Am I a libcom?

15 posts / 0 new
Last post
nullbody
Offline
Joined: 8-09-11
Sep 8 2011 06:47
Am I a libcom?

I keep calling myself a libcom; here are some of my views.

I support unquestioned freedom. People should have the right to do whatever they want as long as it does not physically harm or imprison another human being. This means that I support all drugs being legalized, "free sex", prostitution, LGBT rights, etc. I believe it is not my place to question another persons lifestyle and it's not place to enact laws to oppress people.

I feel that there should be very minimal govt (enacting laws that are very broad and that protect humans not companies and their "agenda", enforcing regulations and protection agencies (e.g. FDA, EPA, etc.)); it is not ran by one person it is ran by groups of people from territories. These people in no way enact laws or have any kind of power; these people are only representatives of a direct democracy from territories. To support equality I support a highly enforced direct democracy voting system where minority votes carry enough weight to make them equal with the majority (completely removes majority crushing minority).

I support completely removal of private land. The only thing people own is personal property.

I support businesses being ran in collective; not for profit and strictly follows open standards. I support protectionism.

I support universal healthcare for all, and education for all. Someones wealth doesn't allow them to get priority or better healthcare/education. I support all educational institutions being synchronized so everyone is on the same page.

There are no "illegal citizens" as this is a breach of human rights.

I think that religion is evil; but people can still be religious, but it has no place at all in the public sector.

I support science as the number 1 way to answering questions in the universe.

I also feel that commercials and any form of advertising is in someway shape or form brainwashing. As a matter of fact I've got so sick and tired of TV and commercials that I havent listened to the radio or watched TV in over 2 years. The reality is that I feel like paying for cable/satellite TV and getting forced to watch 1/3 of a show to be a commercial is a form of theft. I also feel like my brain is being implanted w/ nonsense from the commercials (even on educational programs).

I feel that there should be a national news; that is strictly from the govt. For example the govt only reports on govt issues and it does so factually. Any other media that laws or distorts facts I feel should be punished to the point to where they cannot recover.

I support a completely transparent govt; there is NOTHING that is hidden.

ludd's picture
ludd
Offline
Joined: 4-05-09
Sep 8 2011 05:20

None of these positions are specifically libertarian communist. Most of these things could be supported by a broad range of left wingers. I don't know if broad spectrum of lefties would agree with your direct democracy idea but otherwise what you believe would match the left-liberal ideology.

Your support for abolishing private land ownership except as personal property is something most communists and anarchists would agree with (though definitely not in same terms) while left-liberals might not. Assuming that you also support abolishing private ownership of means of production (public and private infrastructure, production facilities, office buildings, everything not personal really)

Not sure what you mean with education being synchronized. If you mean it being the same for everyone then I think all libertarian communists would not support that. Free access to any education anyone wants is something libcoms would support.

Libertarian communists would agree that being "illegal" is bullshit, though their reasoning would not involve human rights as the reason.

nullbody
Offline
Joined: 8-09-11
Sep 8 2011 06:37

yes I support the abolishment of private ownership of the means of production. What I mean by synchronized education is that everyone starts school at the same time, and ends school at the same time. They are all taught the same curricula at the same time. Everyone is off of school at the same time, etc.

My reasoning on illegals being bullshit is that it's no ones place to establish who is legal and who is not legal; e.g. a human rights issue.

My direct democracy idea is an attempt to patch the "majority" vote issue in a direct democracy. My solution is to have a weighted voting system. Lets say that there are 10 whites, and only 5 blacks. Blacks vote weight in at 2 while white votes weigh in at 1. This doesn't mean they get 2 votes; it only means their vote carries the weight of 2.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Sep 8 2011 07:36

Hmmm...not sure about that bit, that seems like privilege politics gone fucking mad (and they're pretty mad to begin with...). In any case, most libcom theory and practice comes from opposition to capitalism with the recognition that the state is an instrument from by which class rule is maintained. I'd suggest reading the Anarchist FAQ

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Sep 8 2011 08:01
nullbody wrote:

My direct democracy idea is an attempt to patch the "majority" vote issue in a direct democracy. My solution is to have a weighted voting system. Lets say that there are 10 whites, and only 5 blacks. Blacks vote weight in at 2 while white votes weigh in at 1. This doesn't mean they get 2 votes; it only means their vote carries the weight of 2.

