since they also control the voting machines). At best, the voting booth offers a potential check on those in power (hopefully one of many). But to say it actually puts "the people" in the seat of power is a fairy tale.

Businesses, assuming they do not receive privileges from the state, are voluntary associations. You don't need to have a "say" in them because you don't need to be involved with them at all. You only need to have a "say" in the institution that's been violently imposed on you: the state.

Who is this "the people"? I'm certain I'm not a part of it. I love these vague collections phrases you guys you. "The people..." "the public..." "society..." Who? You mean the voting majority, right?

Anyway, what point in history do you mean? The state works to the advantage of whoever controls it. It's welfare state measures were largely imposed for the Bismarckian reason of keeping "the people" docile and obedient and prevent "socialist revolution." Whenever they actually had socialist or popular revolutions--in France, Russia, China, etc--it just lead to a new elite taking power. Because that's the nature of the state: the elite holding power.

And like I said, even if the state could be designed in such a way that the majority held power, how is that any better? Is two people robbing one person better than one person robbing two people?

 

Anarchism has never worked. Back when the world was all small tribes or 'families,' with no central govt, EACH tribe was a "nation." And each of these tiny nations had a leader who WAS the government. If they lost their leader [govt.] another took his place OR they were conquered by a tribe with a leader [govt]. Anarchism not only has never worked, it can never work.
Nor can Socialism work on a large scale. It can only work with small groups of extremely like minded people. As soon as it grows to include any people not totally dedicated to the "cause." Socialism is on its way to failure. It ALWAYS is taken over by unscrupulous people interested only in their own gain and power.

 

On Libertarian Socialism

For anyone who might be confused on the subject of what libertarian socialism entails, it's helpful to remember that there are three basic component-parts to society's breakdown:

1) the private sector,

2) the state sector, and

3) civil society.

Libertarian socialism focuses on bringing things under the ownership and management of civil society, often seeking to do away with both commerce and the state sector in either the short term or the long term. Socialist anarchists and the self-described 'left communists', for example, overwhelmingly fall into this category. Certain brands of Maoism might too, depending on whether one upholds the Great Leap Forward (which was modeled very loosely on the Paris Commune experiment) as a developmental model. (Those Maoists who support the revolutionary committees model established during the Chinese Cultural Revolution, however, would be more accurately described as standard authoritarian state socialists.)

As a democratic socialist, I myself might be construed as belonging to the category of libertarian socialists by the above definition, but I don't like the term 'libertarian' and avoid using it in reference to myself. The term tends to imply individualism in the minds of many people. I am not an individualist. I'm a very communitarian person.

 

This is a very good explanation, Polly Minx.

Thanks for sharing!

By the way, I agree. In a perfect world, "Libertarian Socialism" would probably work very well.

However, human nature being what is where 20% of the people in any organization usually do 80% of the work, "Libertarian Socialism” will never succeed in the workplace. You have to have some way of rewarding the workers and removing and replacing the loafers.

To do this fairly, you have to conduct periodic performance appraisals and correctly rate the contributions of each worker; hence you need supervisors, or "overseers".

Do you agree with this "real world" analysis?

 

What's a civil society? What differentiates it from those other things? Sounds like something somebody made up.

Thanks for warning me that socialism is "communitarian." Another reason for me to avoid it like the Ebola virus.

 

Human beings are inherently communal. Individualism as an ideal is an absurd notion that came out of the 18th century, once it was plausible. However, our survival as a species relied on our inherently communal nature. We are a weak and slow species, with dull teeth and almost no physical adaptations valuable for survival. We can't camouflage our skin for example, we can't climb trees effectively, etc. What we have going for us, is our intelligence, and our ability to work together communally. What radical and silly extremists now want us to do is to have us abandon what made us successful as a species, and as a society. I say no thank you, but if you really want to, live in a cabin all by yourself. It is an extraordinarily difficult life, but you can probably make it work nowadays(but only because of the advancements made by society, like firearms, heaters, etc).

 

Yes really. Conservatives (and liberals) are always stating here that our economy is state sponsored corporatism and that it's wrong (but more wrong under Obama than Bush of course). The rich get their money from the rest of us and a lot of it is redistributed to them from our taxes.

The wealthiest area in the US is around DC, do you think all those lobbyists and defense contractors want to abolish their source of income?

