Libertarian Communist- An Oxymoron

[82Marine89]

.

Libertarian Communist? How is that possible?

[Agnapostate]

Libertarian Communist? How is that possible?

Historical origins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Dejacque).

Temecula? My family lives there; my uncle once jumped bail and stayed on the Navajo reservation for several years; now his primary affiliation is to the Pechanga casino. :laugh:

[82Marine89]

Historical origins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Dejacque).

Temecula? My family lives there; my uncle once jumped bail and stayed on the Navajo reservation for several years; now his primary affiliation is to the Pechanga casino. :laugh:

Joseph Déjacque (December 1821, Paris – 1864, Paris) was a French anarcho-communist poet and writer. He sought to abolish "personal property, property in land, buildings, workshops, shops, property in anything that is an instrument of work, production or consumption."[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Dejacque)

That goes against the Libertarian philosophy.

[Agnapostate]

That goes against the Libertarian philosophy.

Who determines what the "libertarian" philosophy is? The anarchist who first used the word in 1857 or the U.S. movement that misappropriated it more than a century later? Those of us who look to the former would say that the U.S. "libertarian" movement is fraudulent and illegitimate because of their support of capitalism, which entails authoritarian hierarchies in its labor markets that are just as objectionable as those of the state. Factory fascism and office oligarchy.

[82Marine89]

Who determines what the "libertarian" philosophy is? The anarchist who first used the word in 1857 or the U.S. movement that misappropriated it more than a century later? Those of us who look to the former would say that the U.S. "libertarian" movement is fraudulent and illegitimate because of their support of capitalism, which entails authoritarian hierarchies in its labor markets that are just as objectionable as those of the state. Factory fascism and office oligarchy.

Try again. Communist Russia had "authoritarian hierarchies in its labor markets". As for the Libertarian party, read the following...

Preamble

As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.

In the following pages we have set forth our basic principles and enumerated various policy stands derived from those principles.

These specific policies are not our goal, however. Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands.

Statement of Principles

We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.

We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.

We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action -- accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.

Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market. (http://www.lp.org/platform)

[Agnapostate]

Try again. Communist Russia had "authoritarian hierarchies in its labor markets".

You're using inaccurate terminology already. The USSR was never described as a "communist" country by its ruling class, since Leninism adopted the standard Marxist doctrine that socialism would be a necessary precursor of communism, which would be a stateless, moneyless, and marketless arrangement. The "communist" description is a misinformed Western creation. More to the point, however, the "socialism" of the USSR is rejected by a substantial number of self-described socialists, and in the case of libertarians and anarchists, Leninism as a whole was rejected as illegitimately socialist even prior to the Russian Revolution. I most often refer to a letter that the anarcho-communist Peter Kropotkin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kropotkin) sent to Lenin to make this case.


Russia has already become a Soviet Republic only in name. The influx and taking over of the people by the "party,” that is, predominantly the newcomers (the ideological communists are more in the urban centers), has already destroyed the influence and constructive energy of this promising institution – the soviets. At present, it is the party committees, not the soviets, who rule in Russia. And their organization suffers from the defects of bureaucratic organization...If the present situation continues, the very word “socialism” will turn into a curse. This is what happened to the conception of “equality” in France for forty years after the rule of the Jacobins.

What you don't seem to understand is that self-description does not entail actual consistency with the legitimate meaning of terms. It is quite clear that China is an authoritarian dictatorship despite its description by its ruling party as a "people's republic." The same is true of the "Democratic People's Republic" of Korea and the Soviet-controlled "German Democratic Republic," wouldn't you say? As with the usage of these claims of democracy, the claims of socialism are intended to appeal to populist sentiments, but that does not mean socialist conditions are actually present. Look to deeds rather than words.


As for the Libertarian party, read the following...

Again, you don't seem to understand that self-description is often nothing more than that. That the "Libertarian" Party of the U.S. and a U.S.-based movement that is now expanding beyond the country describe themselves as "libertarian" is apparent enough. What anarchists and those affiliated with them generally dispute is the legitimacy of such a description.

