Violet Fashion by Mindy
11-01-2005, 06:04 AM
Libertarian socialism is any one of a group of political philosophies dedicated to opposing coercive forms of authority and social hierarchy, in particular the institutions of capitalism and the state. Some of the best known libertarian socialist ideologies are anarchism (particularly anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism), council communism, autonomist Marxism, and social ecology. However, the terms Anarcho-Communism and Libertarian Communism should not be considered synonyms for libertarian socialism. Anarcho-Communism is a particular branch of libertarian socialism.
Libertarian socialists believe in the abolition of both private control over the means of production and the state, considering both of these to be unnecessary and harmful institutions.
Overview
The basic philosophy of libertarian socialism is summed up in the name: management of the common good (socialism) in a manner that attempts to maximize the liberty of individuals and minimizes concentration of power or authority (libertarianism). It attempts to achieve this through the decentralization of political and economic power, usually involving the collectivization of most large-scale property and enterprise. Libertarian socialism denies the legitimacy of most forms of economically significant private property, since when private property becomes capital, it leads to the exploitation of others with less economic means and thus infringes on the exploited class's individual freedoms.
Libertarian socialists differentiate between the idea of authority based on power, and authority based on knowledge or skills. The term "power", in this instance, refers to the social or physical dominance of one individual over another. They oppose all unjustified authority, be it political, economic, or social.
Libertarian socialists believe that all social bonds should be developed by individuals who have an equal amount of bargaining power, that an accumulation of economic power in the hands of a few and the centralization of political power both reduce the bargaining power—and thus the liberty of the other individuals in society. To put it another way, capitalist (and right-libertarian) principles lead to the concentration of economic power in the hands of those who end up owning the most capital. Libertarian socialism aims to distribute power, and thus freedom, more equally amongst members of society. A key difference between libertarian socialism and right-wing libertarianism is that advocates of the former generally believe that one's degree of freedom is affected by one's economic and social status, whereas advocates of the latter believe that freedom is essentially freedom of choice, or freedom of action. They would argue that even a poor, low-status individual is entirely free in a libertarian society in the sense that he has complete freedom to do whatever he chooses with those few possessions and resources which he has. Some analyze the difference between libertarian socialism and right-wing libertarianism using the concepts of positive liberty and negative liberty. Usually, libertarian socialism is said to promote positive liberty at the expense of negative liberty, whereas right-wing libertarianism is said to do the opposite.
Libertarian socialists believe if freedom is valued, then society must work towards a system in which individuals have the power to decide economic issues along with political issues. Libertarian socialists seek to replace unjustified authority with direct democracy and voluntary federation in all aspects of life, including physical communities and economic enterprises.
Like communists, libertarian socialists believe that objects should be held communally and controlled democratically; the only exception being personal possessions. Whereas "private property" grants an individual exclusive control over a thing whether it is in use or not, "possession" grants no rights to things that are not in use. A property title grants owners the liberty to withhold his property from others, or, if he desires, to require payment from those who wish to use it. "Possession," on the other hand, is not compatible with this form of "exploitation" or "extortion." Possession amounts to the right to use, rather than own, for oneself.
Opposition to the state
Proponents are most famous for opposing the existence of states or government. Indeed, in the past many refused to defend themselves in court because they did not wish to participate in coercive state institutions, instead choosing to go to jail or die.
The critique of states is built on the same principle opposing concentration of authority based on power, which they believe inevitably leads to abuse.
In lieu of states, libertarian socialists seek to organize themselves into voluntary institutions (usually called collectives or syndicates) which use direct democracy or consensus for their decision-making process. Some libertarian socialists advocate combining these institutions using rotating, recallable delegates to higher-level federations. Others, however, have advanced strong critiques of federated systems, and these federations have rarely been carried out in practice. Spanish anarchism is a major example of such federations in practice. Contemporary examples of libertarian socialist organizational and decision-making models in practice include the Zapatista Councils of Good Government and the Global Indymedia network (which covers 45 countries on 6 continents).
Contrary to popular opinion, libertarian socialism has not traditionally been a utopian movement, tending to avoid dense theoretical analysis or prediction of what a future society would or should look like. The tradition instead has been that such decisions cannot be made now, and must be made through struggle and experimentation, so that the best solution can be arrived at democratically and organically, and to base the direction for struggle on established historical example.