 

In a libertarian--i.e. individualist--society, no one would stop collectivists from living in a kibbutz, a Borg cube, or whatever other group they wanted to be involved with. They just couldn't force others to live there with them.

On the other hand, despite what you say, individualists would not be similarly free under a collectivist law. Under a state, we are not free to just be left alone; nor would we be under a "libertarian socialist" model. That is the difference. Under individualism, collectivists could live the way they wanted without interference. But collectivists refuse to pay individualists the same courtesy, preferring to dragoon us into "the society."

Just remember, there is nothing social about violence. It is the most anti-socialist activity possible. States are anti-social entities, as are coercive communes and organizations of all sorts. Society, if it is anything at all, is a network of voluntary interactions between free individuals.

 

You may be on to something here, AbsoluteVoluntarist!

The far-Left is a very tyrannical group; once they gain power, they limit liberty for everyone else who does not agree with them!

"Socialists cry "Power to the people", and raise the clenched fist as they say it. We all know what they really mean — power over people, power to the State."

-- Margaret Thatcher

Socialism is great if you are willing to accept a much reduced standard of living and an oppressive central government who is always telling you what to do and how to live your life to the benefit of the state!

Cuba, North Korea and the old Soviet Union and East Germany are four perfect examples!

 

These discussions were very good!

Some of the things Noam Chomsky says are so far out in "Left-field" they make absolutely no sense at all!

You have to hear these ideas to believe he actually said them!

Noam Chomsky on Libertarian Socialism

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxbeyn2xMQE&feature=player_embedded"]Noam Chomsky on Libertarian Socialism - YouTube[/ame]

 

I try anyway. It comes from years of theoretical investigation. Thanks for the compliment!

To respond to this, I would highlight the correctness of frodly's analysis, which is that human beings are naturally communal.

Communism has existed throughout most of human history. Early humanity organized itself into communist societies -- societies distributing resources according to need -- because they had so little to go around and needed every member of society. Accumulation was nigh impossible in such a primitive situation.

No matter how far we get from that state of existence, we always fall back on communist principles when we're really in a bind. Like when natural disasters hit, for example. In such situations, we just call the resultant distribution system that gets imposed rationing rather than communism, but essentially it's the same basic principle: equal distribution of resources in order to maximize the survival rate. The Occupy encampments likewise were forced to apply similar principles to their every day existence in order to make it long: usually the encampments had such features (for participants) as a free health care system, free shelter, free food, free entertainment and recreation even, all provided by volunteers from donations. Whether or not the participants actually believe in a communist system, many of them experienced one anyway. That's because communism simply is the most efficient means of guaranteeing that all members of a group survive. Whenever people are reduced to a primitive situation, they tend to fall back on communist principles. That's also why communist principles have regularly reappeared in the course of human history: it's the most natural and basic form of human organization. Whether the corresponding principles were justified on religious or "scientific" grounds, they have regularly reappeared and proliferated among the poorer strata of society (often by religious leaders or professional intellectuals) whose existence is much more basic than that of society's rulers.

I'll probably always be a communist in some way. (Historically speaking, socialism and communism were terms used interchangeably and mean the same thing. The division between the terms we have seen emerge in the last century is completely arbitrary. Accordingly, I refer to myself alternately as a democratic socialist and a communist since those are both references to fundamentally the same system and principles.) I just believe in fairness. Relative to the market system, communism probably isn't as productive in developmental terms. So what? We may want to industrialize the whole world, but the planet we live on can't possibly afford it. Even our present level of industrial development is unsustainable! Sustainability should be more important to us than development at any cost at this point, one would think. To achieve sustainability, we need to learn to work in harmony with nature rather than against it. We need to restore balance...fairness...in our relationship to others and to the rest of the natural world. We need to get back to those ancient values of equality because otherwise we're going to be in for one much more serious load of pain within this century.

Polls show that people have been decreasingly happy with their lives for decades now, just as society has grown more and more unequal and more and more anti-social. We're a lonely, unhappy society. That's because the individualism we're imposing on ourselves as a species is unnatural to us. We are not meant to live like this. We need to get more social again. Money isn't everything. IMO it should be nothing, in fact.