Now, you get into very dodgy territory here talking about race.

The way you're talking about it, different people have different interests because of their different races. This is entirely inaccurate.

First of all, biological race has no scientific existence, so should be the basis of anything in a rational libertarian communist society.

In terms of looking at the difficulties it will cause, just consider that libertarian communism will be a global system. Globally of course there are far more black people than whites - so by the system you propose you would have to give white people more votes than black people for Asians (and what would you do with mixed-race people?!). It makes no sense.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Sep 8 2011 08:04

I've just noticed that you mention prostitution. While we would support the decriminalisation of prostitution now under capitalism, in a communist society money (and private property) wouldn't exist so the concept of prostitution would no longer be possible.

Manic
Offline
Joined: 24-08-11
Sep 8 2011 08:11

It certainly seems as though you're on the right track, keep reading, get active with a local group and you'll be all good.

If you haven't already start with these as well as the anarchist FAQ posted above

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/

(and ask lots of questions)

nullbody
Offline
Joined: 8-09-11
Sep 8 2011 14:17
Steven. wrote:
nullbody wrote:

My direct democracy idea is an attempt to patch the "majority" vote issue in a direct democracy. My solution is to have a weighted voting system. Lets say that there are 10 whites, and only 5 blacks. Blacks vote weight in at 2 while white votes weigh in at 1. This doesn't mean they get 2 votes; it only means their vote carries the weight of 2.

Now, you get into very dodgy territory here talking about race.

The way you're talking about it, different people have different interests because of their different races. This is entirely inaccurate.

First of all, biological race has no scientific existence, so should be the basis of anything in a rational libertarian communist society.

In terms of looking at the difficulties it will cause, just consider that libertarian communism will be a global system. Globally of course there are far more black people than whites - so by the system you propose you would have to give white people more votes than black people for Asians (and what would you do with mixed-race people?!). It makes no sense.

It's only an example.

Croy's picture
Croy
Offline
Joined: 26-05-11
Sep 8 2011 16:07
nullbody wrote:
I feel that there should be very minimal govt (enacting laws that are very broad and that protect humans not companies and their "agenda", enforcing regulations and protection agencies (e.g. FDA, EPA, etc.)); it is not ran by one person it is ran by groups of people from territories. These people in no way enact laws or have any kind of power; these people are only representatives of a direct democracy from territories. To support equality I support a highly enforced direct democracy voting system where minority votes carry enough weight to make them equal with the majority (completely removes majority crushing minority).

In the first sentence in brackets you say 'enacting laws' and then go on to say no one in no way would enact laws. You also say no one would have powers, but support enforcing regulations and protection agencies. Both of these are contradictions. I'm with you on direct democracy, as all (?) anarchists are. And most importantly, you mentioned the word government. However minimal government you want (and minimal government is a right wing idea, providing there's still capitalism, which you have not actually said you oppose explicitly, which is worrying if you think your lib com/anarchist. ), there's still government. Anarchists are opposed to government. We will have organizations, but there wont be government. Finally, you say these agencies would be 'enforcing' things, could you be specific on how ? If I'm assuming you are using a common definition of 'enforcing', this seems authoritarian right from the start.

nullbody wrote:
I support businesses being ran in collective; not for profit and strictly follows open standards. I support protectionism.

The definition of business pre supposes profit. Replace the word business with organization perhaps ? Also, protectionism is an economic policy pre supposing capitalism. Protectionism is the idea of placing a tax on imports. How could you have protectionism without profit ?

nullbody wrote:
I support science as the number 1 way to answering questions in the universe.

Sounds a lot like zeitgeist, and not lib com.

nullbody wrote:
Any other media that laws or distorts facts I feel should be punished to the point to where they cannot recover.