Supporters often suggest that this focus on exploration over predetermination is one of their great strengths. They point out that the success of science at explaining the natural world comes from its methods and its adherence to open rational exploration, not its conclusions; whereas traditional dogmatic explanations of naturalistic phenomena have proved almost useless at explaining anything in the natural world.
Although critics claim that they are avoiding questions they cannot answer, libertarian socialists believe that a methodological approach to exploration is the best way to achieve our social goals. To them, dogmatic approaches to social organization are just as doomed to failure as are non-scientific explanations of natural phenomena. Noted anarchist Rudolf Rocker once stated, "I am an anarchist not because I believe anarchism is the final goal, but because there is no such thing as a final goal" (The London Years, 1956).
[edit]
Political roots
As Albert Meltzer and Stuart Christie put it in their book The Floodgates of Anarchy, anarchism
has its particular inheritance, part of which it shares with socialism, giving it a family resemblance to certain of its enemies. Another part of its inheritance it shares with liberalism, making it, at birth, kissing-cousins with American-type radical individualism, a large part of which has married out of the family into the Right Wing and is no longer on speaking terms. (The Floodgates of Anarchy, 1970, page 39.)
Conflict with Marxism
In rejecting property and the state, libertarian socialists put themselves in opposition to both capitalist democracy and to authoritarian forms of Marxism. Although anarchists and Marxists are often said to share a belief in the ultimate goal of a stateless society, anarchists criticise most Marxists for advocating a transitional phase under which the state is used to achieve this aim. Nonetheless, libertarian Marxist tendencies such as autonomist Marxism and council communism have historically been intertwined with the anarchist movement. Anarchist movements have come into conflict with both capitalist and Marxist forces, sometimes at the same time, as in the Spanish Civil War, though as in that war Marxists themselves are often divided in support or opposition to anarchism. Other political persecutions under bureaucratic parties have resulted in a strong historical antagonism between anarchists and libertarian Marxists on the one hand and Leninist Marxists on the other (and their descendants, e.g. Maoists). In recent history, however, libertarian socialists have repeatedly formed temporary alliances with Marxist-Leninist groups for the purposes of protest against institutions they both reject.
Part of this antagonism can be traced to the International Workingmen's Association (or the First International), a congress of radical workers, where Mikhail Bakunin, who was fairly representative of the libertarian socialist view, and Karl Marx, whom anarchists accused of being an authoritarian, came into conflict on various issues. Bakunin's viewpoint on the illegitimacy of the State as an institution and the role of electoral politics was starkly counterposed to Marx's views in the First International. Marx and Bakunin's disputes eventually led to Marx taking control of the First International and expelling Bakunin and his followers from the organization. This was the beginning of a long-running feud between libertarian socialists and what they call "authoritarian communists" (or sometimes just "authoritarians"). Of course, some have equally criticised Bakunin for running an invisible dictatorship, and of being just as authoritarian as Marx. Indeed, The Russian Menshevik Fedor Dan criticised Bolshevism for being a product of Bakuninism.
Some Marxists have formulated views that closely resemble syndicalism, and thus express more affinity with anarchist ideas. The American Marxist leader Daniel De Leon, for example, who joined and reorganized the Socialist Labor Party in 1890, advocated a form of "industrial unionism" (known as De Leonism), which was similar to syndicalism, although De Leon himself made a point of distinguishing between the two ideologies. De Leon's insistence on a revolutionary political party working as the political wing of the industrial unions, however, sets him outside of the libertarian socialist current of anarchism (see opposition to the state above).
Several libertarian socialists, notably Noam Chomsky, believe that anarchism shares much in common with certain variants of Marxism such as the council communism of left-wing Marxist Anton Pannekoek. In Chomsky's Notes on Anarchism, he suggests the possibility "that some form of council communism is the natural form of revolutionary socialism in an industrial society. It reflects the belief that democracy is severely limited when the industrial system is controlled by any form of autocratic elite, whether of owners, managers, and technocrats, a 'vanguard' party, or a state bureaucracy."
Autonomist Marxism and situationism are also regarded as being anti-authoritarian variants of Marxism that are firmly within the libertarian socialist tradition.
These arguments are explored more fully at "Anarchism and Marxism".
Libertarian socialist tendencies
Libertarian socialism is composed of a diverse range of tendencies and organizations, with varying degrees of unity depending on specific ideological beliefs. These are of course, only a few of the most historically important factions within libertarian socialism.