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secA1.html#seca13

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI1.html

[82Marine89]

You're using inaccurate terminology already. The USSR was never described as a "communist" country by its ruling class, since Leninism adopted the standard Marxist doctrine that socialism would be a necessary precursor of communism, which would be a stateless, moneyless, and marketless arrangement. The "communist" description is a misinformed Western creation. More to the point, however, the "socialism" of the USSR is rejected by a substantial number of self-described socialists, and in the case of libertarians and anarchists, Leninism as a whole was rejected as illegitimately socialist even prior to the Russian Revolution. I most often refer to a letter that the anarcho-communist Peter Kropotkin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kropotkin) sent to Lenin to make this case.

What you don't seem to understand is that self-description does not entail actual consistency with the legitimate meaning of terms. It is quite clear that China is an authoritarian dictatorship despite its description by its ruling party as a "people's republic." The same is true of the "Democratic People's Republic" of Korea and the Soviet-controlled "German Democratic Republic," wouldn't you say? As with the usage of these claims of democracy, the claims of socialism are intended to appeal to populist sentiments, but that does not mean socialist conditions are actually present. Look to deeds rather than words.

Again, you don't seem to understand that self-description is often nothing more than that. That the "Libertarian" Party of the U.S. and a U.S.-based movement that is now expanding beyond the country describe themselves as "libertarian" is apparent enough. What anarchists and those affiliated with them generally dispute is the legitimacy of such a description.

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secA1.html#seca13

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI1.html

Read the second sentence you wrote and think about self description.

Main Entry: com·mu·nism
Pronunciation: \ˈkäm-yə-ˌni-zəm, -yü-\
Function: noun
Etymology: French communisme, from commun common
Date: 1840

1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2 capitalized a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably d : communist systems collectively
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/communism)

[Agnapostate]

Read the second sentence you wrote and think about self description.

And of those definitions, which is the one that finds consensus from actual self-described communists? Any reference to Leninism as necessary will certainly be disputed given the existence of non-Leninist and indeed, non-Marxist communists.

[82Marine89]

Well Agnapostate and I started discussing his tagline of Libertarian Communist in the thread about meeting online folks offline. Hopefully one of the mods will move those posts over here and allow us to continue the discussion.

Thanks.

[Kathianne]

I moved some posts to this thread per poster's request.

[82Marine89]

And of those definitions, which is the one that finds consensus from actual self-described communists? Any reference to Leninism as necessary will certainly be disputed given the existence of non-Leninist and indeed, non-Marxist communists.

You said it yourself that the Russians never described themselves as Communists then you tell me that the Libertarian Party platform is self descriptive and that doesn't count. Don't you think it goes the same way? The Russians self description doesn't count?

I posted the Merriam-Webster definition of communism and it goes against what your Russian hierarchy describes themselves as.

Finally, your avatar promotes anarchy and chastises ownership of property as theft. That is something that Libertarians do not support.

[DragonStryk72]

Who determines what the "libertarian" philosophy is? The anarchist who first used the word in 1857 or the U.S. movement that misappropriated it more than a century later? Those of us who look to the former would say that the U.S. "libertarian" movement is fraudulent and illegitimate because of their support of capitalism, which entails authoritarian hierarchies in its labor markets that are just as objectionable as those of the state. Factory fascism and office oligarchy.

um, according to the entry you showed us, Libertarian was used as a criticism, not as something to be aspired to. You might want to read your own proofs before you post them.

[HogTrash]

Libertarianism is a political philosophy that upholds the principle of individual liberty.

Broadly speaking, there are two types of libertarians: rights theorists and consequentialists.

Rights theorists hold that it is morally imperative that all human interaction, including government interaction with private individuals, should be voluntary and consensual. Or, to state it another way, they assert that all persons are the absolute owners of their own lives, and should be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property, provided they allow others the same liberty. They maintain that the initiation of force by any person or government, against another person or their property—with force meaning the use of physical force, the threat of it, or the commission of fraud against someone—who has not initiated physical force, threat, or fraud, is a violation of that principle. They do not oppose force used in response to initiatory aggressions such as violence, fraud or trespassing.

