. . Subject: Re: Libertarian Socialists Form in Denmark . . . . . . . . . . > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... Basically, I guess, the word 'socialism' is defined by that which it is a part of: the language. Why did they chose the word 'socialism' ... and why indeed would anyone choose it now ... because it has at the root the word 'social.' Social means positive interaction between people, not violence but friendly talking, not abusing but cooperating, not an iron fist. The whole question then becomes: what is a social system or polity. The differences on that question can be many and varied, for example if a Libertarian argues that people need to be free, then he clearly defines it is social(ist) terms because he proposes it as a betterment for people their lives. If a Libertarian would say 'I want my freedom because I want to rape and pillage,' then he can still be a Libertarian for wanting freedom, but he would not be a socialist because his goal is not social but rather anti-social. In that sense the 'social(ist)' movement is a very wide movement, which includes all 'regular' religions, most political movements from liberal to communist, etc etc. Libertarian-socialist would then be a branch of the socialist movement which wants to work for the betterement of all people, and who believe that freedom is an absolutely essential good for all people to have. The word 'communism' could either be from the root 'community' or 'commune,' (not sure what exactly, i'm not an expert on English by any means). I suppose you could derive from that, that the Communist-socialists but at the forefront of everything the group, the community, the commune, the 'we,' the inter-group-solidarity. I'm personally not clear what the different system choices would be, but a communist-socialist is probably more inclined to make up a system of common soil ownership per group and ultimately may force people to work on it who refuse to do anything or ban them (as the group is primary), whereas a libertarian-socialist may be more inclined to distribute soil to each individual. But them both being 'socialists,' they would have to do their activities in a positive way toward all people thus the libertarian-socialists would not stand by idly when many people die on their own soil for having a bad crop yield, whereas the communists would not beat people who do not want to work but use softer methods for people who prefer to work less. Not even all socialists agree that democracy is the method of governance, some believe that you need a monarchy to keep order in the common interest. That reference to common interest would make them socialists too. I thought that the whole question in Europe was, historically: ''what is socialism.'' That that was the big question. The communist movement has always held that their ideal of 'communism' was a very high end moral ideal, that would only be reached through the intermediate step of ''socialism.'' And they often held that the goal of ''socialism'' could only be had after a dictatorial regime first had a 'bourgeois' (civil society, semi-democracy) revolution and stabilized under a sort-of parliamentary semi-abusive system. This is why they didn't believe Russia could make it to socialism, because that would be one step from Tsarism (absolute dictatorship), skipping the bourgeois 'national liberation' revolution (and stabiliziation?), into ''socialism.'' Seems they where right on that, it did fail. It failed, and only now does it seem to have reached that bourgeois national liberation 'civil society' kind of thing (?), sortof at least. What the communists wanted was a very high end morality of all people, which is basically a tate of living where any model will work, even capitalism will work because capitalists will worry not at all about giving away their money and nobody would abuse the money power (but that is my interpretation, haven't heard that from a communist). So the communists saw this giant gap between their ideal and the bourgeois society, and they thought: the intermediate step we need we call that ''socialism,'' that which comes after 'capitalism.' Actually it's not that bad a theory at all, imho. All this blabber only leads to one thing: people have to find out what the next step is that the world needs, and then do it. Doesn't matter how it is called, it matters what it is and that it works and gets done. IMHO, what seems to be the essential problem with all secular socialist movement these days ? They don't realize that the #1 power in the world is laws. Many even reject laws. Because they reject laws, they can not define any system, because any system will be a set of laws. Therefore all the secular socialist movements are impotent. Why does the bourgeois class rule ? They knew a hell of a lot more about governance, and although they often abuse their powers, they know the value of law. In the combined revolutions against the Monarchy (bourgeois and the other classes), laws where made, like les droit des l'homme et du citoyen, and the Bill of Rights (year 1789). The bourgeois know that the power comes from law. Somehow the communists haven't appreciated this power of law making, thus they never had real power. The anarchists are notorious for their lack of content, and they never made any laws either (forgetting that the very notion of 'anarchy' whatever it is supposed to mean (yes i know perfectly what it means) that it is a *law* one way or the other. The 'democratic-socialists' as they labeled themselves (the bourgeois democratic-socialist political parties), they did realize the power to make laws, and hence they where able to soften up capitalism to a degree, and so where the bourgeois (European) liberal parties who once where progressive (a long time ago), and sometimes seem to have retained a very small amount of progressiveness to them even now. Basically: whoever realizes that laws are the power, they will have an impact, and everyone who doesn't will have an irrelevant movement or achieve little more then regime changes. How else could it be ! If you're not into laws, you can't define your system, you can only say 'vote for us, we're the good guys' (which is a Monarchist way of thinking, no less!). So ... all get your heads straight and your editors ready, and start to write law systems that you think may work. http://www.socialism.nl/law <<-- Law system, ready for use, I worked on that for about a year, and it has a lot of support documents too. But still: get your editors out and write down your own laws ! It's great, and then we can talk about law system is the best 'socialist system.' I think mine is very crafty and nice, so it will be great to have this debate about which laws are best and which details are best and so on and so forth. - How to distribute the means of production, exactly ! They won't distribute themselves ! How do you do that fairly ! I have my ideas, you have yours maybe, we can compare notes and find a promising way. - How to make laws that protect freedom. - How to make laws that will prevent dictatorships from occuring, how to structure a Government (if any, but you will have one anyway because a simple camp-fire meeting in a sovereign setting /is/ a top sovereign government right there -- and if you don't structure anything for it, you know who will rule: the ones with th ebiggest mouths, the worst of them all usually; they *will* rule and that's the end of that 'socialism' then.) You can only succeed in this law making, if you accept that a people is more then 30 persons around a camp fire faced with trivial questions. You law model will be relatively worthless if it needs you there to 'make it go right.' It must be a self-sustaining self-replicating system. The achieving of 'rule of law,' was one of the greatest achievements toward the equality of all people, and to abolish the right of the nobility to commit crimes. If you can't even acknowledge that ... you are still in need of having your own personal bourgeois civil society national liberation revolution. -- http://www.socialism.nl