Anarchist communism
Main article: Anarchist communism
Anarchist communism was first formulated in the Italian section of the First International, by Carlo Cafiero, Errico Malatesta, Andrea Costa, and other ex-Mazzinian republicans. Out of respect for Mikhail Bakunin, they did not make their differences from standard anarchism explicit until after the latter's death. In 1876, at the Florence Conference of the Italian Federation of the International (which was actually held in a forest outside Florence, due to police activity), they declared the principles of anarcho-communism, beginning with:
"The Italian Federation considers the collective property of the products of labour as the necessary complement to the collectivist programme, the aid of all for the satisfaction of the needs of each being the only rule of production and consumption which corresponds to the principle of solidarity. The federal congress at Florence has eloquently demonstrated the opinion of the Italian International on this point..."
The above report was actually made in an article by Malatesta and Cafiero in the (Swiss) Jura federation's bulletin later that year. Cafiero notes, in Anarchie et Communisme, that private property in the product of labor will lead to unequal accumulation of capital, and therefore undesirable class distinctions.
Anarcho-communists hold that the only road to true liberation of the individual, as well as the abolition of wage slavery and the state, is the complete abolition of market systems; whereas some other anarchists and libertarian socialists advocate collective ownership with market elements and sometimes barter. Anarcho-communists believe the only true liberation comes with a gift economy operated by the collective under direct democracy.
In anarchist communism, profit no longer exists. Not only that, but goods are given away as gifts in the certainty that others will also give products back. In an industrial setting, this would occur between worker syndicates as well as between individuals. If one syndicate does not share their products, they will not receive resources from other syndicates, making it in their best interest to share.
Anarcho-syndicalism
Main article: Anarcho-syndicalism
Anarcho-syndicalism is a branch of anarchism which focuses on the labor movement. Anarcho-syndicalists view labor unions as a potential force for revolutionary social change, replacing capitalism and the state with a new society democratically self-managed by workers.
The basic principles of anarcho-syndicalism are:
1. workers' solidarity
2. direct action
3. workers' self-management
Workers' solidarity means that anarcho-syndicalists believe all workers—no matter their race, gender, or ethnic group—are in a similar situation in regard to their boss' (class consciousness). Furthermore, it means that, within capitalism, any gains or losses made by some workers from or to bosses will eventually affect all workers. Therefore, to liberate themselves, all workers must support one another in their class conflict.
Anarcho-syndicalists believe that only direct action—that is, action concentrated on directly attaining a goal, as opposed to indirect action, such as electing a representative to a government position—will allow workers to liberate themselves.
Moreover, anarcho-syndicalists believe that workers' organizations (the organizations that struggle against the wage system, which, in anarcho-syndicalist theory, will eventually form the basis of a new society) should be self-managing. They should not have bosses or “business agents”; rather, the workers should be able to make all the decisions that affect them themselves.
Rudolf Rocker was one of the most popular voices in the anarcho-syndicalist movement. He outlined a view of the origins of the movement, what it sought, and why it was important to the future of labor in his 1938 pamphlet Anarcho-Syndicalism.
The International Workers Association is an international anarcho-syndicalist federation of various labor unions from different countries. The Spanish Confederación Nacional del Trabajo played and still plays a major role in the Spanish labor movement. It was also an important force in the Spanish Civil War.
Council communism
Main article: Council Communism
Council communism was a radical Left movement originating in Germany and the Netherlands in the 1920s. Its primary organization was the Communist Workers Party of Germany (KAPD). Council communism continues today as a theoretical and activist position within Marxism, and also within libertarian socialism. The central argument of council communism, in contrast to those of Social democracy and Leninist communism, is that workers' councils arising in the factories and municipalities are the natural form of working class organisation and state power. This view is opposed to the reformist and Bolshevik stress on vanguard parties, parliaments, or governments.
The core principle of council communism is that the state and the economy should be managed by workers' councils, composed of delegates elected at workplaces and recallable at any moment. As such, council communists oppose state-run "bureaucratic socialism". They also oppose the idea of a "revolutionary party", since council communists believe that a revolution led by a party will necessarily produce a party dictatorship. Council communists support a workers' democracy, which they want to produce through a federation of workers' councils.
