Libertarianism, socialism, and differing views of reality

[chequita guevara]

I understand that. That's a rather self-serving definition, as it allows them to force a Hobson's choice on others and enslave them. But then, libertarianism is the politics of selfishness (admittedly so).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Depends on what you call enslave .

[Blaupanzer]

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles
I define it as being free from compulsion. So the more time you have free from what you are compelled to do, by nature or society, the more liberty you have.

The real fundamental hole in Che's remarkably insightful presentation is that over time Socialist societies are very inclined to define "appropriate" leisure time activities, too. As he noted previously, the state will ask for time from people to do things other than work, such as to attend meetings, physically workout in groups, and attend entertainment preselected by the authorities for its appropriateness. (This describes leisure time in China to a tee.) Not much "frre time" remains.

Alternatively, the Libertarian theory summarized as "Free Minds, Free Markets" by Reason Magazine posits a state where participants in the market succeed or fail on their own, where any substance that won't kill is available for consumption with an absolute minimum of control, where the Government serves the role of court arbiter, military defense, and police oriented to protecting lives and property. No one has the authority to tell citizens what to believe, what to think, what to read, or who to sleep with.

However, Libertarians have a skeleton in their closet too. This, of course, is what to do about what those in the 1930's used to call the "widows and orphans." Those who cannot participate in commerce because of age (young, old), infirmness (lost limbs, blindness, feeblemindedness), etc. and who have no protectors (parents, children), are "up a creek," dependent on charity or churches or whatever. For the Libertarian, no coercion can be permitted to these sources of succor. Maybe some Libertarians think guilt and charity will remedy this hole, but history shows this condition only gets better with use of selected coercive measures to support those in need and those helping them.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer


The real fundamental hole in Che's remarkably insightful presentation is that over time Socialist societies are very inclined to define "appropriate" leisure time activities, too. As he noted previously, the state will ask for time from people to do things other than work, such as to attend meetings, physically workout in groups, and attend entertainment preselected by the authorities for its appropriateness. (This describes leisure time in China to a tee.) Not much "frre time" remains.

Che is speaking about principles and theory. None of the states in real life that called themselves Communist or socialist ever conformed to the ideal of socialism. As such, using them as an example doesn't work. What you give is an example of coersive politics parcticed by modern authoritarian regimes.

[Sandman]

Socialism, on the other hand, distributes the necessary work, so that we minimize the amount of work we all have to do. What is left, then, is up to us, so our liberty is maximized.

The problem with this is that some people will use their leisure time for work as well, and potentially disturb the economy. What do you do if someone begins making, say, beds in their spare time, causing an oversupply?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by GePap


Che is speaking about principles and theory. None of the states in real life that called themselves Communist or socialist ever conformed to the ideal of socialism. As such, using them as an example doesn't work. What you give is an example of coersive politics parcticed by modern authoritarian regimes.

What's the socialist ideal?

Marx himself pointed out that he had only unveiled an historical necessity, and that speculation about the specifics of the communist state of mankind is futile.

I'm not sure about this, but IIUC it's Lenin who introduced the idea of 'soviet socialism' as a temporary solution while the necessity plays out.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


What's the socialist ideal?

Marx himself pointed out that he had only unveiled an historical necessity, and that speculation about the specifics of the communist state of mankind is futile.

I'm not sure about this, but IIUC it's Lenin who introduced the idea of 'soviet socialism' as a temporary solution while the necessity plays out.

Lenin did not introduce a "temporary solution." As I understand it, Marx states that he discovered this world historical pattern, and that once Capitalism played itself out, you would get Communism. For a revolutionary in a state in whcih capitalism was underdeveloped like Lenin, this wait was not acceptable. If Marxists have these analytical tools that help them understand the underlying pattern of history, why should they just stand back and wait? Why not take control of the situation and speed the whole thing along? Lenin proposes that a motivated group of individuals, an intellectual vanguard formed into a single political party could take the helm of history and build socialism.

Every socialist regime that ever came into existance accepted this Leninist ideal of being able to take history by the horns and speed things along.

I personally dpn't think that any of Marx's musings on what a communist state would look like involved there being a single monolithic Party in control of all the levers of power and the means of production.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sandman
The problem with this is that some people will use their leisure time for work as well, and potentially disturb the economy. What do you do if someone begins making, say, beds in their spare time, causing an oversupply?

