Yeah, I don't care any more. But just to make it clear, most anarchists (and "anarcho" capitalists aren't anarchists) make a distinction between possessions and property.
Anyway, it's not for me to blueprint the future, and you're just going into tiny details that are basically irrelevant.
(Irrelevant, for the time being at least, and likely to remain irrelevant. But it'll really be up to the people living in that future free society what they do.)
Topic: "Anarchists" rioting in London - page 2. (Read 21460 times)
As for "stealing" your house the moment you stop using it, I think that most socialists I know would say that there is a big difference between going to work for the day, or going on holiday for a while, and going away for a few years.
What do most socialists (as well as yourself) deem to be the period of time in which a home needs to be unoccupied before it can be legitimately occupied by new people?
As for pissing on beds, there is a difference between a possession (such as a bed) and the "means of production" (such as a factory). I doubt any sensible person would approve of pissing on beds, no matter who owns it. (Unless, of course, you are into such things, and you are willing to clean up after yourself. But don't go pissing on beds other people sleep in without their permission.)
So I must get the permission of the person who sleeps on the bed first in order to piss on it? Sounds like that person who sleeps on that bed is the owner. Or are these community owned beds?
Is the issue with the pissing part? What if instead I sleep on your bed after you leave it unoccupied? And then you come and want to sleep on the bed? Are you permitted to kick me out of the bed that you slept on and then left unoccupied?
(As with the word "socialist" I'm not using the word "communist" as it is invariably misused by the media. But rather, a stateless, classless society where property is shared in common. All those "communist states" are a contradiction in terms, and have been at most "working towards" a communist society.)
So property is shared in common. But I can't break into your home or sleep on your bed because that is not approved by society? Sounds like society is recognizing private property rights over your home and bed...
Not using the definitions of the terms that I use. Note, that I'm not an individualist anarchist (though you might get that impression from the quotes below). I'm instead an anarchist without adjectives, I want freedom.
I suggest for further insight into some of the ideas I've explored above, that you consult An Anarchist FAQ, specifically "Section G - Is individualist anarchism capitalistic?".
Here's a quote from the introduction of that section (my bold):
You'll note that the term "socialist" is used, not of state based socialism with which you might imagine, but of workers getting the full value of their labor.
Another quote from the same introduction to section G (bold in original):
From "G.1 Are individualist anarchists anti-capitalist?" (bold and emphasis stripped off 'cause I copied and pasted and can't be bothered fixing it):
I could go on, but I think that is sufficient to clarify the points that I've attempted to make about my ideas being hardly contradictory. (I could go on, with many more quotes, to demonstrate why I don't think that "anarcho" capitalism isn't anarchistic, but the FAQ exists...)
I suggest for further insight into some of the ideas I've explored above, that you consult An Anarchist FAQ, specifically "Section G - Is individualist anarchism capitalistic?".
Here's a quote from the introduction of that section (my bold):
Quote
So, in this section of our anarchist FAQ we indicate why the individualist anarchists cannot be classified as "ancestors" of the bogus libertarians of the "anarcho"-capitalist school. Rather, they must be classified as libertarian socialists due to their opposition to exploitation, critique of capitalist property rights and concern for equality, albeit being on the liberal wing of anarchist thought. Moreover, while all wanted to have an economy in which all incomes were based on labour, many also opposed wage labour, i.e. the situation where one person sells their labour to another rather than the product of that labour (a position which, we argue, their ideas logically imply). So while some of their ideas do overlap with those of the "anarcho"-capitalist school they are not capitalistic, no more than the overlap between their ideas and anarcho-communism makes them communistic.
