Are Council Communists Libertarian?

I'd say that if the majority cant be reasoned with, and dependent upon what methods are used to to enforce this ban, some type of conflict will have to take place on the basis of human rights. Let's just hope that a radical and liberation-oriented consciousness maintains its qualities and continues to expand after the social revolution.

no.25, what if such a situation could be avoided in the first place by not having institutions that have the power to ban lifestyle choices in the first place?

BP, who defines what a 'lifestyle' is?

We're not going to get anywhere unless we discuss the problems of democracy, definitions and minority rights.

At the moment, we're getting no further than the tit-for-tat of:

'What if a minority oppresses a group?'

'Ah, but what if a majority oppresses a group?'

'Yeah, but what if a minority oppresses a group?

'No, first, what if a majority oppresses a group?'

ad infinitum...

Birthday Pony - Not having all-powerful institutions that have the ability to determine every detail our lives would be preferable, but I would assume that in the 'international community' or 'World-Commune,' some decisions would be made that affect all of humanity, which would not only be unavoidable but desirable. If these decisions happen to be truly reactionary, it will be 'our' duty to oppose them.

True. In fact the IWW is my idea of what an ideal workers' union should be. Even though there was a strong anarcho-syndicalist element within it, the reason why it was not explicitly anarchist was that it regarded politics as a private matter and had amongst its members people who were not against electoral action and in fact who were active members of political parties. As far as I know this is still the position today.

No, that's not at all what is happening. Some people on here are suggesting that minority groups should be able to act independently. The other group is saying that either a minority acting independently is somehow inherently oppressive, or they are projecting the idea that this minority group is acting as representatives for the majority (which would be oppressive, but no one has suggested they should be able to do).

There's a world of difference between a scenario where a majority can ban the lifestyle of a minority and a minority can simply do as they like without interfering with the majority at all. One is an instance of oppression. The other is not.

And since "lifestyle" is in question (and probably some bourgeois ideological construct) suffice to say, I don't care what anyone has to say about who I want to fuck.

The real question at the very bottom of this is why do any of the libertarian-skeptics here care? So a minority blows off commune meetings and starts to do its own thing. Until and unless they are oppressive, why is it a problem?

Which decisions would be helpful and why must 100% of the human population be bound to them? And how could 100% of the human population be bound to them? You seem to think such things are inevitable, I'm not sure how something could be enforced on a global scale without coercion.

Sorry, sent to wrong thread

Simply ignoring a law that prohibits you from expressing your sexuality isn't going to resolve the issue, especially when acting outside of this law could potentially place you in prison or against the wall. If coercion by other communes is necessary to deter tendencies such as minority repression, slavery, human sacrifices, or an exclusive claim to resources, then it's justifiable. Why must the entire population be bound to principles that uphold human rights? Ethics aside, one could argue that it's in our material interest?

.

To repeat, BP, who defines what a 'lifestyle' is, and furthermore, who defines what 'oppression' is?

What if, unlike you, the self-declared 'I' wants to fuck kids?

Nice bit of fatalism going on there. Oh no the law says 'x'. There's nothing we can do about 'x' now!

Scary shit when it's being said on a libertarian forum.

I don't think that's what no.25 is saying at all. They said "simply ignoring a law [...] isn't going to resolve the issue". The word "simply" indicates that doing more than ignoring a law might resolve the issue. That may or may not include ignoring the law. In the specific context of a communist society it would probably mean discussing, explaining.... communing.

Yeah, I don't know how you possibly construed that as fatalistic, but there's nothing to be concerned with. I assure you, I'm no fatalist. I've ignored laws, and I went to jail. I am likely to ignore them again, at least in the society that currently exists. We can ignore laws that attempt to regulate someone's non-violent sexuality, but if the measures used to punish those who refuse to yield are oppressive, we need to do something about the law itself, most likely extending to those who attempt to preserve it, if it cant be resolved through democratic means. Just as capitalism and communism would conflict with one another, a society that bans homosexuality through force and punishment and a society that allows it will as well, even more so if it was a ban that took place on an international level. Would the majority be making a legitimate decision in doing so? No. Will majority decisions always be legitimate? Hopefully, considering our nature should drastically transform in the conditions of communism. You know, the reincorporation of our species-being and all that jazz.

