Libertarian left and right

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

The term "communist" might be distasteful for the 'left libertarians" but that sounds to be essentially what it is.
Although the term tends to be affiliated with authoritarianism, a 'left libertarian paradise' would seem to be something along the lines of a community that has all but completely eliminated money and government, outside of a few necessary functions and everything done is done for the community at large.

Yes it is, seeing that historically communists have opposed us 100%. Communism is authoritarian. They FORCE you into the commune. Syndicalists (left libs) create co-opts. Communists consider free speach, in the words of Lenin, to be a "bourgeois superstition". Syndicalists consider free speech to be the most important factor of humanity. Communists create a state wide commune. Syndicalists oppose such concepts as "the state", and they oppose any type of "authority".

True, but you're just talking about two different kinds of communism. You can have a communist society that is to say a communist government, you can have a fair and democratically elected communist government (theoretically), or a governmentless communist society.
The term applies more to economics than level of governmetn control.
What you're thinking of is basically a fascist communist society and another one that basically discards government entirely.
It's much more a description of a society that's based on helping the community and that old saying 'to each according to need" than it is about how much or little control the government has.

The "Right" libertarian society can be fascist without government at all - it would just be fascism by corperate ownership than government overreach. For example - how companies in the Phillipines (or one of the other asian countries) essentially own slaves by keeping hteir employees paid in 'slave wages' - sort of what would happen in the US if minimum wage were eliminated (which is why I imagine so many companies push for it to be abolished.)

But the short of it is that what you are describing is a sort of communism - a society based upon communal living instead of the more darwinian capitalism of right-libertarianism.

(Though in my opinion, they would both fail for a number of reaons.)

This doesn't sound like the ideal society to me, however, as much of the progress humanity has made philisophically, technologically, and so forth are a direct or indirect result of many of the things a "Left Libertarian" society would eliminate. It also seems incompatible with large and very large populatoins that are literally dependant upon large-scale organisation brought about by powerful governments and corperations.

Although syndicalism is an Ideal, and even considered an "Idealism", in no way do its adherents consider it a "Utopia". It will have its problems, and it does. In no way would a left libertarian society eliminate technology, philosophy, or other such things. Syndicalism, as i have said before, is a co-opt of individuals with no state authority above them. This means, if anything, that individual freedom and creativity will be enhanced... not eliminated. Syndicalism has been implemented in many different time frames and many different countries, most especially in Spain:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederaci...el_Trabajo
But what you suggest can also be applied to most other forms of govt. You may as well say that democracy is incompatable with a large amount of people, as there will be no way that everyones voice or vote will be met.

I didn't say that it would eliminate technology, but the reason that the US and societies like it (several european countries, china, and so forth) and one of the better results of capitalism is the kind of progress that it can bring. When you know it'll benefit you greatly, you can bring together scores of people who wouldn't normally work together (and may even hate one another or have other reasons to work against one another) to found new industries, invent radically new technologies, invent new medical techniques, and so many more.
NASA, the computer, atomic energy, cell phones, and all of those things came into being and became widespread because - whether it was the government or a private company or even an indivdual who took out a loan from the bank - have all been able to thrust humanity's technological progress forward substantially and suddenly.
Every major civiilization that we would consider advanced have had societies closer to the sort of nation that modern nations are than any like the communal tribal societies that native americans or tribal african nations have ever been able to accomplish.
It's not to say that these societies can't have creative individuals, but without a large support structure and the kinds of massive engineering projects that strong governemnts and companies can throw around to build things like skyscrapers, city-wide water and sewage systems, space agencies, GPS systems, and so on, I have major doubts that a society that eliminates government and money will have a society anywhere near the ability to support so many people (because of hte infrastructure necessary to distribute food, power, and provide roads and power lines.)
THat's just the tip of it all.
A democracy can build this because it can concentrate money from taxes and companies with profit to build large-scale factories, distribution centers, and grocery stores that you just don't see and have never really seen in any place that ascribes to that style of communal living.
Even the kind of libertarian society that exists to the right (the right-libertarians) can at least have that kind of forward progress because - despite the kind of inherant corruption that unfettered capitalism can have (leading to fascism) it still can gather all that capital and build whatever it needs to keep things moving forward and to look for the next best thing.
I just don't see that happening in a left-libertarian society.

[reverendjeremiah]

Well, lets be very clear about this that "Communism" (as we know of it today, as it has been implemented) is AUTHORITARIAN.

Left Libertarianism is, and I will humor you in your words, a commune of sorts. It is a COOPERATION in reality. It is ANTI-AUTHORITARIAN.

So ultimately it is communism in the way that Wikipedia introduces it:

Communism is a social, political and economic movement that aims at the establishment of a classless and stateless communist society structured upon common ownership of the means of production.

There are some differences though. LeftLibs dispise politics. We do want to establish a classless and stateless society based on common ownership (we say "property is theft", and that all people have common ownership of the means of production.

So calling us "communist" is close, but not on the mark. Its more of a Cooperation

Cooperation or co-operation is the process of working or acting together. In its simplest form it involves things working in harmony, side by side, while in its more complicated forms, it can involve something as complex as the inner workings of a human being or even the social patterns of a nation.

So we dispise the idea of competition. This does not include friendly competition ("I bet I can get this pipe up faster than you could get your pipe up!"), it is merely against the "cut-throat competition" of corporate mergers, win or lose, poor and rich, etc..

[5thHorseman]

Basically it's about everyone working as a team for a joint goal and equal reward, unlike the top 1% trickle down fail.

[reverendjeremiah]

Basically it's about everyone working as a team for a joint goal and equal reward, unlike the top 1% trickle down fail.

That is the concept in its most basic form. You can be an individual without paying the price.

[5thHorseman]

Talking to my pop earlier, he's a socialist, but seems to adhere to this as well after I told him about it.

[reverendjeremiah]

Talking to my pop earlier, he's a socialist, but seems to adhere to this as well after I told him about it.

Socialists tend to lean towards libleft politics.

[reverendjeremiah]

Come on in house of Cantor..lets start you off with taking the political compass test

http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

[houseofcantor]

Holy fuck... Is there a society like this anywhere? Im moving immediately if there is

Everytime we get to the point of making a difference and creating that society, our leaders are assisinated and our members are black listed to ensure that we are held down.

Be oppressed or starve.

I fully expect to be ripped apart by angry mobs.

Rev put me right to work. Me and dtango are on the same page. This place is A-fucking-OK.

Took that test, Rev. I'm like right the fuck on top of Gandhi - something must be wrong with that test - and when I just went to look up my shit at TJ's place, his forum is taking a doze.

So lemme get right into it. I became a technocratic anarchist after researching the subject of anarchy, calling myself an anarchist, and having the usual problems with labels. On deviantArt of all places, I got into it with a grizzled old Canadian political junkie-type; when he asked me what kind of anarchist I was, technocratic, I said.

And parity was achieved.

Kinda skillset Johnny Cantor working with? Natural born mathematician - an emergent property of the universe - artist, poet, and visionary. I'm not big on self-aggrandizement, I'm just telling ya what we're working with, here. Here's a sketch of the vision of technocratic anarchy:

Ithaca, New York; world HQ - it was the coolest place in memory at the time - where central administration is located. AI to run the business of governing the basic shit needing to be governed - allocation of resource to contractors based on merit and past performance. Virtual World Congress. Fractal representation scaled from the neighborhood to the extent of humanity - might as well throw Mars and Luna into the mix.

Everything based on economics. Everybody with a credit account. Your link to the joules sounds might-t-fine to me; my original thinking was a central bank of information - real blue-sky stuff right now - joules seem to be me more immediately doable.

What I know - that many do not - is what morality is, how it works, and why a human can be allowed to do whatever the fuck he or she wants to do.

So question it, Vakko; and let us build something fucking wonderful.

[paintpooper]

So... can we hurry up and change to a technocratic society already?
I really want a world wide connected high speed rail system. It would be sick.

[Mister Agenda]

Just took the test. I'm between Gandhi and Friedman, but less authoritarian. Very slightly right of the center line and down. Sounds close enough.