In this context, the creation of "anarcho"-capitalism may be regarded as yet another tactic by capitalists to reinforce the public's perception that there are no viable alternatives to capitalism, i.e. by claiming that "even anarchism implies capitalism." In order to justify this claim, they have searched the history of anarchism in an effort to find some thread in the movement that can be used for this purpose. They think that with the individualist anarchists they have found such a thread. However, such an appropriation requires the systematic ignoring or dismissal of key aspects of individualist-anarchism (which, of course, the right-"libertarian" does). Somewhat ironically, this attempt by right-libertarians" to exclude individualist anarchism from socialism parallels an earlier attempt by state socialists to do the same. Tucker furiously refuted such attempts in an article entitled "Socialism and the Lexicographers", arguing that "the Anarchistic Socialists are not to be stripped of one half of their title by the mere dictum of the last lexicographer." [Instead of a Book, p. 365]
In this context, the creation of "anarcho"-capitalism may be regarded as yet another tactic by capitalists to reinforce the public's perception that there are no viable alternatives to capitalism, i.e. by claiming that "even anarchism implies capitalism." In order to justify this claim, they have searched the history of anarchism in an effort to find some thread in the movement that can be used for this purpose. They think that with the individualist anarchists they have found such a thread. However, such an appropriation requires the systematic ignoring or dismissal of key aspects of individualist-anarchism (which, of course, the right-"libertarian" does). Somewhat ironically, this attempt by right-libertarians" to exclude individualist anarchism from socialism parallels an earlier attempt by state socialists to do the same. Tucker furiously refuted such attempts in an article entitled "Socialism and the Lexicographers", arguing that "the Anarchistic Socialists are not to be stripped of one half of their title by the mere dictum of the last lexicographer." [Instead of a Book, p. 365]
You'll note that the term "socialist" is used, not of state based socialism with which you might imagine, but of workers getting the full value of their labor.
Another quote from the same introduction to section G (bold in original):
Quote
even at its most liberal, individualist, extreme anarchism was fundamentally anti-capitalist
From "G.1 Are individualist anarchists anti-capitalist?" (bold and emphasis stripped off 'cause I copied and pasted and can't be bothered fixing it):
Quote
As Proudhon put it, "[m]odern Socialism was not founded as a sect or church; it has seen a number of different schools." [Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, p. 177]
As Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin and Tucker all stressed, anarchism is one of those schools. For Kropotkin, anarchism was "the no-government system of socialism." [Anarchism, p. 46] Likewise, for Tucker, there were "two schools of socialistic thought", one of which represented authority and the other liberty, namely "State Socialism and Anarchism." [The Individualist Anarchists, pp. 78-9] It was "not Socialist Anarchism against Individualist Anarchism, but of Communist Socialism against Individualist Socialism." [Tucker, Liberty, no. 129, p. 2] As one expert on Individualist Anarchism noted, Tucker "looked upon anarchism as a branch of the general socialist movement." [James J. Martin, Men Against the State, pp. 226-7] Thus we find Individualist anarchist Victor Yarros, like Tucker, talking about "the position and teachings of the Anarchistic Socialists" when referring to his ideas. [Liberty, no. 98, p. 5]
From the same section, and again with original formatting lost:As Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin and Tucker all stressed, anarchism is one of those schools. For Kropotkin, anarchism was "the no-government system of socialism." [Anarchism, p. 46] Likewise, for Tucker, there were "two schools of socialistic thought", one of which represented authority and the other liberty, namely "State Socialism and Anarchism." [The Individualist Anarchists, pp. 78-9] It was "not Socialist Anarchism against Individualist Anarchism, but of Communist Socialism against Individualist Socialism." [Tucker, Liberty, no. 129, p. 2] As one expert on Individualist Anarchism noted, Tucker "looked upon anarchism as a branch of the general socialist movement." [James J. Martin, Men Against the State, pp. 226-7] Thus we find Individualist anarchist Victor Yarros, like Tucker, talking about "the position and teachings of the Anarchistic Socialists" when referring to his ideas. [Liberty, no. 98, p. 5]
Quote
Of course, not all the individualist anarchists used the term "socialist" or "socialism" to describe their ideas although many did. Some called their ideas Mutualism and explicitly opposed socialism (William Greene being the most obvious example). However, at root the ideas were part of the wider socialist movement and, in fact, they followed Proudhon in this as he both proclaimed himself a socialist while also attacking it. The apparent contradiction is easily explained by noting there are two schools of socialism, state and libertarian. Thus it is possible to be both a (libertarian) socialist and condemn (state) socialism in the harshest terms.