In a communist society, we need to ensure that human rights aren't infringed upon, and enforce them if need be. These rights would be established through democracy, but it's not as if we don't have somewhat of a framework as of right now, even if they're violated on a daily basis by those who purportedly represent them. That is unless we intend to allow the parochial miserable little communes do whatever it is that they please, to whoever that they please. I vote no. In some scenarios, we could probably just issue a caveat in reference to a specific commune, but would we allow a commune that amounts to a pedophile utopia?

Thanks Pikel.

Actually, the term direct demcoracy predates "parecon" ..... it was not periodically unusual to hear folks in our tendency, in the late 1960s and 1970s, talk about direct workers democracy. It was not commonly used, but it was not a term which raised eyebrows.

A more commonly used phrase, was workers self-management. We did not use this to mean anything like self-management within capitalism, as seems to be promoted in "Eclipse and Re-emergence of the Communist Movement".
http://libcom.org/library/eclipse-re-emergence-communist-movement
or in "Lip and the self-managed counter-revolution"
http://libcom.org/library/lip-and-the-self-managed-counter-revolution-negation

BTW, although the IWW had much in common with elements of revolutionary syndicalism, it did have, for many, many years a centralist structure. And I see that many councilists believe in some form of centralism. While I do not think this was Mattik's attraction to the IWW, I could see why he was attracted to the main --- although diminished -- body of revolutionary workerism in the US at the time.

That's shifting the goalposts here. We're not talking about ethics, we're talking about communes, institutions, legal bodies, that 100% of the population is bound to. What such examples are you alluding to? Surely if people still want to act like capitalists, then the revolution failed to socialize them or destroy the power of capital (if there are still people that need to labor rather than work for themselves or with others).

Post-revolution are we supposed to drop our anti-electoral ethos and start campaigning for change? Why then do we emphasize anti-electoral tactics anyway if we're just setting people up for disappointment? If a majority does enact a law that bans my sexuality, then what exactly am I supposed to do? What happens to direct action?

We all have a massive meeting every second Thursday in October and write the dictionary together. The first convention was pretty rough. No one could agree on what anyone was saying.

I welcome you to take part in this political discussion some folks are having rather than this linguistics discussion you're aiming at. Quite honestly, I've had enough of that game dealing with AnCaps and what things like "voluntary" mean.

Ah yes. A comparison between homosexuality and pedophilia (used to say homophobia, edited to make sense). You're a caricature of yourself. I supposed the commune should be in charge of who fucks who, eh?

Well, you're somewhat skewing 'electoral.' I am, and always will be opposed to electoral politics. Delegates will be nothing other than organic constituents to their assemblies. I happen to subscribe to the concept of the 'confederation of communes,' in which all communes will be bound to the policies of the majority of whom they are a counterpart, having the ability to withdraw from the confederation only through the approval of the majority. You want some examples of policies? How about the prohibition of sexual relations between adults and adolescents, common ownership of resources, bans on rape and murder, not being subject to hate crimes, a human's right to preside over matters which are pertinent to one's own body, etc? You're intelligent, use your imagination. Can you give me any reason why humanity should not be bound to these policies, that would mostly likely be determined by the majority, through the use of force if necessary?

Regarding the majority banning same-sex relations, in my previous posts, I don't think that I'm not advocating anything short of direct action, if something of that nature were to ever take place, but I feel that the revolution were to have truly failed if anything as reactionary as attempting to regulate sexuality was on the political agenda of the world. All of these propositions are merely theoretical, and mostly likely unrealistic, but it's not democracy which is flawed, it's humanity. If we can't transcend the trivial and outright absurd limitations of currently-existing society in communism, we're destined for barbarism, economic equality notwithstanding.

And yes, when it concerns children, we should be.

That's what the argument is really about. Some people here are not just against participating in elections for the capitalist state, but also against elections and voting (essential features of democratic decision-making) both within working class organisations under capitalism and in future stateless communist society. They are against democratic decision-making as such (but don't suggest any other way of making decisions).

The argument that democratic decision-making shouldn't apply to everything is valid. It should only apply to matters that affect people collectively, not to regulating people's tastes. This can be provided for in communist society by a set of rules laying down the sphere and limits of democratic decision-making (by a sort of constitution and the equivalent of a Bill of Rights and even of a constitutional court).

Something like this should provide protection for minorities and individuals. Given this, what is the objection to democratic decision-making, including elections and voting (and, yes, campaigning for and against particular measures) in communist society? What alternative could there be?

Where did I mention 'homosexuality' or 'homophobia'? I presume from this that you're gay?