What's wrong with having an oversupply of beds? If people's livelihoods aren't dependent on there being only the amount of beds that can be sold, it won't be a huge problem, unless, for some reason, everyone decide they need to make beds and no one makes food, etc.

Originally posted by GePap
Lenin did not introduce a "temporary solution." As I understand it, Marx states that he discovered this world historical pattern, and that once Capitalism played itself out, you would get Communism. For a revolutionary in a state in whcih capitalism was underdeveloped like Lenin, this wait was not acceptable. If Marxists have these analytical tools that help them understand the underlying pattern of history, why should they just stand back and wait? Why not take control of the situation and speed the whole thing along? Lenin proposes that a motivated group of individuals, an intellectual vanguard formed into a single political party could take the helm of history and build socialism.

Russia, by the time of Lenin, already had vigorous capitalist growth. It was the most dynamic, productive sector of the Russian economy. The old feudal relations were still more important only because of their sheer size. Originally, Lenin was a stagist. His plan for Russia was to overthrow Tsarism, institute a bourgeois democratic republic, and then build a socialist workers movement to take power from the capitalists when the time eventually came.

World War One changed everything. With the fall of the Tsar in Russia and the seizure of political power by the workers in the form of Soviets, Lenin realized it was possible for the Russian workers to take power immediately, without having to build a bourgeois democratic republic, something which Trotsky had argued since 1905. Since events in 1901, many of the leaders of European socialism looked to Russia for the spark to lead to a general European workers' uprising.

The Bolsheviks knew that Russian couldn't survive on its own, they needed the help of the German workers. What needs to be kept in mind is that the Russian Revolution wasn't aimed at creating socialism in Russia, but in Germany. And the leaders of Germany knew it, which is why they were much harsher, and drowned Berlin in the blood of communists, and executed one of our great leaders, Rosa Luxemburg.

Then something weird happened. Despite the odds, the revolution in Russia hung on while the revolution in the rest of the world failed. So Russia was alone and isolated, surrounded by countries that had just tried to destroy their government. So yeah, things didn't turn out well.

[Fake Boris]

Interesting.

I like Marx very much, but if WW1 couldn't even convince the workers to overthrow the capitalist/imperialist states, what could?

[chequita guevara]

The workers tried. They were either betrayed by the social democrats like Noske and Erbert or the revolutionary leadership was too inexperienced to understand the rules of the game had changed, and they were slaughtered.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles
What's wrong with having an oversupply of beds? If people's livelihoods aren't dependent on there being only the amount of beds that can be sold, it won't be a huge problem, unless, for some reason, everyone decide they need to make beds and no one makes food, etc.

It'll lead to price fluctuations and waste of resources. The state-produced beds will probably be of inferior quality than the hobbyist produced ones, and if a lot of hobbyists spring up, or one of them starts mass production, it will be asked, why keep producing state beds at all? Essentially, a capitalist economy will reappear from all the leisure time.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles
The workers tried. They were either betrayed by the social democrats like Noske and Erbert or the revolutionary leadership was too inexperienced to understand the rules of the game had changed, and they were slaughtered.

So, basically, commies were idiots?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sandman


It'll lead to price fluctuations and waste of resources. The state-produced beds will probably be of inferior quality than the hobbyist produced ones, and if a lot of hobbyists spring up, or one of them starts mass production, it will be asked, why keep producing state beds at all? Essentially, a capitalist economy will reappear from all the leisure time.

How could one single hobbyist start mass producing without having control of vast amounts of capital? And who are his suppliers, the machine tool hobbyists? How would said hobbyist build up a distribution network? and are the retail hobbyists going to take his product?

There is a difference between private economic activity and Capitalism.

[Sandman]

I suppose he would start small and work his way up. Start off in the living room, then move to the garage, then to a workshop. The distribution network would start off with friends and family, then word of mouth, then maybe a shop somewhere.

[chequita guevara]

Your mistake is in assuming that the state would be in control of production. That's one possibility, yes, but socialism is simply democracy applied to every level of society. It's conceivable that production could be organized differently.

Furthermore, it's worth pointing out that when the state really wants to, it can produce efficiently and with good quality.