So what, then, is socialism? Tucker stated that "the bottom claim of Socialism" was "that labour should be put in possession of its own," that "the natural wage of labour is its product" and "interest, rent, and profit . . . constitute the trinity of usury." [The Individualist Anarchists, p. 78 and p. 80] This definition also found favour with Kropotkin who stated that socialism "in its wide, generic, and true sense" was an "effort to abolish the exploitation of labour by capital." [Anarchism, p. 169] For Kropotkin, anarchism was "brought forth by the same critical and revolutionary protest which gave rise to Socialism in general", socialism aiming for "the negation of Capitalism and of society based on the subjection of labour to capital." Anarchism, unlike other socialists, extended this to oppose "what constitutes the real strength of Capitalism: the State and its principle supports." [Environment and Evolution, p. 19] Tucker, similarly, argued that Individualist anarchism was a form of socialism and would result in the "emancipation of the workingman from his present slavery to capital." [Instead of a Book, p. 323]
So what, then, is socialism? Tucker stated that "the bottom claim of Socialism" was "that labour should be put in possession of its own," that "the natural wage of labour is its product" and "interest, rent, and profit . . . constitute the trinity of usury." [The Individualist Anarchists, p. 78 and p. 80] This definition also found favour with Kropotkin who stated that socialism "in its wide, generic, and true sense" was an "effort to abolish the exploitation of labour by capital." [Anarchism, p. 169] For Kropotkin, anarchism was "brought forth by the same critical and revolutionary protest which gave rise to Socialism in general", socialism aiming for "the negation of Capitalism and of society based on the subjection of labour to capital." Anarchism, unlike other socialists, extended this to oppose "what constitutes the real strength of Capitalism: the State and its principle supports." [Environment and Evolution, p. 19] Tucker, similarly, argued that Individualist anarchism was a form of socialism and would result in the "emancipation of the workingman from his present slavery to capital." [Instead of a Book, p. 323]
I could go on, but I think that is sufficient to clarify the points that I've attempted to make about my ideas being hardly contradictory. (I could go on, with many more quotes, to demonstrate why I don't think that "anarcho" capitalism isn't anarchistic, but the FAQ exists...)
I call myself a socialist (well, libertarian socialist). When I'm not calling myself an anarchist. See, I use the word socialist in the sense of wanting workers to get the full value of their labor. As in, against capitalism.
I'm an anarchist because I want freedom. And I think that capitalism (whether it is state based, or "stateless") is not compatible with a free society. I believe that the most freedom will come, not from allowing a lucky few to accumulate infinite wealth, but from allowing all to have an equal opportunity to build their own lives.
That said, I'm not against a free communist society, if those living in it choose to do so. But, if it was a free society, there would be nothing to stop people from exchanging items, or labor if they choose.
(As with the word "socialist" I'm not using the word "communist" as it is invariably misused by the media. But rather, a stateless, classless society where property is shared in common. All those "communist states" are a contradiction in terms, and have been at most "working towards" a communist society.)
You, Sir, are a walking self-contradiction.
As for "stealing" your house the moment you stop using it, I think that most socialists I know would say that there is a big difference between going to work for the day, or going on holiday for a while, and going away for a few years. As for pissing on beds, there is a difference between a possession (such as a bed) and the "means of production" (such as a factory). I doubt any sensible person would approve of pissing on beds, no matter who owns it. (Unless, of course, you are into such things, and you are willing to clean up after yourself. But don't go pissing on beds other people sleep in without their permission.)
I call myself a socialist (well, libertarian socialist). When I'm not calling myself an anarchist. See, I use the word socialist in the sense of wanting workers to get the full value of their labor. As in, against capitalism.
I'm an anarchist because I want freedom. And I think that capitalism (whether it is state based, or "stateless") is not compatible with a free society. I believe that the most freedom will come, not from allowing a lucky few to accumulate infinite wealth, but from allowing all to have an equal opportunity to build their own lives.
That said, I'm not against a free communist society, if those living in it choose to do so. But, if it was a free society, there would be nothing to stop people from exchanging items, or labor if they choose.
(As with the word "socialist" I'm not using the word "communist" as it is invariably misused by the media. But rather, a stateless, classless society where property is shared in common. All those "communist states" are a contradiction in terms, and have been at most "working towards" a communist society.)
I call myself a socialist (well, libertarian socialist). When I'm not calling myself an anarchist. See, I use the word socialist in the sense of wanting workers to get the full value of their labor. As in, against capitalism.
I'm an anarchist because I want freedom. And I think that capitalism (whether it is state based, or "stateless") is not compatible with a free society. I believe that the most freedom will come, not from allowing a lucky few to accumulate infinite wealth, but from allowing all to have an equal opportunity to build their own lives.
That said, I'm not against a free communist society, if those living in it choose to do so. But, if it was a free society, there would be nothing to stop people from exchanging items, or labor if they choose.
(As with the word "socialist" I'm not using the word "communist" as it is invariably misused by the media. But rather, a stateless, classless society where property is shared in common. All those "communist states" are a contradiction in terms, and have been at most "working towards" a communist society.)
On property is theft. I repeat my self from another thread:
Proudhon who wrote that phrase was, I believe, talking about excess property. Possession (use and occupation) is the only valid form of "property", and obviously you can't posses 1000 houses in the sense that I am talking about.
Proudhon who wrote that phrase was, I believe, talking about excess property. Possession (use and occupation) is the only valid form of "property", and obviously you can't posses 1000 houses in the sense that I am talking about.
And I will repeat my self [sic] from another thread:
As to what defines use and occupation, that is, I believe, something more generally for the community to decide.
I'm reminded of a great Tucker quote arguing that "the community" is absurd concept:
As for Tucker, I was pointing out that anarchists are socialists. Many (most?) socialists (such as Tucker) were and are also believers in the possession sense of the word property. Normally reserving "property" for "the means of production" more specifically.
But as I have stated before, I'm an anarchist, but not a socialist. And Tucker surely wouldn't call himself a socialist according to what it means nowadays (back then socialist meant something slightly different...even I might have called myself a socialist back then).
That doesn't mean that you have to have property (in either sense of the word used above) to have anarchism. Though, I think that most anarchist communists today do not have a problem with possession of things (such as toothbrushes), and the smart ones don't have a problem with workers owning the specific means of production specifically used by those workers. (Some do object to anything full community ownership of all the means of production, but I reject that as a bit silly.)
Yeah, they're silly. "No! That's my bed that you're pissing on!"
You haven't blown my mind, 'cause like, I had actually read those authors. I've done a lot of reading of anarchist literature of the years.
On property is theft. I repeat my self from another thread:
Proudhon who wrote that phrase was, I believe, talking about excess property. Possession (use and occupation) is the only valid form of "property", and obviously you can't posses 1000 houses in the sense that I am talking about.
As to what defines use and occupation, that is, I believe, something more generally for the community to decide.
As for Tucker, I was pointing out that anarchists are socialists. Many (most?) socialists (such as Tucker) were and are also believers in the possession sense of the word property. Normally reserving "property" for "the means of production" more specifically.
That doesn't mean that you have to have property (in either sense of the word used above) to have anarchism. Though, I think that most anarchist communists today do not have a problem with possession of things (such as toothbrushes), and the smart ones don't have a problem with workers owning the specific means of production specifically used by those workers. (Some do object to anything full community ownership of all the means of production, but I reject that as a bit silly.)
@deadlizard why not? I'd guess because it's wet and the inside of the bottle is treated specially so that the glue doesn't stick to it. Plus stuff about air and curing. I'm not a physicist, chemist or similar, but I'm sure a simple explanation could be found. Indeed, a quick search later and I've got a stack of websites that want to tell me the answer in exchange for me looking at ads. And indeed, my first thought (wetness) was correct according to these two websites: http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4922935_doesnt-glue-stick-inside-bottle.html and http://www.funtrivia.com/askft/Question57800.html wow isn't science fun!
On property is theft. I repeat my self from another thread:
Proudhon who wrote that phrase was, I believe, talking about excess property. Possession (use and occupation) is the only valid form of "property", and obviously you can't posses 1000 houses in the sense that I am talking about.
As to what defines use and occupation, that is, I believe, something more generally for the community to decide.
As for Tucker, I was pointing out that anarchists are socialists. Many (most?) socialists (such as Tucker) were and are also believers in the possession sense of the word property. Normally reserving "property" for "the means of production" more specifically.
That doesn't mean that you have to have property (in either sense of the word used above) to have anarchism. Though, I think that most anarchist communists today do not have a problem with possession of things (such as toothbrushes), and the smart ones don't have a problem with workers owning the specific means of production specifically used by those workers. (Some do object to anything full community ownership of all the means of production, but I reject that as a bit silly.)
@deadlizard why not? I'd guess because it's wet and the inside of the bottle is treated specially so that the glue doesn't stick to it. Plus stuff about air and curing. I'm not a physicist, chemist or similar, but I'm sure a simple explanation could be found. Indeed, a quick search later and I've got a stack of websites that want to tell me the answer in exchange for me looking at ads. And indeed, my first thought (wetness) was correct according to these two websites: http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4922935_doesnt-glue-stick-inside-bottle.html and http://www.funtrivia.com/askft/Question57800.html wow isn't science fun!
why doesn't glue stick to the inside of the bottle?
Did I blow your mind?
Did I blow your mind?
One of the easiest ways to point out that the distinction is bullshit is by pointing out that Pierre Joseph Proudhon, that French person who is credited with first openly calling himself an anarchist, was a European.
...
I could go on to explain why property isn't necessary for anarchism to exist...
...
I could go on to explain why property isn't necessary for anarchism to exist...
