I believe our problems, as humans, are deeper

http://question-why-is-our-generations-existence-so-meaningless.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=908886&mc=77&forum_id=2

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=898469&forum_id=2#10630393)

Watch the video linked below in this thread for inspiration. The lyrics are very anarchist, about workers overthrowing their owners.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=898469&forum_id=2#10630438)

I'm not against this. Still, win or lose, we'll deal with the same old shit down the road "

There's no perfect form of government. Free market eventually leads to the government growing like a cancer, leaching off of it, and fucking everyone over. See: Roman Empire.

Shit would happen all over again.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=898469&forum_id=2#16226924)

Haven't heard of it. Sounds interesting, though I'm not usually too keen on the sound of that genre of music.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=898469&forum_id=2#10924988)

they'll give up more once things get really really bad, to keep people comfortable enough to avoid a real revolution. if it goes beyond that i think WW3 will mysteriously start, and there will be no time for revolution.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=898469&forum_id=2#10510740)

"patience is not a virtue (i aint waiting),

turning shit over like bush did a boatful of haitians"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsUDGxdeICw&feature=related

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=898469&forum_id=2#10917873)

Also, think of it more as a direction than an endpoint.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=898469&forum_id=2#10636415)

I've heard of anarcho-libertarianism, but never libertarian socialism

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=898469&forum_id=2#10642203)

Although really by many definitions anachro-socialism is really just a subset of anachro-capitalism.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=898469&forum_id=2#10919343)

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=898469&forum_id=2#10630285)

Political usage

The term libertarian in a political sense was first popularized in France in the 1890s in order to counter and evade the anti-anarchist laws known as the lois scélérates.[citation needed] According to the anarchist historian Max Nettlau, the first use of the term libertarian communism was in November 1880, when a French anarchist congress employed it to more clearly identify its doctrines.[12] The French anarchist journalist Sébastien Faure, later founder and editor of the four-volume Anarchist Encyclopedia, started the weekly paper Le Libertaire (The Libertarian) in 1895.[13][unreliable source?]

In the meantime, in the United States, libertarianism as a synonym for anarchism had begun to take hold. The anarchist communist geographer and social theorist Peter Kropotkin wrote in his seminal 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica article Anarchism that:

It would be impossible to represent here, in a short sketch, the penetration, on the one hand, of anarchist ideas into modern literature, and the influence, on the other hand, which the libertarian ideas of the best contemporary writers have exercised upon the development of anarchism.[14]

Today anarcho-communist, libertarian socialist, and other left-libertarian movements worldwide continue to describe themselves as libertarian. These forms of libertarianism are opposed to most or all forms of private property.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=898469&forum_id=2#10630402)

Libertarian socialism is a group of political philosophies that aim to create a society without political, economic, or social hierarchies, i.e. a society in which all violent or coercive institutions would be dissolved, and in their place every person would have free, equal access to tools of information and production, or a society in which such coercive institutions and hierarchies were drastically reduced in scope.[1]

This equality and freedom would be achieved through the abolition of authoritarian institutions that own and control productive means as private property,[2] in order that direct control of these means of production and resources will be shared by society as a whole. Libertarian socialism also constitutes a tendency of thought that informs the identification, criticism and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of social life. Accordingly libertarian socialists believe that “the exercise of power in any institutionalized form – whether economic, political, religious, or sexual – brutalizes both the wielder of power and the one over whom it is exercised.”[3]

While more state-based varieties of socialism emphasize the role of the state or political party in promoting state control of the economy and social engineering[citation needed], libertarian socialists place their hopes in trade unions, workers' councils, municipalities, citizens' assemblies, and other non-bureaucratic, decentralized means of action.[4] Most libertarian socialists advocate doing away with the state altogether, seeing it as a bulwark of capitalist class rule.[5]

Political philosophies commonly described as libertarian socialist include most varieties of anarchism (especially anarchist communism, anarchist collectivism, anarcho-syndicalism,[6] most forms of mutualism,[7] some forms of individualist anarchism,[8] social ecology,[9] autonomism and council communism).[10] Some writers use libertarian socialism synonymously with anarchism.[11]

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=898469&forum_id=2#10699108)

The first person to describe himself as a libertarian was Joseph Déjacque,[15][dubious – discuss] an early French anarchist communist. The word stems from the French word libertaire, and was used in order to evade the French ban on anarchist publications.[16] In the context of the European socialist movement, libertarian has conventionally been used to describe those who opposed state socialism, such as Mikhail Bakunin. In the United States, the movement most commonly called libertarianism follows a capitalist philosophy; the term libertarian socialism therefore strikes many Americans as a contradiction in terms. However, the association of socialism to libertarianism predates that of capitalism, and many anti-authoritarians still decry what they see as a mistaken association of capitalism to libertarianism in the United States.[17] As Noam Chomsky put it, a consistent libertarian "must oppose private ownership of the means of production and the wage slavery which is a component of this system, as incompatible with the principle that labor must be freely undertaken and under the control of the producer."[18]

In a chapter recounting the history of libertarian socialism, radical economist Robin Hahnel relates that thus far the period where libertarian socialism has had its greatest impact was at the end of the 19th century through the first four decades of the twentieth century.