The Russian word for council is "soviet," and during the early years of the revolution worker's councils were politically significant in Russia. It was to take advantage of the aura of workplace power that the word became used by Lenin for various political organs. Indeed, the name "Supreme Soviet," by which the parliament was called; and that of the Soviet Union itself make use of this terminology, but they do not imply any decentralization.
Furthermore, council communists held a critique of the Soviet Union as a capitalist state, believing that the Bolshevik revolution in Russia became a "bourgeois revolution" when a party bureaucracy replaced the old feudal aristocracy. Although most felt the Russian Revolution was working class in character, they believed that, since capitalist relations still existed (because the workers had no say in running the economy), the Soviet Union ended up as a state capitalist country, with the state replacing the individual capitalist. Thus, council communists support workers' revolutions, but oppose one-party dictatorships.
Council communists also believed in diminishing the role of the party to one of agitation and propaganda, rejected all participation in elections or parliament, and argued that workers should leave the reactionary trade unions and form one big revolutionary union.
[edit]
Social Ecology
Main Article: Social Ecology
Social Ecology is closely related to the work and ideas of Murray Bookchin and influenced by anarchist Peter Kropotkin. Social ecologists assert that the present ecological crisis has roots in social problems, and that the domination of human over nature is a result of the domination of human over human.
Politically, social ecologists advocate a network of directly democratic citizens' assemblies organized in a confederal fashion. This approach is called Libertarian Municipalism.
Economically, social ecologists favour libertarian communism and the principle "from each according to ability, to each according to need."
The Institute for Social Ecology founded in 1974 in Plainfield, Vermont offers a year-round B.A. and M.A. degree program, workshops, and academic conferences.
Violence in anarchism
Many libertarian socialists see violent revolution as necessary in the abolition of capitalist society. Along with many others, Errico Malatesta argued that the use of violence was necessary; as he put it in Umanità Nova:
It is our aspiration and our aim that everyone should become socially conscious and effective; but to achieve this end, it is necessary to provide all with the means of life and for development, and it is therefore necessary to destroy with violence, since one cannot do otherwise, the violence which denies these means to the workers. [1]
However, Proudhon, who people often term "the father of anarchism," argued in favor of a non-violent revolution. The progression towards violence in anarchism stemmed, in part, from the various massacres of the communes that has sprung from Proudhon's own ideas. Anarcho-communists began to see a need for revolutionary violence as a form of collective defense against the involuntary restrictions upheld by property owners. The anarchist movement today consists mostly of non-violent organizations, like BAAM or Anarchist Black Cross.
For more
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
Libertarian socialists believe in the abolition of both private control over the means of production and the state, considering both of these to be unnecessary and harmful institutions.
Overview
The basic philosophy of libertarian socialism is summed up in the name: management of the common good (socialism) in a manner that attempts to maximize the liberty of individuals and minimizes concentration of power or authority (libertarianism). It attempts to achieve this through the decentralization of political and economic power, usually involving the collectivization of most large-scale property and enterprise. Libertarian socialism denies the legitimacy of most forms of economically significant private property, since when private property becomes capital, it leads to the exploitation of others with less economic means and thus infringes on the exploited class's individual freedoms.
Libertarian socialists differentiate between the idea of authority based on power, and authority based on knowledge or skills. The term "power", in this instance, refers to the social or physical dominance of one individual over another. They oppose all unjustified authority, be it political, economic, or social.
Libertarian socialists believe that all social bonds should be developed by individuals who have an equal amount of bargaining power, that an accumulation of economic power in the hands of a few and the centralization of political power both reduce the bargaining power—and thus the liberty of the other individuals in society. To put it another way, capitalist (and right-libertarian) principles lead to the concentration of economic power in the hands of those who end up owning the most capital. Libertarian socialism aims to distribute power, and thus freedom, more equally amongst members of society. A key difference between libertarian socialism and right-wing libertarianism is that advocates of the former generally believe that one's degree of freedom is affected by one's economic and social status, whereas advocates of the latter believe that freedom is essentially freedom of choice, or freedom of action. They would argue that even a poor, low-status individual is entirely free in a libertarian society in the sense that he has complete freedom to do whatever he chooses with those few possessions and resources which he has. Some analyze the difference between libertarian socialism and right-wing libertarianism using the concepts of positive liberty and negative liberty. Usually, libertarian socialism is said to promote positive liberty at the expense of negative liberty, whereas right-wing libertarianism is said to do the opposite.