 

"I'll probably always be a communist in some way. (Historically speaking, socialism and communism were terms used interchangeably and mean the same thing. The division between the terms we have seen emerge in the last century is completely arbitrary. Accordingly, I refer to myself alternately as a democratic socialist and a communist since those are both references to fundamentally the same system and principles.) I just believe in fairness. Relative to the market system, communism probably isn't as productive in developmental terms. So what? We may want to industrialize the whole world, but the planet we live on can't possibly afford it. Even our present level of industrial development is unsustainable! Sustainability should be more important to us than development at any cost at this point, one would think. To achieve sustainability, we need to learn to work in harmony with nature rather than against it. We need to restore balance...fairness...in our relationship to others and to the rest of the natural world. We need to get back to those ancient values of equality because otherwise we're going to be in for one much more serious load of pain within this century."

I agree completely with these statements.

I believe we have an obligation to care for each other and help each other out, so in that respect I too am a "communist".

I have no problem at all in helping people like this poor man and his beautiful dog live a better live.

 

Yes I agree with your analysis. Chomsky makes some very good points a lot of times though, especially when he starts destroying the media. One thing that bothers me is that he does not recognize the role that international bankers and the central banks play in corporate dominance over the US govt. The central bank is the ultimate form of infusing a cartel between corporations (banks) and government by controlling issuance and the value of our money and credit. It is the utmost form of control. Like the far right, he recognizes that world government is coming.

Chomsky believes that corporations are the source of the problem, not government. Corporations being treated as individuals under the law is in fact a problem, because it is a form of Collectivism which prioritizes the group over the individual under the law. The inherent problem with this is that he also supports Democracy and other forms of Collectivism that emphasize the rights of the group over the individual.

If Chomsky would recognize the fundamental differences between Individualism and Collectivism, I believe it would only take a nudge to push him over from the far left to the far right.

 

Socialism and libertarianism have nothing in common.

 

So what do you do to dissenters who choose to opt-out of such a system? That choose to form a corporation and choose to own private property?

 

Libertarian socialism (sometimes called social anarchism,[1][2] and sometimes left libertarianism)[3][4] is a group of political philosophies that promote a non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic, stateless society without private property in the means of production.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

The first libertarians were anarcho communists.

 

There are two fatal flaws in your logic. For one, the nature of government will never change, becuase government by definition is a monopoly of power. Because it has a monopoly on power, it is entirely unaccountable to the people because it simply can be. Government will never be different regardless of who votes for what at the ballot box. Voting cannot and will not change the nature of government; voters simply choose how tight to bind the chains on government from usurping individual liberties.

Your other fatal flaw is that you don't have "corporations in one hand and powerful government on the other". They both always go hand in hand.Unrestrained government is the tool by which corporations can successfully subvert the disciplines of the free market (the free market acts as a check on their power and unaccountability). Corporations cannot and do not become as powerful as they are today without the coercive force of a powerful, unrestrained state. The free market simply doesn't allow it. A powerful state is the tool by which corporations gain their power, and would never happen under a free market system enforced by small government.

Democratic socialism advocates dissolution of the state to do this. But how would it prevent the ownership of property? How would it prevent the rise of a corporation in an anarchist society? The only way it could be done would be through some concentrated form of force. This force would dare not call itself a "state" but instead would be democratic force of the simple majority, which effectively in itself is the monopolistic power equivalent of a state elected by democratic majority (as we have now in the US).

 

The only acceptable form for America is the liberal individual empowered by the constitution. All else is leftist loserism. Extreme right conservatism and extreme left communism are both what America IS NOT. Give it a think.

 

Except, of course, that for 99% of the population only socialism will make liberty possible. As for the 1% they are far too free already, especially the paws they put in our pockets.

 

Socialism of every form is always a flop. From the USSR, China, Cuba, and contemporary Europe. It is always a fail. Always.

America is best when it sticks with its principles. As we clearly see that ALL of our institutions are on the verge of colapse accelerated by the regime of Comrade El Barrack bin Hussieni Ibn O'Bama Blackeagle.

 

But for Senator Saint McCarthy some of you characters would have been allowed to hear the expression 'state capitalism'. Only a tiny proportion of Americans know anything about socialism, as your masters intended.

 

As with all polititians who have no values, principles, or morality, mixing ideologies is meager attempt at trying to fill the void of their leftist loser souls that has neither sudstance or viability.

 

Send them to re-education camps for brainwashing, and if that does not work, kill them. Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, China, Cambodia, Cuba, and all other leftist loser regimes do exactly that.