Libertarian Socialism

[Etienne]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

Noam Chomsky est un "libertarian socialist", dixit lui-même.

[timburton]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

Noam Chomsky est un "libertarian socialist", dixit lui-même.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Attention, le mot "libertarian" est ambigü aux USA : libertarien ou libertaire.

[pankkake]

Ben c'est les "libertaires", non ?

[Punu]

Ce passage est intéressant, il reprend plusieurs remarques que je me fais depuis longtemps à propos de l'anarcho-communisme, naturellement en répondant à côté de la plaque.

Quant à Chomsky, c'est l'anarchiste vieille école, sauce Makhno ou Durutti.

Criticisms of libertarian socialism

A common criticism, made by non-socialist libertarians is that a free market will spontaneously arise unless it is suppressed by force (with the exception of a market in information intangibles such as software, music, films, and literature, which requires active enforcement of intellectual property laws to keep from turning into a pure gift economy). Typically, non-socialist libertarians believe that a capitalist economy is natural, rather than artificial, so it would naturally develop in the absence of regulating factors. Thus they argue that a truly socialist libertarianism would be an oxymoron. However, cultural anthropologists have long noted that capitalism defined by private ownership and control of production and self-regulating markets for land, labour and capital is a recent phenomenon in human history. Moreover, the mere existence of markets in antiquity for consumer goods, or the institution of money, does not denote capitalist social relations, nor can they necessarily be regarded as its incipient forms. For example, in their historical work on the institution of money, Fikret Adaman and Pat Devine conclude that "historically money predates (market) exchange and should be seen fundamentally as a means of payment in discharge of a social obligation", in other words it was embedded in social norms rather being regulated by an autonomous market mechanism. [[2]]

Libertarian socialists in conjunction with Marxists dispute the notion that capitalist economic relations arise spontaneously in the absence of suppression, but in fact require active political suppression in the form of property law that is enforced either by a state or by private force (see: Property is theft). Karl Polanyi argued in his seminal work, The Great Transformation, that while markets existed for consumer goods they were invariably embedded in social norms, whereas as self-regulating markets for labour, land and money came about only as the result of the violent intervention by the state. The first instance of this violent displacement of traditional societies occurred in England from the 15th to 18th centuries. This state-led experiment of imposing the "stark utopia" of the self-regulating market wherein the guiding motives of individuals in society are reduced to "hope of gain" and "fear of hunger" has been repeated many times since, throughout the globe, at what socialists claim is an enormous human and environmental cost, including the virtual extinction of ethnic cultures. (ie:Colonialism) It has also been a process that has elicited oppositional struggles whose thrust has been to re-embed the market in social norms that protect the human and natural substance of society.

Libertarian socialists instead argue that a socialist society can develop and endure without coercion. Anarcho-syndicalists believe that trade unionism, direct action, and mass organisation among free individuals would negate capitalism which, similarly, can only be saved by coercion. There are few, if any, libertarian socialists who think that violence should play an institutional role in a future society. Some anarchists, who have been called anarcho-pacifists, reject violence altogether. Thus, they claim that it is a straw-man to suggest that libertarian socialists would violently restrict voluntary economic relations between individuals in the absence of a state. Rather, they believe that capitalist economic relations require public or private enforcement because they are involuntary themselves, thus resistance against private property enforcement is a form of defense.

Adherents of the Austrian School of economics argue that the distinction between "personal" and "productive" property is specious, and that consequently paradoxes in their division are doomed to arise regardless of the delineation chosen. Libertarian socialists generally disagree that the division is specious, but agree that it in some circumstances it can be a subject of contention; thus the decision cannot be trusted to executive decisions of bureaucrats (as state socialists propose), but insofar as it is a public concern, it can be expected to be resolved in the participatory democratic body appropriate to the circumstances. Others believe that the distinction they make is not between personal and productive property, but rather between property that is "in use" or part of a broader use pattern and property that is "out of use" or used to extort labor from a second party.

Some argue that freedom and equality are often in conflict with one another, and that promoting equality (as valued by socialism) will inherently require restrictions on liberty (as valued by libertarianism), forcing the society to choose one or the other as their primary value. (The Kurt Vonnegut story, "Harrison Bergeron", in which equality is enforced by imposing physical and mental handicaps on overachievers, can be seen as a reducio ad absurdum argument illustrating this point.) Yet it is perhaps telling that those who follow Vonnegut's line of argument do not provide examples of egalitarians who actually hold the views that they are attacking. Radical egalitarians such as Noam Chomsky note that, "human talents vary considerably, within a fixed framework that is characteristic of the species and that permits ample scope for creative work, including the appreciation of the creative achievements of others. This should be a matter of delight rather than a condition to be abhorred." (Chomsky Reader, 199) The thrust of the work of another egalitarian, Karl Marx, was never to make human beings identical, but "the development of rich individuality which is as all-sided in its production as in its consumption", and "the absolute working out of (his) creative potentalities." [[3]] Libertarian socialists believe that the right-libertarian conception of freedom often amounts to little more than apologetics for the right of the powerful to do as they please often at the expense of the freedoms of the less powerful. As libertarian socialist Robin Hahnel has explained "it is, of course, a good thing for people to be free to do what they please- as long as what they choose does not impinge on more important freedoms or rights of others…I should not be free to employ you because my freedom of enterprise robs you of a more fundamental freedom to manage your own labouring capacities. I should not be free to bequeath substantial inheritance to my children because that robs the children of less wealthy parents of their more fundamental right to an equal opportunity in life. Although advocates of capitalism would not agree, there is little disagreement about any of this among those who believe we must go beyond capitalism if we are to achieve the economics of equitable cooperation. But are there additional freedoms and rights that others should not be free to violate in choosing to do what they please?…We think self-management is the only way to interpret what "economic freedom" means without having one person's freedom conflict with freedoms of others.(p.289)…I define self-management as decision making input in proportion to the degree one is affected."(p.40)(Hahnel- The ABC's of Political Economy)[[4]]

[Etienne]

Attention, le mot "libertarian" est ambigü aux USA : libertarien ou libertaire.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Visiblement, non.

Libertarian socialists believe that the right-libertarian conception of freedom often amounts to little more than apologetics for the right of the powerful to do as they please often at the expense of the freedoms of the less powerful.

[Etienne]

Ce passage est intéressant, il reprend plusieurs remarques que je me fais depuis longtemps à propos de l'anarcho-communisme, naturellement en répondant à côté de la plaque.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Effectivement, il parait qu'un trait commun de la pensée libérale est de penser à la naturalité du capitalisme, ou ce qui revient relativement au même à la naturalité de la propriété. Le problème se situe sur l'idée qu'on se fait de la nature humaine, qui parait beaucoup plus déterminée chez les libéraux, que chez les socialistes (dont le mythe de l'"homme nouveau", et son échec, devrait suffir à réfuter).

[Punu]

Il existe également aux USA une école philosophique totalement apolitique qui s'appelle libertarianism. On s'y perd un peu.

[Punu]

Effectivement, il parait qu'un trait commun de la pensée libérale est de penser à la naturalité du capitalisme, ou ce qui revient relativement au même à la naturalité de la propriété. Le problème se situe sur l'idée qu'on se fait de la nature humaine, qui parait beaucoup plus déterminée chez les libéraux, que chez les socialistes (dont le mythe de l'"homme nouveau", et son échec, devrait suffir à réfuter).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactement. D'autant plus que la propriété est un concept qu'on retrouve (sous forme de comportement) chez de nombreux autres animaux : certains singes, certains oiseaux, certains félins. On peut dès lors difficilement parler de construction intellectuelle/sociale/culturelle.

A mon sens, la véritable valeur de Libéralisme de Salin, c'est la deuxième partie, cette magnifique justification de la propriété, à laquelle je n'ai rien trouvé de comparable (même dans Vers une société sans état).

[Etienne]

Exactement. D'autant plus que la propriété est un concept qu'on retrouve (sous forme de comportement) chez de nombreux autres animaux : certains singes, certains oiseaux, certains félins. On peut dès lors difficilement parler de construction intellectuelle/sociale/culturelle.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

C'est déjà une critique dans le Discours sur les fondements et l'origine de l'inégalité entre les hommes de Rousseau, qui argue que la propriété a été instituée, et que tout allait beaucoup mieux avant. (J'ai du me farcir ce bouquin également pendant ces vacances).

En réalité, son propos me semble largement invalidé en ce qu'il méconnaissait totalement les phénomènes de l'évolution, et de la selection naturelle (il admirait pas mal Buffon), et qu'il part de l'hypothèse d'un développement complet de l'espèce quasi ex nihilo

[pankkake]

(with the exception of a market in information intangibles such as software, music, films, and literature, which requires active enforcement of intellectual property laws to keep from turning into a pure gift economy).

Ou comment se disqualifier dès la première phrase ?

Enfin maintenant je comprends mieux ce qu'est un libertaire sur le plan économique, mais par contre je m'étonne qu'il y ait des gens qui croient à un truc aussi bancal.