This is scary. First, I imagine if we did have media, instead of relying on people knowing things about the decisions that have made because they have taken part in the decision making process (with that process being directly democratic), we would have on source. There would not need to be another source, because there is no money to be made in creating your own source of media. Second, we do not support punishment, we support re rehabilitation. And even if we do come to accept punishment (that will obviously not be the punishments we have these days), its still worrying your saying, in a very dramatic way, that it will be so severe as to where they cant recover. This seems authoritarian to say the least.

nullbody wrote:
I support a completely transparent govt; there is NOTHING that is hidden.

Again, we would not have a government. A belief in governmental transparency is not even necessarily left wing. Also, I believe its the aim of wiki leaks.

nullbody
Offline
Joined: 8-09-11
Sep 8 2011 19:17
the croydonian anarchist wrote:
nullbody wrote:
I feel that there should be very minimal govt (enacting laws that are very broad and that protect humans not companies and their "agenda", enforcing regulations and protection agencies (e.g. FDA, EPA, etc.)); it is not ran by one person it is ran by groups of people from territories. These people in no way enact laws or have any kind of power; these people are only representatives of a direct democracy from territories. To support equality I support a highly enforced direct democracy voting system where minority votes carry enough weight to make them equal with the majority (completely removes majority crushing minority).

In the first sentence in brackets you say 'enacting laws' and then go on to say no one in no way would enact laws. You also say no one would have powers, but support enforcing regulations and protection agencies. Both of these are contradictions. I'm with you on direct democracy, as all (?) anarchists are. And most importantly, you mentioned the word government. However minimal government you want (and minimal government is a right wing idea, providing there's still capitalism, which you have not actually said you oppose explicitly, which is worrying if you think your lib com/anarchist. ), there's still government. Anarchists are opposed to government. We will have organizations, but there wont be government. Finally, you say these agencies would be 'enforcing' things, could you be specific on how ? If I'm assuming you are using a common definition of 'enforcing', this seems authoritarian right from the start.

nullbody wrote:
I support businesses being ran in collective; not for profit and strictly follows open standards. I support protectionism.

The definition of business pre supposes profit. Replace the word business with organization perhaps ? Also, protectionism is an economic policy pre supposing capitalism. Protectionism is the idea of placing a tax on imports. How could you have protectionism without profit ?

nullbody wrote:
I support science as the number 1 way to answering questions in the universe.

Sounds a lot like zeitgeist, and not lib com.

nullbody wrote:
Any other media that laws or distorts facts I feel should be punished to the point to where they cannot recover.

This is scary. First, I imagine if we did have media, instead of relying on people knowing things about the decisions that have made because they have taken part in the decision making process (with that process being directly democratic), we would have on source. There would not need to be another source, because there is no money to be made in creating your own source of media. Second, we do not support punishment, we support re rehabilitation. And even if we do come to accept punishment (that will obviously not be the punishments we have these days), its still worrying your saying, in a very dramatic way, that it will be so severe as to where they cant recover. This seems authoritarian to say the least.

nullbody wrote:
I support a completely transparent govt; there is NOTHING that is hidden.

Again, we would not have a government. A belief in governmental transparency is not even necessarily left wing. Also, I believe its the aim of wiki leaks.

Laws are set in place via direct democracy voting. Regulatory bodies are created via direct democracy and those regulatory agencies have power to enforce regulations. No 'single' entity has powers; all entities are ran by groups of people; e.g. there isn't a single authority that does something it's groups of people elected via direct democracy.

Assuming you are going to trade with other countries; protectionism is necessary or else you become NK.

Rehabilitation is my first resort for HUMAN beings. Companies/organizations/media outlets do NOT get rehabilitation. This is because they are ran in groups of people that (assuming they intentionally caused a problem) have made a bad decision; a company is not a human.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Sep 8 2011 21:57

Null, get the feeling you're new to all this, so keep asking questions, there's nothing wrong with that. However, there's some assumptions here you might want to examine.

1) There is a difference between self-management and government. I think you mean the former, but are saying the latter.

