What The Hell Is "Libertarian Socialism?"
Know Your Socialisms, Part 1
A qualitatively new situation emerges when man is faced with a transformation from a repressive class society, based on material scarcity, into a liberatory classless society, based on material abundance. From the decomposing traditional class structure a new human type is created in ever-increasing numbers: the revolutionary. This revolutionary begins to challenge not only the economic and political premises of hierarchical society, but hierarchy as such. He not only raises the need for social revolution but also tries to live in a revolutionary manner to the degree that this is possible in the existing society. He not only attacks the forms created by the legacy of domination, but also improvises new forms of liberation which take their poetry from the future.
-Murray Bookchin, from “Listen, Marxist!”
When you hear the word “libertarian,” what comes to mind? Guns? Those “Don’t Tread On Me” flags with the snake? Ron Swanson? All acceptable answers. I would have also accepted “obsessed with age of consent laws,” “crypto bros,” and “tax evasion.” Someone is out there yelling “DRUGS!” at their screen- yes you’re right I just didn’t want to shit on them about that bc I’m staunchly pro-decriminalization across the board, but that’s not the point right now.
Libertarians are easy to shit on because there is an inherent cognitive dissonance to holding an anti-authoritarian worldview without a critique of capitalism, which is an inherently hierarchical system built on zero-sum acquisition and leveraging of wealth and resources via exploitation of the working poor. How are you opposed to public power, but okay with private oppression? Well, the answer is simple: they see themselves as destined to be and remain the privileged class if their dystopian wet dreams were to come to fruition.
However, there is a branch of fairly mainstream leftist thought that is both libertarian and collectivist in nature, and that, dear friends, is what we’re going to discuss today: libertarian socialism, better known as anarchism.
Attributes of a libertarian socialist government include:
public ownership of the means of production;
horizontal or near-horizontal power structures;
collective ownership of natural resources while personal property rights are respected;
responsibilities shared according to ability and proficiency;
necessities of life provided to all members of the community without respect to ability to work, including, but not limited to, food, healthcare/medicine, housing, etc;
equal rights and protections under law for all members of the society;
equal voice in decision-making, by, for example:
-a one-person-one-vote system of direct democracy,
-elected and recallable councils, or
-a system of consensus rule.
Anarchist societies actively safeguard the rights and wellbeing of marginalized peoples, with a strong emphasis placed on indigenous culture in colonized areas (see the section on Zapatismo later on). Also worth mentioning is the role of women in anarchist societies, often being leaps and bounds ahead of classical capitalist patriarchal states. Anarchafeminism is a feminist discipline within the libertarian socialist framework that specifically seeks to address feminist concerns and disassemble the patriarchy (here’s wishing them success in their efforts!) via horizontally-governed collectivism as the primary means of achieving liberation for all people.
Anarchism vs Anarchocapitalism
Anarchism as it is commonly used is sometimes confused with the fuck-to-death battle royale that is an anarchocapitalist fever dream. The modern Libertarian Party, with its “fuck off, you’re on my land” mentality, is a tamer, rough around the edges- though no less toxic- expression of a “might makes right” ideology. Anarchocapitalists subscribe, ultimately, to a zero-sum paradigm, where anyone else’s gain is their loss, and vice versa- very different from libertarian socialism.
Interestingly, the word “libertarian” originally referred to anti-capitalist anarchism. It wasn’t until it was “borrowed” (read: misappropriated) by American capitalists that it lost its first meaning and became a term for a clunky ideology focused largely on rejection of government wholesale as a means for removing “red tape” that hampers profit margins. What was once a coherent, thoughtful ideological brand where all people work together to build a better world became yet another iteration of the vile maxim: “all for me, and none for thee.”
Weighing the Merits of Libertarian Socialism From Multiple Perspectives
Clearly, there’s some merit to libertarian socialism from a leftist point of view, and I would posit that there is from many apolitical and even some liberal points of view as well. Social libertarians and left libertarians have tried to split the difference, but the only one who gained any prominence was Andrew Yang, and he was both completely rizzless and a bit of a grifter by many accounts- a perfect encapsulation of why half-measures are doomed from jump street and leftmaxxing is the real answer.
Somehow a bunch of well-intentioned math nerds and would-be biz bros, though, drank his Kool-aid, and UBI as an abstract concept became a relatively mainstream policy proposal- usually skipping past the part where a bunch of the folks pushing it wanted to gut what few remaining social programs there are, and replace them with a $1k/month stipend. This effectively would just raise the cost of living $1k/month when your landlord finds out he can just take that from you too, so (moment of realism) a UBI concurrent with common sense tenant and consumer protections would be a more sensible position, but I digress.
The idea of letting people decide for themselves how best to apply their public support intrigues me for sure, and would definitely quell some of the skepticism from the “I don’t like money going to things I’m not a fan of” crowd. I think going a step further and having individuals weigh in on how a community’s resources are expended through direct democracy and self-government would provide similar buy-in from skeptics to a new form of administering government.
All that said, there are some legitimate critiques of anarchism, particularly when discussing issues of emergency response management and times of crisis. The argument that a more clearly defined hierarchy can respond more quickly to the needs of the people than a more horizontal structure is not without a certain logic, though I would counter that with the following: Localized governance can more adequately gauge and respond to the specific needs of the people in their region, because they’re all right there to see and experience what’s going on.
How many times have there been national disasters, whether a weather event or a school shooting or what have you, and a story comes out about Ted Cruz or some other suit being away on a nice, cozy vacation while his constituency suffers. That’s exactly the sort of checked out, “let them eat cake” kind of attitude that a more horizontal system of governance would disengender in those selected for positions of leadership. Obviously, all societies have problems and all systems of governance have benefits and drawbacks, but from where I’m sitting libertarian socialism appears to bypass the competitive nature expressed by people living under capitalism by emphasizing community, shared successes, and egalitarianism.
Libertarian Socialism In Practice
Catalonia - Sold Down the River
As for specific examples of libertarian socialist societies, there are three I would point to. The first major attempt, the anarchist faction in the Spanish Civil War, which held territory and managed all the necessities of a functional system of governance in Catalonia. Eventually, it did fall apart, but not solely because of internal strife or systemic mismanagement. Like any upstart nation, things didn’t go smoothly at first. Issues with coordination of administrative affairs, economic disruptions (typical for wartime, though no less damaging), and political fragmentation played a role in their downfall. The final nail in the coffin was the abandonment of the conflict by the communist and liberal factions that had been fighting alongside them. They simply couldn’t, being a fledgling autonomous zone with limited resources, sustain a military campaign after the liberal and communist factions withdrew their support in an attempt to appease Franco.
Of course this did nothing besides speeding up the rate at which the fascist dictator could consolidate power, and the Catalonian anarchists were crushed under the heel for jackboots not long after support withdrew. It would be prudent for modern liberals and moderates to take a cue from this era and stop trying to appease our contemporary Franco-esque characters, Catholic nationalists like Pete Hegseth, J.D. Vance, etc., and stop offering tributes to our right-wing authoritarian party. Unfortunately it is in the nature of liberals to split the difference, to triangulate and keep everyone happy, thereby pissing off everyone. It’s maybe a bit defensible if there are two rational actors to hear out, but that is not the current situation. I digress…
Zapatismo
The Zapatistas’ autonomous region of Mexico, in the state of Chiapas, has been functioning since 1994, when “zapatismo” first emerged as a reaction to NAFTA. It is an anti-capitalist, collectivist, indigenous-led movement which puts emphasis on gender equality, locally-administered self governance, and collectivized, self-sustaining agrarian culture. Zapatismo blends Marxist economic organization with a more anarchistic leadership structure, as well as elements of liberation theology, and is a direct response to neoliberalism and the encroachment of the West.
Named for famed labor leader Emilio Zapata, the Zapatista Army of National Liberation is not a guerrilla force, but rather a social organization. It is somewhat analogous to the “vanguard party” that Marxists advocate for, and administers the affairs of the autonomous zone. I’ve always had a lot of respect for their movement, especially considering the immiseration that NAFTA caused in other regions of Central and South America. They’ve kept their heads above water while many others drowned under the crashing waves of capitalist imperialism.
To see an autonomous, self-governing body resist neoliberalism for over three decades and counting is truly an inspiration and, in my opinion, proof that libertarian socialism can function, that we need neither gods nor masters to flourish, and that there is a better way than the current neoliberal consensus that does not rely on a state per se; all we need is ourselves and each other, not some faceless, nameless leviathan of a nation-state.
Rojava
Nestled within war-torn Syria, the Kurdish autonomous movement (located in a region called “Rojava”), also known as the Democratic Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, is a so-far-successful attempt at running a country via a system of Democratic Confederalism. What’s most impressive about this particular autonomous region of the Middle East is not just that they are dedicated to gender equality, ethnic/racial equality, and democracy, it’s the conditions under which they are still managing to do so.
They have been embroiled in a hot war with both Syrian forces and ISIL, with relatively minimal outside support. Of course, there are plenty of international leftists who’ve joined the Foreign Legion or some similar group to lend a hand, but the Kurds have had to sink or swim largely on their own. After the first Trump administration withdrew arms support, many thought the fledgling country would disappear in a volley of artillery shells. On the contrary, they are still scrapping their way through day after day, month after month. For anyone who thinks the only way to administer national defense is with a highly stratified hierarchy and that a strong, centralized state is necessary for defense, take note of Rojava. While they employ a command structure for their military operations, their society as a whole is not a steeply-tiered one like those found in modern neoliberal capitalist nation-states, or in Marxist-Leninist or Maoist regimes.
Thanks For Reading!
Hopefully you learned a thing or two about a branch of thought that gets too little attention, even amongst modern leftists. There’s always plenty of talk about class consciousness. Inevitably somebody uses the phrase “dictatorship of the proletariat” in an anachronistic way while Stalin-simping, forgetting entirely that the whole point of it, in Marx’s conception of socialism, was to deliver us the classless, stateless society that has been ours for the taking all along. We have but to extend a hand to one another, and take hold of a better world.
Authority is an unnecessary middleman between yourself and the living of your life. We need neither gods nor masters; we have enough in each other.
Keep becoming ungovernable,
-Dee
This piece appeared originally on my Substack and all future "Know Your Socialisms" Articles will be dropped there first, since that is where my primary readership is. Consider Subscribing on Substack if you follow me here and want to read through my archives and get the latest articles when they're first published. Your support means a lot- thanks!