Libertarian socialists believe if freedom is valued, then society must work towards a system in which individuals have the power to decide economic issues along with political issues. Libertarian socialists seek to replace unjustified authority with direct democracy and voluntary federation in all aspects of life, including physical communities and economic enterprises.
Like communists, libertarian socialists believe that objects should be held communally and controlled democratically; the only exception being personal possessions. Whereas "private property" grants an individual exclusive control over a thing whether it is in use or not, "possession" grants no rights to things that are not in use. A property title grants owners the liberty to withhold his property from others, or, if he desires, to require payment from those who wish to use it. "Possession," on the other hand, is not compatible with this form of "exploitation" or "extortion." Possession amounts to the right to use, rather than own, for oneself.
Opposition to the state
Proponents are most famous for opposing the existence of states or government. Indeed, in the past many refused to defend themselves in court because they did not wish to participate in coercive state institutions, instead choosing to go to jail or die.
The critique of states is built on the same principle opposing concentration of authority based on power, which they believe inevitably leads to abuse.
In lieu of states, libertarian socialists seek to organize themselves into voluntary institutions (usually called collectives or syndicates) which use direct democracy or consensus for their decision-making process. Some libertarian socialists advocate combining these institutions using rotating, recallable delegates to higher-level federations. Others, however, have advanced strong critiques of federated systems, and these federations have rarely been carried out in practice. Spanish anarchism is a major example of such federations in practice. Contemporary examples of libertarian socialist organizational and decision-making models in practice include the Zapatista Councils of Good Government and the Global Indymedia network (which covers 45 countries on 6 continents).
Contrary to popular opinion, libertarian socialism has not traditionally been a utopian movement, tending to avoid dense theoretical analysis or prediction of what a future society would or should look like. The tradition instead has been that such decisions cannot be made now, and must be made through struggle and experimentation, so that the best solution can be arrived at democratically and organically, and to base the direction for struggle on established historical example.
Supporters often suggest that this focus on exploration over predetermination is one of their great strengths. They point out that the success of science at explaining the natural world comes from its methods and its adherence to open rational exploration, not its conclusions; whereas traditional dogmatic explanations of naturalistic phenomena have proved almost useless at explaining anything in the natural world.
Although critics claim that they are avoiding questions they cannot answer, libertarian socialists believe that a methodological approach to exploration is the best way to achieve our social goals. To them, dogmatic approaches to social organization are just as doomed to failure as are non-scientific explanations of natural phenomena. Noted anarchist Rudolf Rocker once stated, "I am an anarchist not because I believe anarchism is the final goal, but because there is no such thing as a final goal" (The London Years, 1956).
[edit]
Political roots
As Albert Meltzer and Stuart Christie put it in their book The Floodgates of Anarchy, anarchism
has its particular inheritance, part of which it shares with socialism, giving it a family resemblance to certain of its enemies. Another part of its inheritance it shares with liberalism, making it, at birth, kissing-cousins with American-type radical individualism, a large part of which has married out of the family into the Right Wing and is no longer on speaking terms. (The Floodgates of Anarchy, 1970, page 39.)
Conflict with Marxism
In rejecting property and the state, libertarian socialists put themselves in opposition to both capitalist democracy and to authoritarian forms of Marxism. Although anarchists and Marxists are often said to share a belief in the ultimate goal of a stateless society, anarchists criticise most Marxists for advocating a transitional phase under which the state is used to achieve this aim. Nonetheless, libertarian Marxist tendencies such as autonomist Marxism and council communism have historically been intertwined with the anarchist movement. Anarchist movements have come into conflict with both capitalist and Marxist forces, sometimes at the same time, as in the Spanish Civil War, though as in that war Marxists themselves are often divided in support or opposition to anarchism. Other political persecutions under bureaucratic parties have resulted in a strong historical antagonism between anarchists and libertarian Marxists on the one hand and Leninist Marxists on the other (and their descendants, e.g. Maoists). In recent history, however, libertarian socialists have repeatedly formed temporary alliances with Marxist-Leninist groups for the purposes of protest against institutions they both reject.