I'm asking you a question about who should determine an individual's sexual partners, (the individual or society?) and using paedophilia to illustrate the dangers of leaving this decision in the hands of just 'individuals'. Surely 'society' must play a part, too?

As for 'caricature', you need to read your own posts, mate.

Yeah, isn't it ironic that it's us 'democratic' Libertarian Communists who are actually most concerned with the issues of minorities and individuals, and wish to discuss it, whereas the 'individualists', like Birthday Pony, simply wish to stick their heads in the sand, and pretend that 'politics' will go away after the revolution. If there isn't 'campaigning' in some sense, how do we organise for discussion, debate and change within our commune-based society?

The difference here is whether we are prioritizing institutions our ethics.

One camp sees the revolution in an institution and asks, "what ethos will follow from participation within it?"

The other has a revolutionary ethos and asks, "what institutions will follow from them?"

Consider me in the second camp. I believe that most directly democratic organizations are consistent with anarchism, but it is quite possible for them not to be. Before participation in institutions communities should be acting on their own volition, and creating institutions where they need them. Why have a meeting on fixing a pothole? Grab a shovel and some cement and fix the god damn pot hole. That dude stealing your car, why wait for someone to show up and yell "hey stop!" just go ahead and yell, "hey! stop!"

A major failure of imagination here is that people believe we actually need to come together to decide that child molestation is immoral. If anyone has an example of why we need, as in its absolutely imperative to any idea of libertarian communism, institutions that bind all its members to decision beyond ideas that the majority of the population agree on (like rape, murder, and the like are immoral) then please, I'd be interested in hearing them. Being bound to those ideas is more of a collective recognition of humanity than it is a necessity for communes to come together and outlaw.

Anyway, take any mundane every day example you'd like to imagine how an anarchist society can work on a baseline. So you've always wanted a basketball hoop on your street. Go ahead and put up a hoop and a backboard on a telephone pole. Your friend's band is coming to town and wants a show? Put it on in your house.

None of this excludes democratic processes, and none of this excludes cooperation amongst people (in most cases it asks for it). The point is that institutions should be secondary to the revolutionary culture of a community. If you need process and institutions to organize something, then go ahead and do it. If you don't, then who cares? And if some institution does something you disagree with, then go ahead and do as you would anyway as long as its not harming others.

Say that some commune does ban homosexuality. I would recommend doing who you want to do anyway, making a scene of it, making out in public with any willing partner of the same sex you can find. Protest, organize, do what you will. If the commune results to arresting you or reprehending you in some way, then yes, the revolution has failed. And all we've done is recreate the state.

Ah. That should say 'pedophilia.' I'll edit it now. The jump from homosexuality to pedophilia is always one that I'm sensitive to, as it tend to be a pretty common line amongst homophobes.

EDIT: and anyway, it'd be a contradiction in your philosophy to think individuals are to blame for pedophilia, and also to legislate against those pedophiles. You'd have to just put the whole commune through some kind of therapy or punishment. Maybe even the entire world population.

A voluntary association of pedophiles could establish themselves as a commune. If the majority of the world population were opposed to whatever actions are taking place in this commune, and would use force to dismantle it, then what difference does it make whether we have policies existent that prohibit such actions, other than for clarity and functionality? Why not be prepared for such an instance, rather than allowing the demand for immediately addressing this issue arise out of the situation itself?

Say it's 10 years post-revolution, this issue emerges, yet there is no international policy on such a matter, because it hasn't been discussed. So 1/4 of the world is opposed to the rest of the world that's willing to put an end to this, on the basis of some kind of contemptible tolerance and natural instinct, and violence ensues. Had the issue been discussed, and debated, there could have most likely been a consensus between communes in early post-revolutionary society, not that this would necessarily negate the prospect for future conflict. Banning these tendencies is an act of the Commune coming together, in the collective recognition of what is detrimental to humanity, through means of international democracy. No institutions will be able to act independently of us, that would constitute a state, and therefore would not be communism, let alone libertarian.

I believe that a successful revolution would entail the emancipation of humanity to the greatest extent possible, that would continue to expand and adapt to its constantly evolving material context, but this does not mean that we should not clearly define what exactly it is that we're opposed to, so that we can live freely without fear of reprisal. Why wouldn't we, other than for the sake of some anarcho-purist posturing? I wouldn't disagree that democracy being utilized to address all aspects of our life would be undesirable, and even unfeasible, but who would?