Keep in mind that when Proudhon wrote those famous words, "Property is Theft", he was actually using it for rhetorical purposes as he explains in Confessions d'un revolutionnaire:
Oh, and let's not forget Ben Tucker. He was a self professed socialist, yet somehow still called himself an anarchist.
Blown your puny minds yet?
Blown your puny minds yet?
"Anarchism," writes Benjamin Tucker, "is a word without meaning, unless it includes the liberty of the individual to control his product or whatever his product has brought him through exchange in a free market — that is, private property. Whoever denies private property is of necessity an Archist.”
Did I blow your mind yet?
Well you blew mine.
This post was awesome. One of the easiest ways to point out that the distinction is bullshit is by pointing out that Pierre Joseph Proudhon, that French person who is credited with first openly calling himself an anarchist, was a European.
...
I could go on to explain why property isn't necessary for anarchism to exist...
...
I could go on to explain why property isn't necessary for anarchism to exist...
Keep in mind that when Proudhon wrote those famous words, "Property is Theft", he was actually using it for rhetorical purposes as he explains in Confessions d'un revolutionnaire:
Oh, and let's not forget Ben Tucker. He was a self professed socialist, yet somehow still called himself an anarchist.
Blown your puny minds yet?
Blown your puny minds yet?
"Anarchism," writes Benjamin Tucker, "is a word without meaning, unless it includes the liberty of the individual to control his product or whatever his product has brought him through exchange in a free market — that is, private property. Whoever denies private property is of necessity an Archist.”
Did I blow your mind yet?
Dense.
Ben Tucker was an individualist anarchist. Classic American Anarchist. Look him up. Yet, he called himself a socialist.
Ben Tucker was an individualist anarchist. Classic American Anarchist. Look him up. Yet, he called himself a socialist.
Weather Underground were not anarchists (they were a hodgepodge of Leninistisic types).
Yes, exactly. Many of whom thought they were anarchists.
Quote
Then there we all those people who actually called themselves anarchists who "rioted" in Seattle in 1999 (and at many other events, including political conventions, since).
Classifying anarchists as "European" or "American" is idiotic, as is the claim that the European ones are actually statists. It is one of the stupider things I've ever seen on this board.
I used those descriptors because I don't have better ones. Of course there are "European" anarchists in the US, and "American" anarchists is Europe. Nothing is absolute.
Quote
One of the easiest ways to point out that the distinction is bullshit is by pointing out that Pierre Joseph Proudhon, that French person who is credited with first openly calling himself an anarchist, was a European.
And if the point is that European type anarchists are all socialists. And that all socialists are statists, then I'll point to Josiah Warren. Basically, profit is wrong. Oh, and let's not forget Ben Tucker. He was a self professed socialist, yet somehow still called himself an anarchist.
Quote
Blown your puny minds yet?
By name dropping? Not really.Quote
I could go on to explain why property isn't necessary for anarchism to exist, or why (as I think I've said before in this very thread), that some anarchists feel that attacking the state or symbols of capitalism is self-defense, but I've wasted too much time on your people as it is. You make ignorant statements and then pat each other on the back and crow about how clever you are. Well done, but it doesn't mean you you aren't wrong.
I can accept the possibility that I'm wrong, but I've read all that you have presented on this theme in the past, and probably much more than you can produce, and IMHO the most likely possibility is that you are confused about your own role.
Weather Underground were not anarchists (they were a hodgepodge of Leninistisic types). Then there we all those people who actually called themselves anarchists who "rioted" in Seattle in 1999 (and at many other events, including political conventions, since).
Classifying anarchists as "European" or "American" is idiotic, as is the claim that the European ones are actually statists. It is one of the stupider things I've ever seen on this board.
One of the easiest ways to point out that the distinction is bullshit is by pointing out that Pierre Joseph Proudhon, that French person who is credited with first openly calling himself an anarchist, was a European.
And if the point is that European type anarchists are all socialists. And that all socialists are statists, then I'll point to Josiah Warren. Basically, profit is wrong. Oh, and let's not forget Ben Tucker. He was a self professed socialist, yet somehow still called himself an anarchist.
Blown your puny minds yet?
I could go on to explain why property isn't necessary for anarchism to exist, or why (as I think I've said before in this very thread), that some anarchists feel that attacking the state or symbols of capitalism is self-defense, but I've wasted too much time on your people as it is. You make ignorant statements and then pat each other on the back and crow about how clever you are. Well done, but it doesn't mean you you aren't wrong.
