Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: What We Should Strive For

Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 9, 2012, 2:20 p.m. EST by struggleforfreedom80 (6584)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

In my opinion the society we should strive for is one where democracy is the core. A society where capitalism and central state power are replaced by more direct democracy and direct participation. A society where the economic institutions are run democratically by the participants and the ones affected by them. That means democratic control of workplaces, democratic control of communities and so on; a society where people participate in the decision-making and are in control of their own work, life and destiny. A system of cooperative communities that benefit everyone and focus on people´s needs instead of short term profit.

A society like this, where power is decentralized and democracy is built from the bottom up, is often called Libertarian Socialism or Left-libertarianism. Many also refer to this type of society as Anarcho-Syndicalism which is a popular branch of Libertarian Socialism that focuses especially on direct democracy, workers´ self-management and solidarity.

In an Anarcho-Syndicalist society people are no longer profiting on other people´s work like in capitalism; no one exploits others, no one is being exploited - the economic institutions are now run democratically. Most services would be free when you need them, and production, distribution, remuneration etc. would be decided democratically by the participants. It would be a society where people are not treated like cogs in a machine and commanded to act in a mechanical way, but where each individual could live out its true potential based on its own capacity.

In a society like this human characteristics like solidarity, creativity, engagement and altruism would come to the fore. All though human nature is complex and gives room for different kinds of behavior we know that these things are at the core of human nature; just take a look at the history of human evolution which has been dominated by realtively egalitarian groups who cooperated for the common good. This type of organization which goes far back in our evolution also continued after we evolved into humans (Homo Sapiens) a little over a 100 000 years ago (cf Hunter-gatherer societies etc).

In other words, with an Anarcho-Syndicalist, or Libertarian Socialist organization society will become more egalitarian and most hierarchical structures will therfore vanish. At the same time a society like this will encourage humans to live out their true nature and create a solidaric society on all levels: workers, workplaces, unions, communities, federations not any longer being encouraged to only look after themselves and striving for as much money and material goods as possible, like it is in capitalism, but instead cooperating for a best possible society for everyone, democratically run from the bottom up by the participants.

A Libertarian Socialist society would be based on direct democracy and not a system where representative politicians are running things. There will have to be representatives in this society as well, but they would be recallable delegates elected directly from the group or organization to which they belong, representing workplaces, unions, communities and so on. The society would in other words be decentralized and federated, run democratically from the bottom up by cooperative workers´ councils, assemblies, communities, delegates etc.

All the details in this free society would be too complex to sketch out here. All details must be decided and established when the time comes by the people participating in that society.

Now, Libertarian Socialism will not become reality in the very near future. We might have to settle for reform for some time, but we should always, at any given time, strive for the best.



Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 12 years ago

btw, come visit my blog:)


[-] 1 points by Sevetc (4) 12 years ago

Maybe we should remove the party system all together and put people in based on merit and remove their lifetime benefits and pay packages so they also can be on SS like us with limited amounts of entitlement,plus they must sign a contract clause to prevent them from going to company's who they receive $$ from during their time in office!

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 12 years ago

I've been talking about the benefits for a while.

[-] 0 points by vothmr (82) from Harrisonburg, VA 12 years ago

this is only theory. it contains gaping holes. throughout history, even in the most egalitarian of times, there has been heirarchy and profiteering. its human nature for get the most out of doing the least work AND to have the most power over others. direct democracy leads to some really really bad things. for instance, in direct democracy, say some people decided that anyone with blue shirts would be shot on sight. this would be put up for a cote in the community. now say that a majority of people thought that was a good idea. now shooting people with blue shirts is perfectly fine. it was voted on by the community and a majority of the community said it was a good idea. that is what happens in direct democracy. the people with blue shirts (the minority) get trampled on by the people without blue shirts (the majority) its for reasons like this that purely socialist societies don't work. look at the united soviet socialist republic, a model socialist society right? or maybe the democratic peoples republic of north korea? its weird how ever single nation that tries to become socialist and also protect rights turns into tryanny. thats because people are naturally driven to get power. which is why anarchy or socialism in any form don't work and have never been successfully used.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 12 years ago

No you´re wrong: http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1323868733_human_nature_and_libe.html

Your blue shirts-examples are nonsense. In an anarcho-syndicalist society this would never happen. If you think so you have a very awful view on what humans are.

"which is why anarchy or socialism in any form don't work and have never been successfully used."

You´re wrong. Just study Catalonia in thwe 1930s

Leninism is btw something very different than LS. Leninism is awful

So democracy is not a good idea? You´d rather want minority rule, then? One could use your example in that context as well.

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 12 years ago

Forget the blue shirts...what about an issue like gay marriage or abortion. Would you be satisfied to say "the people have spoken" if the majority of the population were to vote for/against gay marriage or for/against abortion if it was in opposition to your personal view?

This model can also get extreme in the belief that every person should have a say in every decision for a community, a company or a country. Imagine any large company - lets say, Apple as an example - how would they look today if every employee had a vote in product design, manufacturing, marketing and sales? Considering Jobs didn't even ask the customers for their opinions, I think it is easy to see that they would be a much different corporation and in my opinion, not even remotely as successful.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 12 years ago

I would accept the decition if it were decided thru democratic process, but continue to work for democratically changing it and trying to change people´s minds. I think it is horrific to forbid things that has to do with people´s private lives that don´t affect others.

This is how the society I want would look like. Read and watch:



[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 12 years ago

And you wonder how we made it 236 years without all the new crap being proposed.

[+] -6 points by GirlFriday (17435) 12 years ago

Direct democracy is tyranny. The reason that we have the type of government that we do is so that those that are in the minority are protected. Winner take all is never, ever a good deal.

Look at the ballots in states and tell me that this is ok. It is not.

[-] -1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 12 years ago

No, direct democracy is freedom. In an Anarcho-Syndicalist society solidarity with, and taking care of minorities is also important.

Libertarian Socialism is also best suited human nature: http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1323868733_human_nature_and_libe.html

Yours s sff http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/


[+] -5 points by GirlFriday (17435) 12 years ago

Struggle, I have read your blog. In fact, I enjoy it. I just flat out disagree with you. It is not best suited for human nature.

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 12 years ago

Yes it is.

So you don´t think people should be in control of their own workplace and community?

[+] -5 points by GirlFriday (17435) 12 years ago

No it is not.

People should be in control of their community but you do not get that by theorizing how to recreate society. You get it by actual participation in it.

[-] -1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 12 years ago

What exactly are you disagreeing with in "Human Nature and Libertarian Socialism" ?

Participation, absolutley, but one should have some idea of how the society one wants approximately should look like. Democracy all the way thru ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDHBvQRyOr0 ) should be the core, ergo, Libertarian Socialism

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 12 years ago

Exactly! So we are in agreement now, yes? :) Good!

[+] -4 points by GirlFriday (17435) 12 years ago

No, he states exactly what I told you. You aren't going to reinvent it. The only way for it to be achievable in the US is through participation. :./

[-] -1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 12 years ago

I´m not trying to reinvent anything. The idea of Libertarian Socialism has existed for a long time. And I said I agree that participation is important

[+] -6 points by GirlFriday (17435) 12 years ago

And like he tells you in the video that you showed me in the US there is a history of it in the working class (sporadically) but that it is completely different here.

Direct democracy we have in the form of ballots in the United States. It is an all or nothing approach. We call it Tyranny of the Majority.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 12 years ago

Direct democracy is not just about ballots. The whole point is active participation, not just putting a piece of paper in a box.

[+] -6 points by GirlFriday (17435) 12 years ago

I am aware of this.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 12 years ago

so what´s your point/ criticism then..?

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 12 years ago

But Im talking about direct democracy in the way it would unfold in a libertarian socialist society in my article, not a present bad version in a specific country..

[+] -6 points by GirlFriday (17435) 12 years ago

I understand this.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 12 years ago

so why do you call it tyranny, then..?

[+] -6 points by GirlFriday (17435) 12 years ago

Why are you denying the form it has taken in the United States? You either understand this or you do not. Winner takes all is tyranny of the majority.