It's doubtful that communism would produce as many sociopaths as capitalism. As to the election of delegates, they certainly wouldn't be as much as a spectacle as they are now, nor would the delegates enjoy any concrete privileges over that of society. Rotation is necessary.

I just want to make it clear that I do not associate pedophilia with any one sexual disposition, I just happened to broach upon this issue when pointing out the the limits of 'extreme individual autonomy' to nascent anarchists.

I'm not even arguing for individual autonomy. Community autonomy is just as important. You have yet to answer why we need 100% of the world population in order to stop pedophiles. If there's a pedophile next door to you, go and confront them! Maybe there's a whole bunch of pedophiles on your street, get a bunch of people from your community together and go confront them.

There is no reason, absolutely none, to take two or three or 500 people that live across the globe and are completely unaware of each other and tell them that now they have a large say in each others lives. That would be such a shit show on so many levels.

Detroit comes to mind. A lot of people (even some anarchists) think that if they just moved in and bought a $5000 house and opened a community center then they could fix all of our problems. Without living here and knowing the history of this place or the political situation, they would most likely just springboard the gentrification that's already happening. I've seen this very thing happen from anarchists, while the non-affiliated old-timers on the block called them on their shit from the start.

Plus, is there any example outside of extreme cases that illustrates why 100% of the world population must be bound together by one institution? What about putting up a basketball hoop on my street? Do I need to consult the world-commune or can I just do it?

Communities and communal thought doesn't just spring into being out of thin air, and neither can they be forced upon people by institutions. People will form communes and associate as they wish, and probably even coordinate on certain issues. But I see no reason why there needs to be a global legal body for anything that doesn't effect 100% on the human population.

Yeah, I know you're not suggesting individual autonomy, I just don't think that overly autonomous communes that aren't accountable to the world is compatible with communism, just as excessive individual autonomy is not compatible with communism. Communes should retain some amount of autonomy pertaining to issues that are specific to their locality, but there will be many issues which are a concern to the entirety of humanity, to whom they will be accountable to whether they agree to any form of association or not.

One commune may partake in actions that are anathema to communism, which is why it would be necessary to have established policies as to how to deal with this commune, policies that the majority of the world agree upon. One commune cannot just suppress another commune on sheer whim. We're not talking about individuals in any given commune, we're talking about entire communes themselves. Whether you like it or not, we're going to need an international body to facilitate in the productive sphere, and if it wont be implemented through democracy, well, I guess we could always settle for bureaucracy, or billions of individuals operating as agents of discord.

I don't see why you would be opposed to policies that are established by the majority, and enforced by communes within their regions, when these policies wouldn't be restrictive, but emancipatory; precedence which we can always refer to, and amend if need be. As Capricorn and others have said, there needs to be a limit to what the majority can mandate of us. And yeah, I'd like to think that international democracy would emerge spontaneously, corresponding to the demands of the material circumstances. Long live the Parisian Sections, whose actions preceded theory.

Basketball hoops will be banned post-revolution, bourgeois deviation that encourages competition. If you have any grievances, please send a letter with a SASE to the Central Committee, who will promptly address your concerns with a visit from our secret police.

Can I go back to the original question? Which seemed to me to be a question of what 'libertarian' means, or perhaps, what is the significance of the term.

I would say that a marxist has to argue (and the majority of council communists remained marxists) that libertarian is inadequate as a delimiting 'label' because it does not convey a class content. I think the same goes for the term 'Leninist'. This is why we (the ICC at least) prefer to talk about the proletarian political movement, or the internationalist camp, or whatever clumsy term we next come up with.

Stop right there.

Now ask yourself, are you simply replacing the word 'communism' with 'good' or do you want everyone to live in a communist society regardless of whether or not there are alternatives that are equally classless and anti-authoritarian?

Either you're just being ideologically silly and suggesting that your point of view is so superior that there is absolutely no reason anyone would deviate from it without oppressing others, or you're far too worried about what other people do. The difference may be that while I personally prefer communism, I do not disregard the possibility of equally emancipatory, yet non-communist, styles of organization. And if people choose to organize themselves differently, I do not mind.

I don't even know what you mean here. This is so broad it could mean any number of things. I imagine there will be a lot of international collaboration on a lot of things. This collaboration being through one unitary body is not something I'm sure is necessary.

It depends on the policies and it depends on the communities. What works here might not work there, and what works there might not work here. I would rather groups collaborate through action than set precedents to be acted on.

TBH I don't know what you mean by class content. I'd appreciate it if someone would shed some light on this.

I'm not exactly sure if terms like the ones you mentioned can resolve this issue; at least I can't think of a contemporary school of thought on the left that doesn't consider itself rooted in the proletariat, though the notion of internationalism does make distinctions between them to some extent.

Well, I would think that any alternatives to communism would exist within communism, as opposed to communism existing within them. Free access to resources is a prerequisite, but capital accumulation can not be permitted. Simple reproduction with the absence of the capitalist social relation is unproblematic, which is why I don't take issue with Mutalism, I just find it to be ridiculous that individuals refuse to disassociate with markets, when 'free' becomes a corollary to their preferred economic model. This is what happens when there's more of an emphasis on terms, rather than their actual substance. What could be more free than communism?

And no, I mean literally anathema to communism, such as hoarding resources. Successful revolution or not, it's still a potentiality, even if it's somewhat doubtful. The commune of pedophiles that I keep reiterating, would they not to pose a threat to the material conditions of communism? Communes lynching minorities would also be counter-productive, so I'd imagine that what is good for humanity is also good for the general stability of communism, considering that it will be the most humane and interdependent mode of existence to ever have occured throughout history.

So I take it you're opposed to federation? Well, this conversation is becoming redundant, albeit entertaining. Aren't you a member of the IWW? I think that structure is a necessity, if not just for the simple ease of satisfying our production requirements and distributing goods and resources on a global scale, but apparently you don't.

The policies I have in mind, and which I'm sure that you're more than capable of conjuring up yourself, will 'work everywhere.' I want to be free just as much as you do, but I want everyone to be equally free, not being subject to manifold forms of oppression. Human rights are human insofar as they apply to the all of us, and do not stem from a desire to inflict harm upon others, including exploitation.

It seems as if most agree that 'libertarian' (in its 'proper' context) or 'Leninism' denotes a mode of organization relative to either socialism or communism. Communism is communism, but Leninism is not socialism.

Personally, I don't know. But I also don't think I know everything. Plenty of things can exist concurrently, not within each other, but that's maybe a matter of semantics.

You're talking about lynchings. I'm not. We all agree pedophiles are not welcome. And we all agree they should be dealt with. I'd rather their neighbors confront them than strangers. Also, it would help the discussion along if you talked on more practical terms. My goals are to make the most humane and interdependent mode of existence to have occurred throughout history, and I think that might be communism. But if it's not then I'd change my position.

Federation is fine by me. The difference is that the IWW doesn't, and I hope never will, control every aspect of my waking life. It's an institution that's suitable for meeting the needs of workers, as is the yearly convention, and is useful to people, rather than the people being useful to it. Once again, I'm not saying that democratic institutions are bad. I'm saying that they serve peoples' needs, and as long as they do, great. When they stop, we stop serving them.

Once again, I'm not even sure what you're arguing against. We all agree on major things, like murder, etc. And if it's too big of a problem for local communities to deal with, then they can reach out to others, or other's can disassociate themselves from the ones causing problems. Why do we need a crime/punishment dynamic with a world commune? You're going to have to get more specific than things that anyone who's not a sociopath will detest. It doesn't take the UN to decide that murder is shit, and it doesn't take an international brigade to stop murderers.

I tend to think that communism would be the overall framework for all of society, so depending on what manner you envisage post-revolutionary society, it's mostly semantics. Vis a vis.

That makes two of us.

My focus isn't on an individual murderer, it's on a commune of murderers, or perhaps an entire region of murderers, who take pleasure in what they do. No, it doesn't require an international militia to stop an individual murderer, but it does take a regional militia to stop a commune of murderers, the regional militia being a component of an international confederation of militias, enforcing the policies of the Commune that were determined by the global population. Just as I stated before, being that it wouldn't be possible for an entire industry to assemble in one location, it wouldn't be possible for the entire world to swarm one commune, and even if it were, it would be completely unnecessary. What is of importance is that the majority of the world agrees to such actions, and in dire circumstances, it would be best to be prepared for such a scenario.

I can honestly somewhat see why you would prefer to act in response to specific conditions when the demand arises for it, but I think that this approach would be inefficient in various instances, and more likely to result in conflict when the issue hadn't been deliberated upon in advance. I feel that at the international level, these policies should be mainly in reference to human rights, human rights most likely to have been elaborated upon in communism, in accordance with the change of our social relations, and thereby our existence. Is that really so indigestible?

Anyway, it's been real.