I wouldn't consider libertarian socialism to be completely synonymous with anarchism. I would consider a lot of people in the council communist and autonomist traditions to be libertarian socialists. Of course, I have no problem considering myself to be one too - but since I grew disenchanted with capital-"A" anarchism and learned a lot from the Marxi[st][an] critique (as well as aformentioned traditions), which compensated for most of the theoretical shortcomings that I saw in most anarchist writings, I wouldn't call myself an anarchist anymore (though if other people want to call me one, that's fine with me). Libertarian socialism is a slightly broader and more flexible category, I think.
I don't think a Leninist can really be a libertarian socialist. Some might argue that you could be a libertarian socialist and still think Lenin was all right in some ways up to a point (up to Kronstadt?). There's still room for slightly different opinions there...
But I can't imagine how anyone could consider Stalin or Mao to be "libertarian socialist." That is really, really strange.
I sometimes consider calling myself a libertarian socialist in order to reaffirm the Bakuninite dictum that not all socialists are anarchists, but all anarchists are socialists, simply because what passes for anarchism in some circles is unrecognizable as socialism, be it right-wing libertarianism, "lifestyle" anarchism, or survivalist individualism. One or two of my friends at C&S might call themselves anarcho-syndicalists, and Kropotkin was happy with the term anarchist-communist, but I think these are just qualifications defining how an anarchist (and therefore socialist) society ought to be brought about. Richard is right that Council Communists could thus be regarded as libertarian socialists without being considered anarchists, although, personally, I'd hesitate to call libertarian any political theory retaining features specific to Marxism.
Maybe they read my blog entry - i am a stalinist , darren , when i pointed out Old Joe once said
"...there is no need for a state, there is no need either for political power, which oppresses the poor and protects the rich. Consequently, in socialist society there will be no need for the existence of political power..."
3 comments:
I wouldn't consider libertarian socialism to be completely synonymous with anarchism. I would consider a lot of people in the council communist and autonomist traditions to be libertarian socialists. Of course, I have no problem considering myself to be one too - but since I grew disenchanted with capital-"A" anarchism and learned a lot from the Marxi[st][an] critique (as well as aformentioned traditions), which compensated for most of the theoretical shortcomings that I saw in most anarchist writings, I wouldn't call myself an anarchist anymore (though if other people want to call me one, that's fine with me). Libertarian socialism is a slightly broader and more flexible category, I think.
I don't think a Leninist can really be a libertarian socialist. Some might argue that you could be a libertarian socialist and still think Lenin was all right in some ways up to a point (up to Kronstadt?). There's still room for slightly different opinions there...
But I can't imagine how anyone could consider Stalin or Mao to be "libertarian socialist." That is really, really strange.
I sometimes consider calling myself a libertarian socialist in order to reaffirm the Bakuninite dictum that not all socialists are anarchists, but all anarchists are socialists, simply because what passes for anarchism in some circles is unrecognizable as socialism, be it right-wing libertarianism, "lifestyle" anarchism, or survivalist individualism. One or two of my friends at C&S might call themselves anarcho-syndicalists, and Kropotkin was happy with the term anarchist-communist, but I think these are just qualifications defining how an anarchist (and therefore socialist) society ought to be brought about. Richard is right that Council Communists could thus be regarded as libertarian socialists without being considered anarchists, although, personally, I'd hesitate to call libertarian any political theory retaining features specific to Marxism.
Maybe they read my blog entry - i am a stalinist , darren , when i pointed out Old Joe once said
"...there is no need for a state, there is no need either for political power, which oppresses the poor and protects the rich. Consequently, in socialist society there will be no need for the existence of political power..."
http://mailstrom.blogspot.com/2006/08/i-am-stalinist.html
;-P
Post a Comment