2) You mention "other countries". Libcom doesn't recognise the legitimacy of the state or national boundaries, therefore countries wouldn't exist. Of course, regions and continents will need to exchange and transport goods, but the idea of "protectionism" assumes not only the existence of commodities and the market, but of governments and nations.

3) As I mentioned early, libcom comes directly out of the anti-capitalist movement and from there rejects the state. So I'd recommend checking out libcommers have to say about capitalism first as I think you're a bit too focused on government. Like I and others have said, check out the anarchist FAQ.

Croy's picture
Croy
Offline
Joined: 26-05-11
Sep 9 2011 17:04
Chilli Sauce wrote:

2) You mention "other countries". Libcom doesn't recognise the legitimacy of the state or national boundaries, therefore countries wouldn't exist. Of course, regions and continents will need to exchange and transport goods, but the idea of "protectionism" assumes not only the existence of commodities and the market, but of governments and nations./quote]

This is right. Although it is possible that null could be talking about a state of affairs where a revolution was underway and as of yet only one country had managed to succeed in over throwing the state of that country, in which case, there will be a need to trade with other countries just to keep people alive. Countries like England rely so much on foreign imports, this is why Germany's strategy in war against us has always been to starve us out of the war by taking down merchant ships etc. If null is talking about this state of affairs, I still don't think protectionism would work, because historically when countries introduce protectionism, other countries always take it as a sign of hostility, and would therefore either adopt protectionism themselves, or just note trade with you. But more importantly, if revolution had only succeeded in one country so far, and everywhere else was still in the process, I think the other countries armies would be too busy bombing the shit out of the country rather than trading with them

nullbody
Offline
Joined: 8-09-11
Sep 9 2011 18:38
Chilli Sauce wrote:
Null, get the feeling you're new to all this, so keep asking questions, there's nothing wrong with that. However, there's some assumptions here you might want to examine.

1) There is a difference between self-management and government. I think you mean the former, but are saying the latter.

2) You mention "other countries". Libcom doesn't recognise the legitimacy of the state or national boundaries, therefore countries wouldn't exist. Of course, regions and continents will need to exchange and transport goods, but the idea of "protectionism" assumes not only the existence of commodities and the market, but of governments and nations.

3) As I mentioned early, libcom comes directly out of the anti-capitalist movement and from there rejects the state. So I'd recommend checking out libcommers have to say about capitalism first as I think you're a bit too focused on government. Like I and others have said, check out the anarchist FAQ.

You cannot assume all countries will be libcom; it's like assuming all countries are democratic; just is not feasible. This means assuming there is a libcom country, you have to get along w/ the non-libcom countries. You cannot be a NK. And yes I cannot stand capitalism; but I recognize there are essentials to humanity; I also recognize that you cannot let a business/organization "self-govern" as we have tried that in the US and this has resulted in the economic collapse of the country. It is not feasible to have no govt; a small govt that regulates and provides social services, yes.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Sep 9 2011 18:50

I'm still not sure you're understanding my arguments and I'm also not sure what you mean by an "NK".

Quote:
I recognize there are essentials to humanity; I also recognize that you cannot let a business/organization "self-govern" as we have tried that in the US and this has resulted in the economic collapse of the country.

I'm not sure really what this means, but I don't think it has anything to do with what libcom means by workers self-management. (Although it's your statements like this that lead me to suggest you read up more on the libcom take on capitalism and also what we advocate to replace it.)

I still /think/ what you mean is that there is a need for administration and formalised direct democratic mechanisms, but to have "government" is to have a state and the state is and can only be an instrument of class rule.

So, if you truly believe...

Quote:
It is not feasible to have no govt; a small govt...

....than to answer your original question, no, you're not a libcom.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Sep 9 2011 18:53
Quote:
it's like assuming all countries are democratic

Also, dude, libcom would argue no "countries" (as in nation-states) can ever be "democratic" (at least in any sense of the anarchist understanding of the term). Certain states may have what we call "bourgeois democracy", but the former word in the term negates the latter.