Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Libertarian communism

libcom.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 90 posts

Re: Libertarian communism

#71

Post by vidarh »

PlzSnow wrote: post #6

The communist ideology resulted in the torture/execution/starvation of, what, 100 million working-class people? People don't go about saying "I'm a fascist, let's give it another go, maybe it will work this time, sorry about the millions of dead children". So why do people think it's OK to say they're a communist?

Why do people think it's ok to say they're christians, despite the genocides carried out in the name of God?

Because they can see that their beliefs have minimal relation other than a name and somewhat shared history with the philosophies behind those genocides.

Should we write off the term "democracy" because of places like the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea?

Re: Libertarian communism

#72

Post by netcan »

nateabele wrote: post #4

> "Those of us with nothing to sell but our labour power" This is the weirdest thing about the dichotomy of Communism's popular resurgence in tech circles. In literal terms, our 'labour power' is fingers on a keyboard. Doesn't the real value in our work come from our ideas ? Technology is a lever for ideas, and that lever can be exploited by creativity in a way that few other areas of human endeavor can match. So, if…

I'm not sure to what extent they are adhering to the "Labour Theory of Value", but 'labour power' is a relatively esoteric concept from Marxist economics. In Marxists economics, labour value is the full price of goods produced with that labour and labour power is the stuff that employees get paid for, and it is traded. The difference is exploitation. It gets into a lot of hair splitting as classical economists poked leaks into Marx's theories and he adjusted.

The big difference between classical and Marxist economics is that Marxist use labour as the fundamental unit of value while classicals use utility as the unit/definition of value.

I'm far from a Marxist, but I've read Das Capital. Interesting read from a history of ideas perspective.

Re: Libertarian communism

#73

Post by pastProlog »

trengrj wrote: post #32

After reading the page it looks like a lot of communism and very little libertarianism.. Why is libertarianism mentioned? To me libertarianism requires at least giving people the freedom to buy and sell while this libcom site argues "the problem is that everything has a price". Are we going to have to start using the words "classical libertarianism" soon? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism#Meaning..…

No. Classical libertarianism would be of a "left wing" type, as libertarian was a word used on the left since the 19th century. Only in the post-WWII US did some on the right begin using the term.

Re: Libertarian communism

#74

Post by vidarh »

PlzSnow wrote: post #16
Synaesthesia wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was state socialism, not a true communist society. Any form of repression, coercion and control are condemned by anarchists / libertarian socialists. The USSR was certainly a state which was did of that. The reason why the USSR was trumpeted as socialist was that it suited both sides' propaganda to do so. For the Americans, to vilify socialism, and for the Russians to give their rule the appearance of genuine so…

"That was state socialism, not a true communist society." Ah. the "No true Scotsman fallacy". It would be funny it it weren't for the countless millions of tortured and murdered women, children, peasants...

There's no "no true Scotsman fallacy" there, given that the structure of the regime did not even fit any of the definitions of communism that the regime itself gave.

Not even the Bolsheviks saw the USSR as a communist society. In fact, long after their coup, even Bolshevik ideologues were arguing about how many generations it would take before communism might be possible in the USSR.

Lenin, on introducing NEP in 1921 expected it to need to be in place for decades before even trying more far reaching socialist policies, much less communism.

Re: Libertarian communism

#75

Post by popee »

hga wrote: post #22
popee wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I guess because communism, unlike nazism, doesn't have hatred hardcoded in ideology. On the other hand there is difference between theory and practice, you can have any ideological system, but if you depend on totalitarian dictator everything can fall apart - You depend on mood of that person/party. Just guessing ;-)

Well I guess because communism, unlike nazism, doesn't have hatred hardcoded in ideology. Bullshit. That the hatred is on the much more versatile axis of class instead of race doesn't make it any less vile. You don't rack up a 20th century record of a bare minimum of 100 million slaughtered without exercising a lot of hatred.

When I said hatred I meant 'Kill black people, jews, ...' directly in their ideology. So, can you guess what would happen if they won? Half world extinguished in few decades.

Re: Libertarian communism

#76

Post by UK-AL »

JDDunn9 wrote: post #61
UK-AL wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Communism is system that via implementation details tends to result in totalitarianism. If you have a central place to plan the economy to distribute via need, that place is going to be heavily concentrated in power. And due to human nature that tends to be abused. Capitalism, and markets don't have a central place to plan to economy. Power is decentralised via companies, and production controlled via market incentiv…

Slavery was de-centralised evil on a massive scale. The genocide of the Native Americans was largely decentralised, as part of the "cost" of land acquisition. Global warming has de-centralised causes. Relying on people (government or corporations) to do the right thing won't work. You need a system that cannot fail by design. Some checks and failsafes to guarantee the worst cannot happen at the government or individu…

"Slavery was de-centralised evil on a massive scale. The genocide of the Native Americans was largely decentralised, as part of the "cost" of land acquisition." - Most of which would solved with property rights, and rights of the individual.