Part of this antagonism can be traced to the International Workingmen's Association (or the First International), a congress of radical workers, where Mikhail Bakunin, who was fairly representative of the libertarian socialist view, and Karl Marx, whom anarchists accused of being an authoritarian, came into conflict on various issues. Bakunin's viewpoint on the illegitimacy of the State as an institution and the role of electoral politics was starkly counterposed to Marx's views in the First International. Marx and Bakunin's disputes eventually led to Marx taking control of the First International and expelling Bakunin and his followers from the organization. This was the beginning of a long-running feud between libertarian socialists and what they call "authoritarian communists" (or sometimes just "authoritarians"). Of course, some have equally criticised Bakunin for running an invisible dictatorship, and of being just as authoritarian as Marx. Indeed, The Russian Menshevik Fedor Dan criticised Bolshevism for being a product of Bakuninism.
Some Marxists have formulated views that closely resemble syndicalism, and thus express more affinity with anarchist ideas. The American Marxist leader Daniel De Leon, for example, who joined and reorganized the Socialist Labor Party in 1890, advocated a form of "industrial unionism" (known as De Leonism), which was similar to syndicalism, although De Leon himself made a point of distinguishing between the two ideologies. De Leon's insistence on a revolutionary political party working as the political wing of the industrial unions, however, sets him outside of the libertarian socialist current of anarchism (see opposition to the state above).
Several libertarian socialists, notably Noam Chomsky, believe that anarchism shares much in common with certain variants of Marxism such as the council communism of left-wing Marxist Anton Pannekoek. In Chomsky's Notes on Anarchism, he suggests the possibility "that some form of council communism is the natural form of revolutionary socialism in an industrial society. It reflects the belief that democracy is severely limited when the industrial system is controlled by any form of autocratic elite, whether of owners, managers, and technocrats, a 'vanguard' party, or a state bureaucracy."
Autonomist Marxism and situationism are also regarded as being anti-authoritarian variants of Marxism that are firmly within the libertarian socialist tradition.
These arguments are explored more fully at "Anarchism and Marxism".
Libertarian socialist tendencies
Libertarian socialism is composed of a diverse range of tendencies and organizations, with varying degrees of unity depending on specific ideological beliefs. These are of course, only a few of the most historically important factions within libertarian socialism.
Anarchist communism
Main article: Anarchist communism
Anarchist communism was first formulated in the Italian section of the First International, by Carlo Cafiero, Errico Malatesta, Andrea Costa, and other ex-Mazzinian republicans. Out of respect for Mikhail Bakunin, they did not make their differences from standard anarchism explicit until after the latter's death. In 1876, at the Florence Conference of the Italian Federation of the International (which was actually held in a forest outside Florence, due to police activity), they declared the principles of anarcho-communism, beginning with:
"The Italian Federation considers the collective property of the products of labour as the necessary complement to the collectivist programme, the aid of all for the satisfaction of the needs of each being the only rule of production and consumption which corresponds to the principle of solidarity. The federal congress at Florence has eloquently demonstrated the opinion of the Italian International on this point..."
The above report was actually made in an article by Malatesta and Cafiero in the (Swiss) Jura federation's bulletin later that year. Cafiero notes, in Anarchie et Communisme, that private property in the product of labor will lead to unequal accumulation of capital, and therefore undesirable class distinctions.
Anarcho-communists hold that the only road to true liberation of the individual, as well as the abolition of wage slavery and the state, is the complete abolition of market systems; whereas some other anarchists and libertarian socialists advocate collective ownership with market elements and sometimes barter. Anarcho-communists believe the only true liberation comes with a gift economy operated by the collective under direct democracy.
In anarchist communism, profit no longer exists. Not only that, but goods are given away as gifts in the certainty that others will also give products back. In an industrial setting, this would occur between worker syndicates as well as between individuals. If one syndicate does not share their products, they will not receive resources from other syndicates, making it in their best interest to share.
Anarcho-syndicalism
Main article: Anarcho-syndicalism
Anarcho-syndicalism is a branch of anarchism which focuses on the labor movement. Anarcho-syndicalists view labor unions as a potential force for revolutionary social change, replacing capitalism and the state with a new society democratically self-managed by workers.
The basic principles of anarcho-syndicalism are:
1. workers' solidarity
2. direct action
3. workers' self-management
Workers' solidarity means that anarcho-syndicalists believe all workers—no matter their race, gender, or ethnic group—are in a similar situation in regard to their boss' (class consciousness). Furthermore, it means that, within capitalism, any gains or losses made by some workers from or to bosses will eventually affect all workers. Therefore, to liberate themselves, all workers must support one another in their class conflict.