Consequentialist libertarians, which are best known in academia, do not have a moral prohibition against "initiation of force," but believe that allowing a very large scope of political and economic liberty results in the maximum well-being or efficiency for a society. They maintain that a limited government is necessary for the advancement of these goals. This type of libertarianism is associated with Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, and James M. Buchanan. Some writers who have been called libertarians have also been referred to as classical liberals, by others or themselves. Also, some use the phrase "the freedom philosophy" to refer to libertarianism, classical liberalism, or both.[2]

Libertarians favor an ethic of self-responsibility and strongly oppose conscription and the welfare state, because they believe coercing someone to provide charity and military service is ethically wrong, ultimately counter-productive, or both. Apart from some very basic principles favoring personal freedom and free markets, there is not a canon of "official" libertarian beliefs. Libertarians may disagree with other libertarians over specific issues.[3] For example, they may differ over abortion issues, and some support the U.S. invasion of Iraq while some oppose it.[4] There is a distinction between a libertarian and a member of a Libertarian Party, the latter of which would be called a Libertarian with a capital l, as not all libertarians agree with any particular libertarian organization's platform.

Libertarianism is most popular in the United States where it was the political philososophy advocated by Thomas Jefferson and several of the Founding Fathers.[5] Polls show that 10 to 20 percent of voting-age Americans have libertarian views.

History

The first known use of a term that has been translated as "libertarian" in a political sense was by anarcho-communist Joseph Déjacque[17], who used the French term libertaire in a letter to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1857.[18] The word stems from the French word libertaire (synonymous to "anarchist"), and was used in order to evade the French ban on anarchist publications.[19]

Many anarchists still use the term (e.g., terms translatable as "libertarian" are used as a synonym for anarchism in many non-English languages, like French, Italian and so on), and in the English language socialist anarchism and communist anarchism are often referred to as Libertarian socialism or Libertarian communism respectively to distinguish it from authoritarian Marxist varieties of socialism and communism. In the United States, however, Libertarian refers to members of the American Libertarian party, whose politics might be described as classical liberalism. Those who support similar policies but are not members of the Libertarian party are known as libertarians in the United States and much of the English-speaking world.

This form of libertarianism, in contrast to the socialist forms, draws heavily on classical liberalism, a modern term often used interchangeably with libertarianism. This concept, originally referred to simply as "liberalism", arose from Enlightenment ideas in Europe and America, including the political philosophies of John Locke and the Baron de Montesquieu, and the moral and economic philosophy of Adam Smith. By the late 18th century, these ideas quickly spread with the Industrial Revolution throughout the Western world.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/libertarian

[HogTrash]

Many anarchists still use the term (e.g., terms translatable as "libertarian" are used as a synonym for anarchism in many non-English languages, like French, Italian and so on), and in the English language socialist anarchism and communist anarchism are often referred to as Libertarian socialism or Libertarian communism respectively to distinguish it from authoritarian Marxist varieties of socialism and communism. In the United States, however, Libertarian refers to members of the American Libertarian party, whose politics might be described as classical liberalism. Those who support similar policies but are not members of the Libertarian party are known as libertarians in the United States and much of the English-speaking world.Meat and potatoes Aggy

Do you know why there is libertarian communism and authoritarian communism?

Because one is a fantasy and one is reality...You are young and foolish and live inside your wish book.

Who would choose authoritarian communism over libertarian communism?...Noboby except the Party leaders.

Who would choose libertarian communism over authoritarian communism?...Everybody except the Party leaders.

Why?...Because the Party Leaders are aware that the only way people will live the sacrificial life of ants in an anthill and bees in a beehive is by authoritarian rule.

The beautiful utopian promises may bring the masses to communism willingly but they will not stay long without a gun to their head when the utopia turns into chaos.

If you managed to bring about a Libertarian Communist society it would not be long before it would slowly begin the transformation to an Authoritarian Communist society.

It would happen slowly in increments untill one day your grandchildren or maybe even your children would awaken and be living the orwellian nightmare of totalitarianism that you began.