Classifying anarchists as "European" or "American" is idiotic, as is the claim that the European ones are actually statists. It is one of the stupider things I've ever seen on this board.
One of the easiest ways to point out that the distinction is bullshit is by pointing out that Pierre Joseph Proudhon, that French person who is credited with first openly calling himself an anarchist, was a European.
And if the point is that European type anarchists are all socialists. And that all socialists are statists, then I'll point to Josiah Warren. Basically, profit is wrong. Oh, and let's not forget Ben Tucker. He was a self professed socialist, yet somehow still called himself an anarchist.
Blown your puny minds yet?
I could go on to explain why property isn't necessary for anarchism to exist, or why (as I think I've said before in this very thread), that some anarchists feel that attacking the state or symbols of capitalism is self-defense, but I've wasted too much time on your people as it is. You make ignorant statements and then pat each other on the back and crow about how clever you are. Well done, but it doesn't mean you you aren't wrong.
I'm an anarchist. But for people too stupid to listen to my explanation of what I mean by the term, I also use the term libertarian socialist.
Which is a contradiction in terms.
Depends.
Not really; unless you are saying that you are a libertarian except within your own family, and then you are socialist, which pretty much means that you are a libertarian. You cannot be for liberty and socialism at the same time, they are opposing ideologies. Heads would explode.
As far as I can tell, an anarchist libertarian socialist is someone who believes there should not be a state, that people should do whatever they want, and that the resulting overpopulation will force social interaction.
It's sort of a "here and now" type of philosophy, future social welfare be damned.
In fact it's not really all that different from anarcho-capitalism except that instead of just poors starving, everyone starves together and benefits from the sense of community.
That's funny!
I'm an anarchist. But for people too stupid to listen to my explanation of what I mean by the term, I also use the term libertarian socialist.
Which is a contradiction in terms.
Anarchism is socialist. Has that blown your mind?
Not at all. The European version of anarchism is indeed socialist, but they are not libertarians. European anarchists are statists who oppose the factions in control of the state and the ideologies that they represent, but not statism itself. Which has much to do with why American anarchists tend to use other terms, such as 'volunteerist', so as not to be associated with the European understanding of the term. Certainly there are those in Europe who believe themselves to be actual anarchists, but those are those whom Stalin called "useful idiots". Violent or chaotic anarchy is always a transitional political state, and one the Marx himself advocated as a stepping stone to socialism. And although some/most libertarians are truly anti-state, most are not under any illusion about the fragility of the rule of law under a stateless political society, and any solution is basicly a mini-state. Notice, if you will, that American anarchists, no matter what they call themselves or how badly they might want to, never riot. They have not since the Weather Underground of the 1970's, who were quite openly anarchists of the European sort. They don't riot because the destruction of private property (any property owned by anyone not their target, whether they like them or not) would violate their principles concerning non-aggression and the rule of natural/common law.
I'm an anarchist. But for people too stupid to listen to my explanation of what I mean by the term, I also use the term libertarian socialist.
Which is a contradiction in terms.
Depends.
Not really; unless you are saying that you are a libertarian except within your own family, and then you are socialist, which pretty much means that you are a libertarian. You cannot be for liberty and socialism at the same time, they are opposing ideologies. Heads would explode.
As far as I can tell, an anarchist libertarian socialist is someone who believes there should not be a state, that people should do whatever they want, and that the resulting overpopulation will force social interaction.
It's sort of a "here and now" type of philosophy, future social welfare be damned.
In fact it's not really all that different from anarcho-capitalism except that instead of just poors starving, everyone starves together and benefits from the sense of community.
I'm an anarchist. But for people too stupid to listen to my explanation of what I mean by the term, I also use the term libertarian socialist.
Which is a contradiction in terms.
Anarchism is socialist. Has that blown your mind?
I'm an anarchist. But for people too stupid to listen to my explanation of what I mean by the term, I also use the term libertarian socialist.
Which is a contradiction in terms.
Depends.
Not really; unless you are saying that you are a libertarian except within your own family, and then you are socialist, which pretty much means that you are a libertarian. You cannot be for liberty and socialism at the same time, they are opposing ideologies. Heads would explode.
I'm an anarchist. But for people too stupid to listen to my explanation of what I mean by the term, I also use the term libertarian socialist.
Which is a contradiction in terms.
Depends.
I'm an anarchist. But for people too stupid to listen to my explanation of what I mean by the term, I also use the term libertarian socialist.
Which is a contradiction in terms.
Jump to: