News Spain 1936-1937: Libertarian Socialism & Its Demise

[madness]

Does anyone seriously believe that natural rights exist objectively as laws? Or do proponents simply mean that there is some universal human cultural rules which are always obeyed? To me the former seems ridiculous (more so than believing in God), whereas the latter is arguable but I'm not convinced.

 

[Galteeth]

For example?

As you lay it out here, 'natural rights' are a meaningless concept, as you've stripped all the prerequisites for 'rights' in the word's normal meaning.

Negative rights, as in, the right to life, as oppossed to say, the right to healthcare, which clearly requires an institution. Note the right to life does not mean the right to have everything necessary to live, rights are notions of social and moral relations, it ia rather the right to have no one interfere with one's own biological function of life.

 

[Sea Cow]

Right to life granted by whom?

 

[Char. Limit]

Right to life granted by whom?

By parents.

Come on, you can't honestly argue that the right to live is granted by the government. It's not even granted, you are born with it. I have the right to live. No one gave that to me. No one can take it away. (Murderers not included)

 

[Sea Cow]

The concept 'right to live' is meaningless to me.

 

[madness]

The way I see it rights are similar to laws (the legal ones). If we lived in anarchy there would be no rights (of course I'm not talking about the organised type of anarchy originally discussed in this thread).

 

[Al68]

As you lay it out here, 'natural rights' are a meaningless concept, as you've stripped all the prerequisites for 'rights' in the word's normal meaning.

The foundations of the Enlightenment and classical liberalism are meaningless? And it seems you are referring to the prerequisites for entitlements, not natural rights. Natural rights are simply not entitlements, as they are not the product of any contract or agreement, and require no action on the part of others as a prerequisite for existence.

Right to life granted by whom?

Unlike entitlements, rights are not "granted". I have never used the word "right" as a synonym for entitlement, although many do.

I fully realize that the words "right" and "entitlement" are used interchangeably today, but it's a shame, since we have two distinct concepts without an easy unambiguous way to distinguish between them verbally.

 

[Sea Cow]

The foundations of the Enlightenment and classical liberalism are meaningless?

No, the ideas you lay out here are meaningless.

 

[Al68]

The foundations of the Enlightenment and classical liberalism are meaningless?

No, the ideas you lay out here are meaningless.

OK, I'll bite. What idea have I laid out that wasn't a foundation of the Enlightenment and classical liberalism?

Are you unaware that the concept of natural rights was such a foundation, if not the primary one?

 

[Sea Cow]

This kind of use of the term rights appears to imply that such things exist independently of our minds. Where? "Rights" is a concept that can only exist in a mind. We exist in a universe, but meaning comes from us. Meaning is a property of minds.

You appear to be proposing some set of Platonic ideals that exist independently of us and are somehow 'out there' waiting for us to discover them. In a similar way, the mathematician Roger Penrose thinks of mathematics as having this kind of independent existence. But unless you can say something about where that 'out there' might be, it is simply a useless way of thinking that does not answer any questions you might want to ask.

Far better, more useful, and more close to the truth to think of such things as declarations of human rights as something that has come from us. It may be that such concepts echo deep truths about the universe. It would be surprising if they didn't, given that our minds are products of the universe. But they originate within us, and as far as we can know, we can only recognise them as such. Anything else is simply an appeal to divinity.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

This kind of use of the term rights appears to imply that such things exist independently of our minds. Where? "Rights" is a concept that can only exist in a mind. We exist in a universe, but meaning comes from us. Meaning is a property of minds.

I doubt that Al would suggest that "rights" are ontological principles, at least not here. He appears only to be defining the difference between a "right" and an "entitlement". You already possesses your life. You are capable of protecting your life. The only way that you would be deprived of life is if you died naturally or someone took it from you. The government asserts that life is your "right" and protects it, it does not grant life. A protected "right" to medical treatment requires that the government acquire or mandate medical treatment for you. It is not something of which you are already possessed. It is not something which is simply protected. It is something which must be granted or given, therefore but Al's definition it is other than a "right".

 

[Sea Cow]

The only way that you would be deprived of life is if you died naturally or someone took it from you.

How is this different from the concept "god-given"?

I reject the whole thing, I'm afraid. I don't possesses my life. I am alive – temporarily – but I have no right to exist. Ok, I'll stop posting on the subject because I'm going round in circles. It is, literally, meaningless to me to talk of rights in this way.

 

[madness]

The government asserts that life is your "right" and protects it, it does not grant life.

In this case it sounds like you need a government to have the right to life. There's no law against murder without a government, and similarly there's no right to life.

Edit: I was just reading Wikipedia and apparently Hobbes believed that in the absence of government we would have a "right to all things". Perhaps some people understand rights in the negative sense of the absence of a law against it?

 

[Sea Cow]

Hobbes believed that in the absence of government we would have a "right to all things".

How is a right to all things different from a right to nothing?

I find this whole line of reasoning wrong-headed.

 

[madness]

In practice it's not any different, but there is a fundamental difference in what rights are understood to be in each case. I just thought this might help explain why people are having such a hard time agreeing in this thread - maybe you're talking about different things.

 

[Sea Cow]

In practice it's not any different, but there is a fundamental difference in what rights are understood to be in each case. I just thought this might help explain why people are having such a hard time agreeing in this thread - maybe you're talking about different things.

Yes, I think that is the problem – as ever! But I'm struggling to understand what the term rights can mean in this instance without an appeal to external justification. Specifically, 'natural rights' appears to be an appeal to something called 'nature' as the external justification. If so, then it is a concept I flatly reject.

 

[mheslep]

In this case it sounds like you need a government to have the right to life. There's no law against murder without a government, and similarly there's no right to life...

Jefferson would have said all the 'inalienable' rights exist before government; they're granted by the 'creator'. Governments, dangerous as they are, are necessary "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." The Bill of Rights in the US Constitution does not create any rights, rather it is an injunction against the government from infringing on them: "Congress shall make no law ...", etc. A government that can create rights can also take them away. Mine can not be, no matter what harm comes to me.

 

[mheslep]

Natural Rights are a myth. All rights are granted by society.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1559500077/?tag=pfamazon01-20

The author, L. A. Rollins, is a holocaust denier crackpot, who publishes in a http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/historical_review.asp?xpicked=3&item=ihr".

 

[Sea Cow]

Jefferson would have said all the 'inalienable' rights exist before government; they're granted by the 'creator'.

What do you say?

I really struggle with this right to life idea. I am alive, but why does that fact mean that I have a right to be alive?

I have no problem with the idea of a 'birth right'. It is something that many would see as a socialist idea, a right to fair treatment and equal access to education, health, housing etc: a fair slice of the pie. But a birth right is something a little different – it is something that has been fought for and won by those who came before you, and it requires you in turn to grant it to those who come after you. It is part of the deal that any society makes with its individual members.

 

[mheslep]

What do you say?

The same. It sets up the founding tenets of my country.

But a birth right is something a little different – it is something that has been fought for and won by those who came before you, and it requires you in turn to grant it to those who come after you.

Even if we were all enslaved, we still have those rights, though they be impeded. The millions sent, e.g. to the soviet camps in Siberia had those rights. In my view, I need only acknowledge they have it. I grant them nothing.

 

[Sea Cow]

The same. It sets up the founding tenets of my country.

What is "the 'creator'"?

 

[drankin]

What is "the 'creator'"?

God probably? Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's what he meant.

 

[mheslep]

What is "the 'creator'"?

Well either God or http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708454/plotsummary"

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

How is this different from the concept "god-given"?

I reject the whole thing, I'm afraid. I don't possesses my life. I am alive – temporarily – but I have no right to exist. Ok, I'll stop posting on the subject because I'm going round in circles. It is, literally, meaningless to me to talk of rights in this way.

You seem to be on tilt. Please reread what I posted. I never said that being alive in and of itself grants you a "right" to life. I said that the government (or society) asserts it as a "right" and protects it. Al is referring to the difference between "right" and "entitlement".

I am also wondering how it is that you are not possessed of life. Is the bank holding it until you can finish making payments or something? You seem to be getting far to abstract and epistemological for a discussion of practical definition of terms.

 

[Galteeth]

What do you say?

I really struggle with this right to life idea. I am alive, but why does that fact mean that I have a right to be alive?

I have no problem with the idea of a 'birth right'. It is something that many would see as a socialist idea, a right to fair treatment and equal access to education, health, housing etc: a fair slice of the pie. But a birth right is something a little different – it is something that has been fought for and won by those who came before you, and it requires you in turn to grant it to those who come after you. It is part of the deal that any society makes with its individual members.

I am getting a bit confused here. Are you saying you don't have a right to live, but you have a "birth right" to education health, and housing? Or am I misunderstanding you?

 

[madness]

Jefferson would have said all the 'inalienable' rights exist before government; they're granted by the 'creator'. Governments, dangerous as they are, are necessary "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." The Bill of Rights in the US Constitution does not create any rights, rather it is an injunction against the government from infringing on them: "Congress shall make no law ...", etc. A government that can create rights can also take them away. Mine can not be, no matter what harm comes to me.

This is exactly my problem. I don't particularly believe in a 'creator' so why should I believe in natural rights? And, not being American, I couldn't really care less what Jefferson said - the fanatical devotion to the 'founding fathers' I see in Americans seems very queer to me. I have absolutely no reason to assume the existence of some objective and fundamental rights existing independently of any social agreement.

 

[Sea Cow]

I am getting a bit confused here. Are you saying you don't have a right to live, but you have a "birth right" to education health, and housing? Or am I misunderstanding you?

I am saying that I understand the concept of birth right – the right to decent treatment from those who themselves were treated decently, from the right to demand care from your parents to the right to demand an education from the wider society.

To me, that is a useful concept that has a specific meaning, and once received, it turns from something you have the right to expect from others into something that others have the right to expect from you. And it isn't a right given by a god, which is what some here seem to be talking about. "Right to live" doesn't mean anything to me – I've been accused of not being practical enough here, yet I have put forward an entirely practical, utilitarian way of thinking about rights, and I don't think talk of 'inalienable rights' is practical. It ties people up in knots and ends up in an appeal to a creator.

 

[Sea Cow]

You seem to be on tilt. Please reread what I posted. I never said that being alive in and of itself grants you a "right" to life. I said that the government (or society) asserts it as a "right" and protects it. Al is referring to the difference between "right" and "entitlement".

Ok, I accept what you say you are talking about. I don't think you give a fair assessment of Al's position, though.

 

[Al68]

I have no problem with the idea of a 'birth right'. It is something that many would see as a socialist idea, a right to fair treatment and equal access to education, health, housing etc: a fair slice of the pie. But a birth right is something a little different – it is something that has been fought for and won by those who came before you, and it requires you in turn to grant it to those who come after you. It is part of the deal that any society makes with its individual members.

The 'birth right' you refer to would be an entitlement, not a natural right, since the material wealth being claimed was originally the result of the individual labor of others, and originally owned by the individual laborers.

In classical liberalism, the right of each person to own his own labor is a natural right, since he naturally has physical control of his own labor.

Any subsequent claims to the product of an individual's labor would be an entitlement, either by contract agreed to by the laborer in a free society, or involuntarily claimed by others (socialist).

Either way, while others may claim to be entitled to the product of an individual's labor, the labor was originally controlled by the laborer so only his right to it is a "natural right".

In this context, "natural right" just means that the original control one has over his own labor isn't the result of any contract or obligation, it is natural.

That's why some use the phrase "God-given", since they presume that the natural control each individual has over his own body is a gift from God, instead of just a natural result of evolution.

 

[madness]

In classical liberalism, the right of each person to own his own labor is a natural right, since he naturally has physical control of his own labor.

Any subsequent claims to the product of an individual's labor would be an entitlement, either by contract agreed to by the laborer in a free society, or involuntarily claimed by others (socialist).

Coming from the UK, I always find these kind of statements strange. I strongly associate ideas like the right to your own labour with socialist ideals and whether this is a correct or incorrect association, I believe it is the most common one outside of the US. This is where the common motto "wage labour is slavery" comes from, i.e. the people who own the means of production are stealing your labour.

 

[Al68]

Coming from the UK, I always find these kind of statements strange. I strongly associate ideas like the right to your own labour with socialist ideals and whether this is a correct or incorrect association, I believe it is the most common one outside of the US. This is where the common motto "wage labour is slavery" comes from, i.e. the people who own the means of production are stealing your labour.

The fact that socialists deny the right of individual laborers to own their own labor, favoring collective ownership instead, is the defining characteristic of socialism. "Associations" to the contrary are simply faulty.

The word "own" means the right to control, sell, or trade, a right which socialists deny to individual laborers.

And it seems obvious that "the means of production" are themselves also a product of labor originally, assuming you refer to factories, etc.

As far as "wage labour is slavery", and businesses "stealing labour", the obvious fact is that the word 'slavery' doesn't mean voluntary work and the word 'steal' doesn't mean voluntary exchange. That's just not what those words mean.

And you misspelled 'labor'.

 

[madness]

The fact that socialists deny the right of individual laborers to own their own labor, favoring collective ownership instead, is the defining characteristic of socialism. "Associations" to the contrary are simply faulty.

The word "own" means the right to control, sell, or trade, a right which socialists deny to individual laborers.

And it seems obvious that "the means of production" are themselves also a product of labor originally, assuming you refer to factories, etc.

As far as "wage labour is slavery", and businesses "stealing labour", the obvious fact is that the word 'slavery' doesn't mean voluntary work and the word 'steal' doesn't mean voluntary exchange. That's just not what those words mean.

And you misspelled 'labor'.

Firstly, I didn't misspell 'labour'. You are using the Americanised spelling. And no I didn't spell Americanised wrong either.

I understand your point and it does make some sense. But at the same time, you do not have access to the products of your own labour (unless you're self employed), your employer owns it and you get a wage instead. For a socialist, having access to your own labour means collectively owning a factory so that the workers genuinely own the products of their labour. A factory worker certainly does not have the right to control, sell or trade the products of their labour under capitalism. What does owning your labour even mean if it doesn't refer to the products of your labour?

If a person has no option but to work for a low wage then the agreement can hardly be called voluntary. From Wikipedia on wage labour http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_labour#Critique_of_wage_labour (notice the spelling!):

"The first point of criticism is on the freedom of the worker. Capitalist societies emerged from removing the alternative means of self-sustainment used previously by peasants. Historical records show that every time people had their own land to cultivate, as was the case for most of the population in pre-industrial England, colonial Kenya[4] or in colonial Australia, they didn't commit to work for an employer. In such cases, laws were promulgated to expel peasants from their lands, and to make the price of the land artificially high so that a common person would have to work an entire lifetime to buy it."

 

[calculusrocks]

The only way for a libertarian socialism to work is for members of the collective to adopt willingly socialism. Otherwise, it collapses on its own weight because there is no way to enforce socialism while remaining true to libertarian ideology. It's possible, but I sincerely doubt it would remain cohesive as people who work hard would willingly leave the collective and allow the lazy to fend for themselves, which they are not inclined to do. There would of course be no way to force the hardworking to stay because that would be authoritarian rather than libertarian.

 

[Nebula815]

I understand your point and it does make some sense. But at the same time, you do not have access to the products of your own labour (unless you're self employed), your employer owns it and you get a wage instead.

That is the contract you voluntarily engage in with the employer. You work for them, providing them with a skillset, and they pay you a wage. But the product being produced is the company's. The workers do not own this product unless they have some kind of ownership stake in the company, such as through stock options.

For a socialist, having access to your own labour means collectively owning a factory so that the workers genuinely own the products of their labour.

That never occurs in socialism. Socialism means the government will own the means of production, not the people. Free-market capitalism allows the workers to truly own the means of production, through stock options of publicly-owned corporations (so workers have partial ownership) also there are what you call "employee-owned enterprises," where there is no one central owner, it's a business that is literally collectively-owned by the employees.

These differ from publicly-owned corporations in that there aren't a bunch of non-employee investors who own shares in the business, the business is solely owned by just the employees.

For example, the major oil companies, "Big Oil," in America are publicly-traded corporations. Employees can have partial ownership of the business.

Politicians who want to nationalize the oil companies, saying this would bring the ownership of the companies under the hands of "the people," what it really would do is bring them under the ownership of the government.

A factory worker certainly does not have the right to control, sell or trade the products of their labour under capitalism.

Yes they do. They offer a specific skill set, which they control, can sell, or trade for other products and services, or money. Unless they manufacture the whole entire product themselves, they do not own the end product, it is owned by the company, which all of the contributing workers voluntarily entered into an agreement with to contribute skills in exchange for money.

What does owning your labour even mean if it doesn't refer to the products of your labour?

Labor is the skill set you offer. If you are a software programmer and you contribute to a major software product, the end product is not "yours;" unless you wrote the whole thing, your product is just what you contribute to it.

If you do write the whole thing yourself, well you agreed, voluntarily, in the beginning to a contract which says that even though you write the software, it is owned by the company, who hired you for your talent, software engineering, to write the software so they could sell it.

If you want to quit that job and start your own software company, you can do that. However then you are dealing with a bunch of other issues such as marketing, finance, accounting, etc...in which case you will have to hire experts in these individual areas for your company.

If a person has no option but to work for a low wage then the agreement can hardly be called voluntary.

If you have no option but to work for a lower wage, then you need to find a way to acquire skills that will make you worth more so you can earn a higher wage.

"The first point of criticism is on the freedom of the worker. Capitalist societies emerged from removing the alternative means of self-sustainment used previously by peasants. Historical records show that every time people had their own land to cultivate, as was the case for most of the population in pre-industrial England, colonial Kenya[4] or in colonial Australia, they didn't commit to work for an employer. In such cases, laws were promulgated to expel peasants from their lands, and to make the price of the land artificially high so that a common person would have to work an entire lifetime to buy it."

Free-market capitalism requires protection of private property rights. Property rights are one of the most fundamental things required for a free-market system to flourish.

One other thing, remember capitalism unto itself doesn't create freedom. It is simply a necessary component for freedom. Capitalism without a free-market and developed financial system and property rights and so forth is just another form of serfdom, just as socialism, slavery, feudalism, etc...all were/are.

 

[Sea Cow]

If you have no option but to work for a lower wage, then you need to find a way to acquire skills that will make you worth more so you can earn a higher wage.

Would you say this to the Bangladeshi worker who made the t-shirt you buy for a couple of dollars, for which she is paid a couple of dollars a day to make? Absurd nonsense. Everyone can't be rich. It would be terribly inflationary.

 

[Nebula815]

Would you say this to the Bangladeshi worker who made the t-shirt you buy for a couple of dollars, for which she is paid a couple of dollars a day to make? Absurd nonsense.

Bangladesh is a developing country and that worker is being afforded a great opportunity to advance her standard of living by doing that kind of work, as the alternative jobs existing in the country pay far less and if the government took over the operations, they would pay less as well.

All developing nations go through periods like this. As the economy develops and more businesses are created, and more products and services are created and productivity increases and so forth, wages and the standard of living will naturally go up. That is what happened in America and that is what happened in South Korea, Japan, etc...

Obviously workers in developing countries won't have the same opportunities to "better" themselves initially that they would have in a first-world nation, but their nations will eventually become first-world over time. The alternative, socialism, would stick them permanently into poverty.

India is a prime example. India went through decades of extreme poverty because the government centrally-manages the economy. Had they went for developing a free-market from the beginning, they'd be on par with Japan, Europe, America, and so forth now.

Now that India is lifing gradually its central economic planning and allowing investment and free-enterprise, there has been a surge in wealth creation and the development of a thriving middle-class in the nation.

Everyone can't be rich. It would be terribly inflationary.

No it wouldn't, because the prices of goods and services decline over time as the standard of living goes up.

The "poorest" American has a standard of living that any person stuck in a Third World nation would consider rich. You can drive an old used pickup truck and live in a double-wide, but still have clean water, hot water, cold water, shower, air conditioner, heat, bed, high-speed Internet, cable television, refrigerator and freezer, your vehicle can have the basics (radio, heat, air conditioning), access to markets with fresh fruit, meats, etc...to any third world person, that's rich, even though in America you might be considered poor!

In any nation, you'll always have "rich" and "poor," but with developed nations, the "poor" are rich compared to the truly poor in the world, who have no access to clean water, sewage systems, diseases run rampant, children are bone-thin with pot bellies because of disease and hunger, etc...

 

[madness]

That never occurs in socialism. Socialism means the government will own the means of production, not the people. Free-market capitalism allows the workers to truly own the means of production, through stock options of publicly-owned corporations (so workers have partial ownership) also there are what you call "employee-owned enterprises," where there is no one central owner, it's a business that is literally collectively-owned by the employees.

If I'm not mistaken, it is exactly what occurred in libertarian socialst Spain (/anarchist civil war Spain). The workers took control of the factories and democratically managed everything themselves.

That never occurs in socialism. Socialism means the government will own the means of production, not the people

Remember that the utopian communism imagined by Marx was a stateless society.

 

[Nebula815]

If I'm not mistaken, it is exactly what occurred in libertarian socialst Spain (/anarchist civil war Spain). The workers took control of the factories and democratically managed everything themselves.

Will have to look into that, don't see how that is really possible though. Much of it would also mean infringment on other people's property rights. For example if I start a company, work hard, build it up, employ workers, and have say several factories producing widgets, and then one day the workers "decide" to take ownership of the factories because anarchy resulted, well they are technically stealing away my property. The factories aren't theirs, they're mine, but I employ them. They didn't write the business plan, put up the startup capital, build the organization, etc...the other problem is even if the workers were collectively running and managing enterprises, there's the problem of lack of a system of laws for the overall economy/nation.

What if Group B of one factory decides to steal Group A's idea from another factory? With laws, enforced by a government you take it to court. Without a government or laws, it becomes like the drug trade wehre they kill one another.

 

[madness]

Will have to look into that, don't see how that is really possible though. Much of it would also mean infringment on other people's property rights. For example if I start a company, work hard, build it up, employ workers, and have say several factories producing widgets, and then one day the workers "decide" to take ownership of the factories because anarchy resulted, well they are technically stealing away my property. The factories aren't theirs, they're mine, but I employ them. They didn't write the business plan, put up the startup capital, build the organization, etc...the other problem is even if the workers were collectively running and managing enterprises, there's the problem of lack of a system of laws for the overall economy/nation.

This is all true but only within a capitalist framework. The (socialist) anarchist answer might be that you don't have a right to property, but the workers have a right to the means of production. And of course, if the anarchists had their way they would already own the factory and wouldn't need to steal it from you, i.e. the "theft" would only occur in the transition from capitalism to socialism.

What if Group B of one factory decides to steal Group A's idea from another factory? With laws, enforced by a government you take it to court. Without a government or laws, it becomes like the drug trade wehre they kill one another.

I think this is one of those issues where opinion is divided, but the answer might be that "laws" in some sense would still exist. The difference is that they are decided using grass-roots democracy at the community level without the need for a separate government.

I'm by no means an expert on anarchist/socialist politics so you'll have to take what I write as my (limited) understanding of the issues.

 

[Nebula815]

This is all true but only within a capitalist framework. The (socialist) anarchist answer might be that you don't have a right to property, but the workers have a right to the means of production. And of course, if the anarchists had their way they would already own the factory and wouldn't need to steal it from you, i.e. the "theft" would only occur in the transition from capitalism to socialism.

With a system of laws and protection of property rights, which are required for any free society, one can have either, a factory owned by a single individual who then hires workers to work in it, trading them money for their skills, or a factory collectively owned by the employees together, where they all share in the profits.

I think this is one of those issues where opinion is divided, but the answer might be that "laws" in some sense would still exist. The difference is that they are decided using grass-roots democracy at the community level without the need for a separate government.

Such a grass-roots democracy would be a government. As all the government ultimately is, when simplified, is a group of people elected by the population to enforce the laws of the society, so that we can have things like a court system and so forth.

 

[CRGreathouse]

With a system of laws and protection of property rights, which are required for any free society, one can have either, a factory owned by a single individual who then hires workers to work in it, trading them money for their skills, or a factory collectively owned by the employees together, where they all share in the profits.

Yes. But experience so far suggests that the wages paid by the single owner are higher (!) than the share of profit when the factory is owned collectively, even though the single owner takes a good amount of profit for herself. Resources are used more effectively in capitalism.

I'm a worker in a capitalist country. I don't own a business and I don't intend to. I'm happy to work for wages (or salary, or commission, as the case may be). If a person wants to join a voluntary socialist commune, more power to them. I just don't want someone imposing that on me.

 

[madness]

With a system of laws and protection of property rights, which are required for any free society, one can have either, a factory owned by a single individual who then hires workers to work in it, trading them money for their skills, or a factory collectively owned by the employees together, where they all share in the profits.

I'll have to repeat myself - this is all only true within a capitalist framework. Protection of property rights are considered by socialists as detrimental to the freedom of the majority of the population. Here I think the distinction between negative and positive liberty is important.

Such a grass-roots democracy would be a government. As all the government ultimately is, when simplified, is a group of people elected by the population to enforce the laws of the society, so that we can have things like a court system and so forth.

I'm not sure about who would enforce law, but I am sure that it is a topic that has been discussed in depth by political theorists. The main difference as I understand it is that you don't elect someone to represent you in government, the power is considered to be bottom-up rather than top-down with decisions being made at a grass-roots level. That and the freedom to participate or leave.

 

[Nebula815]

Yes. But experience so far suggests that the wages paid by the single owner are higher (!) than the share of profit when the factory is owned collectively, even though the single owner takes a good amount of profit for herself. Resources are used more effectively in capitalism.

I'm a worker in a capitalist country. I don't own a business and I don't intend to. I'm happy to work for wages (or salary, or commission, as the case may be). If a person wants to join a voluntary socialist commune, more power to them. I just don't want someone imposing that on me.

Me either!

 

[Nebula815]

I'll have to repeat myself - this is all only true within a capitalist framework. Protection of property rights are considered by socialists as detrimental to the freedom of the majority of the population. Here I think the distinction between negative and positive liberty is important.

And socialists are completely wrong on this. Protection of property rights is not detrimental to the freedom of the population; on the contrary, it is crucial to protect the people's freedom.

This kind of thing isn't a point of debate anymore (and I don't mean that in a jerk-sounding way). I mean it literally isn't a point of debate, like we don't debate whether the Earth is round or flat, or whether we orbit the Sun or the Sun orbits Earth. We know from over a century of experience that collectivization and nationalized enterprises do not work. It is no longer theory. Property rights, rule of law, democracy, and capitalism are only where you find freedom.

It also depends on the kind of socialist. Fabian socialism, national socialism, both allow for private property ownership. It is more the Marxist socialists for whom private property is heresy, and even in the Soviet Union, they had to partially privatize their agriculture industry to keep the entire country from starving to death.

The pilgrims tried it too, collective ownership of farming, of course then the slackers figured out they could not work and let others grow the food, of course everyone then thought this and thus the whole group almost starved, until each pilgrim was then granted their own land to grow their own food and they prospered.

Marxism isn't just a form of socialism though, it also is a form of a secular religion. It holds that its "god" (the State) will create a grand utopia here on Earth.

I'm not sure about who would enforce law, but I am sure that it is a topic that has been discussed in depth by political theorists.

It has been discussed by political theorists, but when put into practice, does not work. You need someone to enforce the law, and that is a government.

The main difference as I understand it is that you don't elect someone to represent you in government, the power is considered to be bottom-up rather than top-down with decisions being made at a grass-roots level. That and the freedom to participate or leave.

Notice how all of this is extraordinarily ambiguous though. There is no way you could have a massive organization without a top-down structure. It would be too disorganized. For some things, a bottom-up structure can work, but very few. For example, the free software movement, or a free-market economy (no central planning), etc...but there is no way you could run an organization like say Boeing and design and engineer the next-generation jumbo jet with no top-down control.

Or for the process of governing, you need to elect certain people to enforce the laws to protect the rights of others.

Also people cannot have the freedom to participate or leave. Historically, the way this has worked is:

"We're going to create a utopian, collectivist society!"

"I don't want to participate in any collective."

"We are going to violently overthrow the current central government and establish a dictatorship in which then we are going to FORCE you to participate in this collective and then you will see how much better collectivism is. And we are going to murder anyone who resists in our attempt to create a glorious utopia."

 

[madness]

And socialists are completely wrong on this. Protection of property rights is not detrimental to the freedom of the population; on the contrary, it is crucial to protect the people's freedom.

This kind of thing isn't a point of debate anymore (and I don't mean that in a jerk-sounding way). I mean it literally isn't a point of debate, like we don't debate whether the Earth is round or flat, or whether we orbit the Sun or the Sun orbits Earth. We know from over a century of experience that collectivization and nationalized enterprises do not work. It is no longer theory. Property rights, rule of law, democracy, and capitalism are only where you find freedom.

I think you'd be surprised. American views on these subjects strike me as very insular and having little resemblance to the views I find in Europe. The word capitalism in the UK (almost) invariably has negative connotations, whereas socialism is often synonymous with humanitarianism. Of course I'm referring to general perception, not academic.

In academic circles however, Marxism is very common and is certainly a subject of debate. As I mentioned already, the distinction between positive and negative liberty is important here. While free market capitalism attempts to maximise an individuals liberty in the negative sense, that is by limiting the extent to which he can be interfered with, socialists attempt to maximise libery in the positive sense, by ensuring he actually has the means to live freely. A friend explained to me that one of the main differences between capitalism and socialism is that capitalists focus strongly on the individual agent, whereas socialists take a far more deterministic view of society in which an individual is seen to be a product of his environment. From this point of view limiting the extent to which an individual can be interfered with is not sufficient to maximise liberty, which is instead maximised through considerations of society as a whole.

It also depends on the kind of socialist. Fabian socialism, national socialism, both allow for private property ownership. It is more the Marxist socialists for whom private property is heresy, and even in the Soviet Union, they had to partially privatize their agriculture industry to keep the entire country from starving to death.

I don't think many socialists consider national socialism as having anything to do with their ideology. And the Soviet union would be better described as Stalinist than Marxist.

"We're going to create a utopian, collectivist society!"

"I don't want to participate in any collective."

"We are going to violently overthrow the current central government and establish a dictatorship in which then we are going to FORCE you to participate in this collective and then you will see how much better collectivism is. And we are going to murder anyone who resists in our attempt to create a glorious utopia."

Well in a libertarian socialist society people are free to join and or leave as they see fit. In the current society they are not. The above scenario basically fits the neoconservatives (replace collectivism with free market capitalism) and their campaign of American imperialism.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Will have to look into that, don't see how that is really possible though. Much of it would also mean infringment on other people's property rights. For example if I start a company, work hard, build it up, employ workers, and have say several factories producing widgets, and then one day the workers "decide" to take ownership of the factories because anarchy resulted, well they are technically stealing away my property. The factories aren't theirs, they're mine, but I employ them. They didn't write the business plan, put up the startup capital, build the organization, etc

From what I understand this is more or less how it happened. The revolution succeeded, temporarily, and the "anarchists" seized control of the local resources and means of production. The situation lasted for only a few years so the ability to determine whether or not this particular anarchist or "libertarian socialist" experiment would have continued to work and remain stable is pretty much nil.
There is currently an experimental anarchist town running called Freetown Christiana. It does not seem very stable though and the economy does not seem very insular either. In this case they did not "steal" anything per se but they did take over an abandoned military base so did not really have to concern themselves much with infrastructure and the like.

This is all true but only within a capitalist framework. The (socialist) anarchist answer might be that you don't have a right to property, but the workers have a right to the means of production. And of course, if the anarchists had their way they would already own the factory and wouldn't need to steal it from you, i.e. the "theft" would only occur in the transition from capitalism to socialism.

The question would seem to be: where does the means of production come from? Simply "acquiring" resources and the means of production all ready and at your disposal from someone else without concern for any sort of reciprocity would seem to be theft by anyone's standards. If we break down everything to its barest form individual labour is really the essential "means of production". In this way all individuals are naturally in control of the means of production and theft in its barest form is the assertion of others that they have some right to it.

 

[mheslep]

From what I understand this is more or less how it happened. The revolution succeeded, temporarily, and the "anarchists" seized control of the local resources and means of production. The situation lasted for only a few years so the ability to determine whether or not this particular anarchist or "libertarian socialist" experiment would have continued to work and remain stable is pretty much nil.
There is currently an experimental anarchist town running called Freetown Christiana.

It appears the town is anarchist in name only, as one would expect.

 

[vici10]

The question would seem to be: where does the means of production come from? .

Interesting, Marx was concerned exactly about this issue. He calls means of production "dead labor" (since once there was a need of somebody's labor to produce it.) In most cases people who labor to produce means of production do not own them. There is a big chunk of Das Kapital that goes into English history describing this.

According to Marx "dead labor" by itself cannot produce wealth. There is always a need for "live labor" to use the means of production to create wealth. But the result product is usually mostly owned by owner of means of production ("dead labor").

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Interesting, Marx was concerned exactly about this issue. He calls means of production "dead labor" (since once there was a need of somebody's labor to produce it.) In most cases people who labor to produce means of production do not own them. There is a big chunk of Das Kapital that goes into English history describing this.

Interestingly American capitalistic freedom, often touted as the epitome of capitalism either praisingly or derisively, was constructed in part based on a rejection of Colonial English exploitation (excepting the institutional allowance of slavery of course).

According to Marx "dead labor" by itself cannot produce wealth. There is always a need for "live labor" to use the means of production to create wealth. But the result product is usually mostly owned by owner of means of production ("dead labor").

A capitalist would likely consider the means of production "invested labour" with the potential to be used to create wealth. The description "dead labour" seems to negate the value of the labour of its creators or the "essential means of production". It seems contradictory to the philosophy to uphold the value of some labourers over others.

 

[Nebula815]

I think you'd be surprised. American views on these subjects strike me as very insular and having little resemblance to the views I find in Europe. The word capitalism in the UK (almost) invariably has negative connotations, whereas socialism is often synonymous with humanitarianism. Of course I'm referring to general perception, not academic.

Europe tends to have that view yes, but it isn't correct. Europe flirted with socialism throughout much of the twentieth century. France is quasi-socialist, the UK went Fabian socialist under Labour party, and the only thing that stopped Germany from remaining socialist after Nazism was the people didn't want any policies that the Nazis had utilized, so free-market capitalism was permitted.

In academic circles however, Marxism is very common and is certainly a subject of debate. As I mentioned already, the distinction between positive and negative liberty is important here. While free market capitalism attempts to maximise an individuals liberty in the negative sense, that is by limiting the extent to which he can be interfered with, socialists attempt to maximise libery in the positive sense, by ensuring he actually has the means to live freely.

Marxism is common in academia because that's the sole place those people reside...in academia. Put into practice, it doesn't work. Marxism also doesn't advocate democracy, but dictatorship. Also, a socialist does not attempt to maximize any individual's ability to live freely. They do just the opposite: A socialist attempts to force and coerce an individual to give up what they produce in the name of the collective.

A friend explained to me that one of the main differences between capitalism and socialism is that capitalists focus strongly on the individual agent, whereas socialists take a far more deterministic view of society in which an individual is seen to be a product of his environment. From this point of view limiting the extent to which an individual can be interfered with is not sufficient to maximise liberty, which is instead maximised through considerations of society as a whole.

A socialist always views that the individual's liberty is best expressed through the glory of the collective. Which again means force and coercion, to glorify the collective. A classical liberal (adherent to free-market capitalism) understands that the glory of the collective comes through the glory of the individual.

You let people be free and individuals, to do as they please within the rule of law, and you get great and prosperous society. You force and coerce people in the name of the collective, and you get a poverty-stricken, non-free society.

I don't think many socialists consider national socialism as having anything to do with their ideology. And the Soviet union would be better described as Stalinist than Marxist.

Marxists do not consider national socialism as having anything to do with them, even though both are just different takes on the same thing. But that's because they are both secular religions in a sense. Both emphasize the glory of the state over the individual, that the individual is best expressed through the collective, a government dictatorship, and so forth.

But because of a few minor differences, they were slaughtering one another, just as the Catholics and the Protestants were killing one another for many years even though in the end they both believe in the same thing.

The Soviet Union was founded by Vladimir Lenin, an adherent to Karl Marx. After Lenin, there was a struggle for power, with Stalin ultimately winning out. Stalinism versus his rival Trotsky's Trotskyism were slightly different (there were also some other -isms from other rivals), but in the end, all were socialism (Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, Maoism, etc...).

Well in a libertarian socialist society people are free to join and or leave as they see fit. In the current society they are not.

There is no such thing and in current liberal democratic societies, people are very free. They only cannot "join" as they see fit in that you have to become a legal citizen of the nation you seek to join, but even then, you usually can still live in any liberal democratic nation for periods without being a citizen. There are democratic socialist nations, where the government is a democracy, and people can leave those if they wish. But in such a nation, collectivism and force and coercion will occur to a degree. And even those are tending towards free-market capitalism more now.

All a free-market ultimately means is people can engage in voluntary cooperation and free-trade with one another. One can't really get more free then that. Socialists either want the government to run everything, or they want everything done as a collective, which takes force, and force requires a government of some type.

It is basic economics. There isn't enough of everything for everyone, so we have trade and with a free-market, society rations goods on its own. Central planning by the state to ration goods and materials never works.

Either a market will ration goods and materials or the state, or some central authority will.

The above scenario basically fits the neoconservatives (replace collectivism with free market capitalism) and their campaign of American imperialism.

Neoconservatism has no campaign of American imperialism.