“Early in the twentieth century, libertarian socialism was as powerful a force as social democracy and communism. The Libertarian International – founded at the Congress of Saint Imier a few days after the split between Marxist and libertarians at the congress of the Socialist International held in The Hague in 1872 – competed successfully against social democrats and communists alike for the loyalty of anticapitalist activists, revolutionaries, workers, unions and political parties for over fifty years. Libertarian socialists played a major role in the Russian revolutions of 1905 and 1917. Libertarian socialists played a dominant role in the Mexican Revolution of 1911. Twenty years after World War I was over, libertarian socialists were still strong enough to spearhead the social revolution that swept across Republican Spain in 1936 and 1937.”[19]

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=898469&forum_id=2#10699197)

Property is great, to an extent, but our current distribution is illegitimate. Property in land is particularly illegitimate.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=898469&forum_id=2#10699285)

If I prefer anarcho-capitalism, can I live in a neighboring community that trades with yours?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=898469&forum_id=2#10699239)

That's the great thing about a true libertarian society. You and your comrades could buy a few million acres for your commune. You would have no obligation to your non-commie neighbors other than to respect their proper rights (e.g. don't pollute the river running into your neighbors land). You wouldn't have to pay property or income tax. You could trade with your capitalist neighbors if you wanted to, but you wouldn't have to.

I guess therein lies the superiority of libertarianism: You and your comrades could live exactly how you wanted in our society, whereas I couldn't live the way I wanted to live in your society.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=898469&forum_id=2#10919221)

the problem is, who has ever heard of a state that voluntarily relinquishes control? assuming that re-education works (not a fair assumption), the people responsible for the dictatorships affairs would already be several generations removed from those who initiated the revolution. this means that they had risen through the party's ranks in what is strictly a quest for power. because achieving this power is what they had dedicated their lives to, youd be delusional to believe that theyd abdicate without violence.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=898469&forum_id=2#10917914)

what i have come to decide is that anarcho-syndicalism relies too heavily on the morals of individuals. regardless of the societal norms there will always be greedy people looking to exploit the system (even if directly harms their brothers). the only way to prevent this behavior is by creating sensible laws and an agency to uphold the laws.

nevertheless, it is always right for workers to occupy the buildings of the former employers. here is a link to a case that is in the process of that transformation:

http://www.socialistworld.net/eng/2009/02/1002.html

a similar chain of events has been playing out in latin america for the last couple years. in most cases, democratic control by the workers increases productivity.

the perfect opportunity for workers to seize the means of production was the door factory in chicago that lost its line of credit. the workers didnt act aggressively, probably because they lacked organization when they lost their jobs and the shock left them despondent and docile. organization in the form of labor unions is not the ideal framework, as labor unions exist to play the role of the workers representative in collective bargaining with the employer. in the situation that we are envisioning, there is no bargaining, just taking. therefore the role of the labor unions must be expanded to be the representatives of the workers, period.

such is the case in europe, where labor unions and political parties have a visible, leading role in social activities that attract hundreds of thousands.

the premise behind any argument for anarcho-syndicalism is that the right of the individual to dignity (fair living wage for a respectable job, clean housing, the option of having nutrition food) far outweighs the individuals right to private property.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=898469&forum_id=2#10917825)

And if you are into it, go listen to Crass - best before '84 - for a week to get this shit out of your system.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=898469&forum_id=2#12699763)

*pouts*

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=898469&forum_id=2#12940586)

Running a large scale power grid without any sort of hierarchy sounds painfully difficult.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=898469&forum_id=2#12950158)

what's the gist of anarcho-socialism?

a large government that focuses on massive redistribution? but that doesn't bother people...? right?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=898469&forum_id=2#13545954)

I posted the following summary before, and it's pretty short:

Libertarian socialism is a group of political philosophies that aim to create a society without political, economic, or social hierarchies, i.e. a society in which all violent or coercive institutions would be dissolved, and in their place every person would have free, equal access to tools of information and production, or a society in which such coercive institutions and hierarchies were drastically reduced in scope.

This equality and freedom would be achieved through the abolition of authoritarian institutions that own and control productive means as private property, in order that direct control of these means of production and resources will be shared by society as a whole. Libertarian socialism also constitutes a tendency of thought that informs the identification, criticism and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of social life. Accordingly libertarian socialists believe that “the exercise of power in any institutionalized form – whether economic, political, religious, or sexual – brutalizes both the wielder of power and the one over whom it is exercised.”

While more state-based varieties of socialism emphasize the role of the state or political party in promoting state control of the economy and social engineering, libertarian socialists place their hopes in trade unions, workers' councils, municipalities, citizens' assemblies, and other non-bureaucratic, decentralized means of action. Most libertarian socialists advocate doing away with the state altogether, seeing it as a bulwark of capitalist class rule.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=898469&forum_id=2#13545960)

any movement so large would need leadership. so a lib-soc would hope for labor unions to lead the way? good luck with that. unions are already incompetent and corrupt as fuck. to me it sounds like you're saying to get rid of the state and replace it with unions and groups....but only the groups that are idk chosen by god?? e.g., certainly not business. but won't these groups basically be a new government? also good luck enforcing your shit without any coercive institutions.

im sorry but it sounds pretty stupid. i mean, yea it'd be nice if we could all live and let live. not gonna happen.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=898469&forum_id=2#13545972)

Anarchists see the use of force to control people as illegitimate. Some advocate the complete abolition of all gov't, while others simply want to reduce the amount of gov't control over their lives.

Anarcho-socialism is a thread of anarchist thought which advocates that resources such as land belong equally to all people and should be equitably distributed among them, by the common consent of the people.

You're probably thinking, "That's all well and good, but what does this have to do with real life?" A lot, to be honest, but I'd rather not bore you by going on and on. I can post more if you want.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=898469&forum_id=2#13551380)

Also, I fucking hate just about everything about our government.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=898469&forum_id=2#15743831)

Wrong. The land value tax is about having users pay back to society [most of] the benefit they are given by society for the right to exclude others. These rights to exclude others would still exist, it's just that the land would be subject to the LVT.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=898469&forum_id=2#16227189)

So how is LVT different from today's property taxes?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=898469&forum_id=2#16227201)

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax

of course, I also propose a massive redistribution of wealth as a first step and part of the revolution.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=898469&forum_id=2#16227359)