Anarcho-syndicalists believe that only direct action—that is, action concentrated on directly attaining a goal, as opposed to indirect action, such as electing a representative to a government position—will allow workers to liberate themselves.
Moreover, anarcho-syndicalists believe that workers' organizations (the organizations that struggle against the wage system, which, in anarcho-syndicalist theory, will eventually form the basis of a new society) should be self-managing. They should not have bosses or “business agents”; rather, the workers should be able to make all the decisions that affect them themselves.
Rudolf Rocker was one of the most popular voices in the anarcho-syndicalist movement. He outlined a view of the origins of the movement, what it sought, and why it was important to the future of labor in his 1938 pamphlet Anarcho-Syndicalism.
The International Workers Association is an international anarcho-syndicalist federation of various labor unions from different countries. The Spanish Confederación Nacional del Trabajo played and still plays a major role in the Spanish labor movement. It was also an important force in the Spanish Civil War.
Council communism
Main article: Council Communism
Council communism was a radical Left movement originating in Germany and the Netherlands in the 1920s. Its primary organization was the Communist Workers Party of Germany (KAPD). Council communism continues today as a theoretical and activist position within Marxism, and also within libertarian socialism. The central argument of council communism, in contrast to those of Social democracy and Leninist communism, is that workers' councils arising in the factories and municipalities are the natural form of working class organisation and state power. This view is opposed to the reformist and Bolshevik stress on vanguard parties, parliaments, or governments.
The core principle of council communism is that the state and the economy should be managed by workers' councils, composed of delegates elected at workplaces and recallable at any moment. As such, council communists oppose state-run "bureaucratic socialism". They also oppose the idea of a "revolutionary party", since council communists believe that a revolution led by a party will necessarily produce a party dictatorship. Council communists support a workers' democracy, which they want to produce through a federation of workers' councils.
The Russian word for council is "soviet," and during the early years of the revolution worker's councils were politically significant in Russia. It was to take advantage of the aura of workplace power that the word became used by Lenin for various political organs. Indeed, the name "Supreme Soviet," by which the parliament was called; and that of the Soviet Union itself make use of this terminology, but they do not imply any decentralization.
Furthermore, council communists held a critique of the Soviet Union as a capitalist state, believing that the Bolshevik revolution in Russia became a "bourgeois revolution" when a party bureaucracy replaced the old feudal aristocracy. Although most felt the Russian Revolution was working class in character, they believed that, since capitalist relations still existed (because the workers had no say in running the economy), the Soviet Union ended up as a state capitalist country, with the state replacing the individual capitalist. Thus, council communists support workers' revolutions, but oppose one-party dictatorships.
Council communists also believed in diminishing the role of the party to one of agitation and propaganda, rejected all participation in elections or parliament, and argued that workers should leave the reactionary trade unions and form one big revolutionary union.
[edit]
Social Ecology
Main Article: Social Ecology
Social Ecology is closely related to the work and ideas of Murray Bookchin and influenced by anarchist Peter Kropotkin. Social ecologists assert that the present ecological crisis has roots in social problems, and that the domination of human over nature is a result of the domination of human over human.
Politically, social ecologists advocate a network of directly democratic citizens' assemblies organized in a confederal fashion. This approach is called Libertarian Municipalism.
Economically, social ecologists favour libertarian communism and the principle "from each according to ability, to each according to need."
The Institute for Social Ecology founded in 1974 in Plainfield, Vermont offers a year-round B.A. and M.A. degree program, workshops, and academic conferences.
Violence in anarchism
Many libertarian socialists see violent revolution as necessary in the abolition of capitalist society. Along with many others, Errico Malatesta argued that the use of violence was necessary; as he put it in Umanità Nova:
It is our aspiration and our aim that everyone should become socially conscious and effective; but to achieve this end, it is necessary to provide all with the means of life and for development, and it is therefore necessary to destroy with violence, since one cannot do otherwise, the violence which denies these means to the workers. [1]
However, Proudhon, who people often term "the father of anarchism," argued in favor of a non-violent revolution. The progression towards violence in anarchism stemmed, in part, from the various massacres of the communes that has sprung from Proudhon's own ideas. Anarcho-communists began to see a need for revolutionary violence as a form of collective defense against the involuntary restrictions upheld by property owners. The anarchist movement today consists mostly of non-violent organizations, like BAAM or Anarchist Black Cross.
For more
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism