💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › ulli-diemer-what-is-libertarian-socialism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 14:26:56. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: What is Libertarian Socialism?
Author: Ulli Diemer
Date: 1997
Language: en
Topics: libertarian socialist 
Source: http://www.connexions.org/RedMenace/Docs/RM2-WhatIsLibertarianSocialism.htm
Notes: Originally published in Volume 2, Number 1 (Summer 1997 issue) of The Red Menace.

Ulli Diemer

What is Libertarian Socialism?

We call ourselves libertarian socialists. But why the adjective? Why

libertarian socialism? Is libertarian socialism any different from

socialism as it is generally understood?

The problem, and the reason for the adjective, is that there exists no

definition of socialism that is “generally understood”. The dilemma of

socialism today is first of all the dilemma of the meaning of socialism,

because the term has been applied to such an all-encompassing range of

persons, parties, philosophies, states, and social systems, often

completely antagonistic to each other, that the very term ‘socialism’

has become virtually meaningless.

There are more variations of socialism currently in existence than there

are varieties of soup on the supermarket shelves, more socialist parties

with the correct line than religious sects with a monopoly on salvation.

Most of the earth’s people are now governed by states calling themselves

socialist, states displaying among themselves the familiar antagonisms

usually held to be hallmarks of capitalist imperialism, as well as every

kind of social system presently in existence, from declining tribalism

to advanced industrialism. Can there be any meaning worth salvaging in a

label that has been claimed by Kautsky and Lenin, by Mao and Brezhnev,

by Gandhi and Hitler, by Ed Broadbent and Karl Marx? Does the term

connote anything more than “just” or “good” to its proponents,

“bureaucratic” or “bad” to its enemies?

The temptation is strong to abandon the label entirely, to adopt some

new term to indicate the kind of social change we propose. But to do so

would be to attempt to side-step a problem that really cannot be

avoided. For the terminological confusion is not accidental. Nor is it

‘merely’ a matter of words. It is rooted in the fact that the dominant

social system always acts to integrate that which it cannot destroy —

movements, ideas, even words — and therefore destroys them precisely by

integrating them, by claiming them. It denies the very possibility of an

alternative to itself, and proves this impossibility by absorbing the

alternative and emptying it of meaning, by adopting new forms and new

language which create the illusion of choice and change while

perpetuating the same essential relations of domination. Since the main

challenge to capitalism has always come from that which called itself

socialism, it is hardly surprising that capitalist social relations have

survived in half the world by calling themselves socialist. ‘Socialism’

has become another name for capitalism, another form of capitalism: in

‘victory’, socialism has been more totally buried than it ever could

have been in defeat. Capitalism has dissolved the socialist alternative

by stealing away its name, its language, and its dreams. We have to take

them back, for without words there can be no concepts, and where there

is no language of freedom, there can be no dream of liberation.

Consequently, we cannot simply abdicate the terminology of socialism and

arbitrarily invent new labels. To do so would be futile, both because

any new terms will be similarly sucked dry if they acquire popular

recognition, and because the existing language of freedom refers to

meanings and history that must be recovered from those who now suppress

them by laying claim to them. Words such as ‘socialism’, ‘revolution’,

‘democracy’, and ‘freedom’ do contain within themselves a critique of

the existing order. That critique can be realized only by reconquering

it and giving it new life, not by abandoning it and searching for

another.

For this reason, we start with the term ‘socialism’ and precede it with

the adjective ‘libertarian’, which begins to elaborate that term, and

which simultaneously makes it a new term, by differentiating it from all

the other ‘socialisms’. Perhaps most important, the adjective

‘libertarian’ raises questions in the minds of those who encounter it,

whereas the term ‘socialism’ by itself tends to let itself be taken for

granted, to act as an uninteresting vessel which each person fills with

his preconceived ideas.

And by raising questions, the term libertarian socialism initiates the

first step in a process of criticism that must be applied equally to

capitalism and to ‘socialism’ as it is “generally understood”. This

process of criticism has not yielded any finished results that can be

presented as a comprehensive picture of libertarian socialism. Indeed,

the very concept of critique stands in opposition to the idea of having

finished results. What is presented here are some beginnings, some

themes for elaboration. Most of the ideas presented here are not new,

but neither are they generally accepted.

What is implied by the term ‘libertarian socialism’?

The idea that socialism is first and foremost about freedom and

therefore about overcoming the domination, repression, and alienation

that block the free flow of human creativity, thought, and action. We do

not equate socialism with planning, state control, or nationalization of

industry, although we understand that in a socialist society (not

“under” socialism) economic activity will be collectively controlled,

managed, planned, and owned. Similarly, we believe that socialism will

involve equality, but we do not think that socialism is equality, for it

is possible to conceive of a society where everyone is equally

oppressed. We think that socialism is incompatible with one-party

states, with constraints on freedom of speech, with an elite exercising

power ‘on behalf of’ the people, with leader cults, with any of the

other devices by which the dying society seeks to portray itself as the

new society.

An approach to socialism that incorporates cultural revolution, women’s

and children’s liberation, and the critique and transformation of daily

life, as well as the more traditional concerns of socialist politics. A

politics that is completely revolutionary because it seeks to transform

all of reality. We do not think that capturing the economy and the state

lead automatically to the transformation of the rest of social being,

nor do we equate liberation with changing our life-styles and our heads.

Capitalism is a total system that invades all areas of life: socialism

must be the overcoming of capitalist reality in its entirety, or it is

nothing.

Libertarian politics concerns itself with the liberation of the

individual because it is collective, and with the collective liberation

because it is individualistic.

Being a socialist is not only an intellectual thing, a matter of having

the right ideas or the right intellectual approach. It is also a matter

of the way you lead your life.

A politics that is revolutionary because, in the words of Marx and

Engels, “revolution is necessary not only because the ruling class

cannot be overthrown any other way, but also because the class

overthrowing it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of

all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew.”

Because revolution is a collective process of self-liberation, because

people and societies are transformed through struggle, not by decree,

therefore “the emancipation of the working classes can only be achieved

by the working classes themselves”, not by a Leninist vanguard, a

socialist state, or any other agent acting on their behalf.

A conception of the left not as separate from society, but as part of

it. We of the left are people who are subjected to social oppression

like everyone else, who struggle for socialism because our own

liberation is possible only when all society is liberated. We seek to

bring others to our socialist project not to do them a favour, but

because we need their help to achieve our own liberation. Cohn-Bendit’s

comment that “It is for yourself that you make the revolution” is not an

individualistic position, but the key to a truly collective politics,

based on the joy and promise of life, instead of on the self-sacrifice

that is often the radical’s version of the white man’s burden.

We of the left see ourselves as equal participants in the struggle, not

as the anointed leaders of it. We put forward our socialist vision as

part of our contribution, but we do not think that our belief in

socialism means that we have all the answers. We deal with people

honestly, as equals, not presuming the right to dictate what they shall

think or do, nor presuming that we have nothing to learn from them. We

have enough faith in our politics that we do not seek to manipulate

people to our conclusions.

As socialists we form organizations with other people who share our

ideas. This is necessary and valid, but it represents a situation that

we should continually try to overcome, not one that we should accept and

even institutionalize in the Leninist mode. Socialism implies not only

the withering away of the state, but also the withering away of the left

and its organizations as separate entities. Power in a socialist society

must be exercised in ways allowing the participation of everyone, not

only those belonging to a given organization. This must be prefigured in

the political forms and movements that emerge before the revolution. The

ultimate goal of the left and its organizations must not be to rule

society, but to abolish themselves.

The most important component of socialist consciousness is critical

thought. We must learn to think about everything critically, to take

nothing for granted, nothing as given. Consequently, we do not want

people to accept socialist ideas in the way they now accept, partially

or completely, bourgeois ideas. We want to destroy all uncritical

acceptance and belief. We think that a critical examination of society

leads to socialist conclusions, but what is important is not simply the

conclusions but equally and even more so the method of arriving at them.

We base ourselves on the heritage of Marxism. This does not mean that we

accept all the ideas of Marx, let alone of those who claim to be his

followers. Marxism is a point of departure for us, not our

pre-determined destination. We accept Marx’s dictum that our criticism

must fear nothing, including its own results. Our debt to Marxism will

be no less if we find that we have to go beyond it.

Nothing could be more foreign to us than the “traditional Marxist” idea

that all important questions have been answered. On the contrary, we

have yet to formulate many of the important questions.

We have to try to maintain a balance of theory and practice which seeks

to integrate them, and which recognizes that we must engage in both at

all times.

The centre of gravity of our politics has to be when we are, not in the

vicarious identification with struggles elsewhere. Solidarity work is

important, but it cannot be the main focus of a socialist movement.

We don’t know if we’ll win: history is made by human beings, and where

human beings are concerned, nothing is inevitable. But because people do

make history, we know that it is possible to build a new world, and we

strive to realize that possibility.

“There is only one reason for being a revolutionary — because it is the

best way to live.”