Most advocates market economies really support those.

Re: Libertarian communism

#77

Post by humanrebar »

Synaesthesia wrote: post #60
humanrebar wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> according to Marxism the state is predominantly a tool of class rule, and that communism by their definition is the stage of society where there no longer are any classes, the state will cease to have a political purpose and will "whither away" So who runs the justice system, commands the military, and protects the rights of the citizens?

Representative councils which ar democratically elected by ordinary citizens.

How is that not a Democratic state?

Re: Libertarian communism

#78

Post by pastProlog »

humanrebar wrote: post #42

> The problem is that everything has a price. No, the problem is that everything has a relative value and someone needs to figure out what that value is. In free-market capitalist societies (and I'd argue in the other ones as well), money serves as an important heuristic for value. More concretely, do we, as a society, produce more fuel efficient cars or do we produce electric ones? In a free market, it's clear the o…

It is a strange thing to use cars as an example of a free market. The government just bailed out the auto industry. The government bailed out Chrysler with loans and government contracts in the 1970s as well. The auto industry lobbied for and got massive public subsidies for highway and road construction, while lobbying against mass transit, or just smashing it like GM did with NCL. Not to mention the federal government reviving Depression-racked Detroit's fortunes when the industrial plants began having tanks roll out during WWII. The auto industry never wanted to operate in a "free market".

Re: Libertarian communism

#79

Post by vidarh »

humanrebar wrote: post #53
vidarh wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Classical libertarianism is libertarian communism. The term libertarianism originates with the French anarcho-communist Joseph Déjacques back in the 19th century, and was championed by groups like the Socialist League in the UK (which was supported by Friedrich Engels and Eleanor Marx amongst others). Modern-day right-wing libertarianism is the new kid on the block. Basically in the late 1800's the main split between…

> according to Marxism the state is predominantly a tool of class rule, and that communism by their definition is the stage of society where there no longer are any classes, the state will cease to have a political purpose and will "whither away" So who runs the justice system, commands the military, and protects the rights of the citizens?

The key defining aspect of a state is that it has sovereignty vested in it: Power flows from the state down, no matter how who controls the state is determined. It then becomes a weapon of those who control the state, which is never the population as a whole (at best it might be a majority). This is its political purpose.

The state also serves administrative functions, but the existence of these administrative functions do not rely on the state any more than current supranational organs rely on a single world government handing down power: They can continue to exist by having their power delegated from below.

The difference, of course, being that when you are dependent on having your power delegated from "below", you need to thread much more carefully.

Re: Libertarian communism

#80

Post by erikdstock »

_glsb wrote: post #39
krisdol wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The communist ideology resulted in that in the same sense that the capitalist ideology resulted in the genocide of Native Americans, the creation of largest imprisoned population in the world, and centuries of slavery. Or maybe we're misrepresenting things a bit. I've never read a thing about having to kill 100 million working class people in any of the books about communism and anarchism I read. plenty of communist…

Name one.

Guatemala prior to the US-sponsored coup that radicalized che guevara and solidified in his mind the conviction that socialism couldn't work democratically when capitalist imperialists had no respect for democracy.

https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/56590

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara#Guatemala.2C_.C3.8... :

Later that month, Guevara arrived in Guatemala where President Jacobo Árbenz Guzmán headed a democratically elected government that, through land reform and other initiatives, was attempting to end the latifundia system. To accomplish this, President Árbenz had enacted a major land reform program, where all uncultivated portions of large land holdings were to be expropriated and redistributed to landless peasants. The biggest land owner, and one most affected by the reforms, was the United Fruit Company, from which the Árbenz government had already taken more than 225,000 acres (91,000 ha) of uncultivated land.[47] ...

The overthrow of the Arbenz regime cemented Guevara's view of the United States as an imperialist power that would oppose and attempt to destroy any government that sought to redress the socioeconomic inequality endemic to Latin America and other developing countries. In speaking about the coup Guevara stated:

"The last Latin American revolutionary democracy – that of Jacobo Arbenz – failed as a result of the cold premeditated aggression carried out by the United States. Its visible head was the Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, a man who, through a rare coincidence, was also a stockholder and attorney for the United Fruit Company."[54]

Guevara's conviction that Marxism achieved through armed struggle and defended by an armed populace was the only way to rectify such conditions was thus strengthened.[57] Gadea wrote later, "It was Guatemala which finally convinced him of the necessity for armed struggle and for taking the initiative against imperialism. By the time he left, he was sure of this."[58] "

just some context for the old refrain of "communism always leads to us capitalists whining about democracy." for you folks i dare you to read the next 40 years of Guatemala's peaceful capitalist history!

Post reply on HN