Your'e welcome.
> ---------------------------
>
> joe golowka:
>
> A libertarian Socialist, like myself, is someone that opposes both
> capitalism and the state. We believe that the economy should be run by
the
> people - either through cooperatives, worker's councils or assorted other
> structures.
> --------------------------
>
> norm:
>
> about non-state structures: isn't that what people used to call
> anarcho-syndicalism? people running things through unions, co-ops, etc.?
Anarcho-Syndicalism is a kind of Anarchism which heavily focuses on unions and the labor movement. The basic idea is to build a big, non-hierarchical union, which will then take over the workplace and have the workers run things. Not all Libertarian Socialists agree with this focus. For example, Anarcho-Communists have a much stronger focus on the abolition of work, which syndicalists don't have. Some want to get rid of technology and go back to an Agrarian or hunter-gatherer society; syndicalists don't. Some want to use non-capitalist markets; syndicalists don't. Many also disagree with the tactics used by syndicalists. Some support the big union idea, but think that syndicalists place too much emphasis on it, and others think it flat out won't work. So, yes, Anarcho-Syndicalism does advocate that, but it wants to do it with specific tactics and with specific means that not all Libertarian Socialists agree with.
> --------------------------
>
> joe:
>
> This is different than State Socialists who want the government
> to run the economy (such state-centralization ends up creating state
> capitalism since government bureaucrats end up establishing themselves as
a
> new class). In addition to the abolition of capitalism, the state should
> either be abolished or drastically shrunk. Many Anarchists claim that the
> term means the same thing as Anarchism, this is debatable though since
there
> is a small minority of self-described Libertarian Socialists who want a
> limited government that actually represents the people instead of no
> government.
> ------------------------------
>
> norm:
>
> hard for to imagine doing without ANY government. people are not all
equal
> in their abilities and motivations and, inevitably, a stronger
(physically,
> intellectually, etc.) person will take advantage of a weaker one. with NO
> govt, where does the weaker person turn for help?
Government IS the stronger people taking advantage of the weaker people. The idea that the state is here to protect us is a myth. It oppresses anyone that opposes the ruling class. Look at the repression that's going on as a result of S26, racial profiling, the shooting of Amadou Diallo, the School of the Americas and all of the other shit they're doing. The state has always been used by the ruling class to oppress others. If you believe that some people will inherently take advantage of others (which I don't) then the abolition of hierarchy will definately improve things. Hierarchy ensures that some people have power over others, this makes it easier for those on top to take advantage of those beneath them and it means they can exploit those below them more.
There are a variety of proposals for how an Anarchist society would deal with people who would attempt to enslave/kill/rape/etc. others. First of all, such incidents would probably be much rarer then they are now. Most "crime" can be traced to economics and hierarchical child-rearing. When people are given the choice between starving to death and mugging many will choose to attack others. It's not a coincidence that countries with less inequality have less "crime". Rape is obviously linked to patriarchy, which wouldn't exist in an Anarchist society. Human beings are social animals; it's hard to believe that it's hardwired into us to be anti-social. Despite all this it is possible that a single individual or a small group of individuals would attempt to kill, etc. others. One proposed way to deal with this is to simply have the other members of the community come to the defense of the attacked individuals and/or retaliate against the oppressor. It is very difficult to subjectate a population that strongly desires to be free and is armed just as well as you.
> ---------------------------------
>
> bakunin:
>
> "Equality of political rights, or a democratic State, constitute in
> themselves the most glaring contradiction in terms. The State, or
political
> right, denotes force, authority, predominance; it presupposes inequality
in
> fact. Where all rule, there are no more ruled, and there is no State" -
> Mikhail Bakunin
> -------------------------------
>
> norm:
>
> bakunin seems to be assuming here that no one will take advantage of
another
> when the State (central government) ceases to exist. is that a correct
> interpretation?
I'm not sure what Bakunin's response to that question would be - I'm not an expert on him.
> even the more docile of the AmerIndian tribes that i know
> about still had to redeem or purge social deviants through a communal
> process. would bakunin grant that his anarchism would have to provide for
> SOME common social solutions for asocial human behavior?
Probably.
> ---------------------------------
>
> thanks again for your response.
Glad to answer your questions.
Joe R. Golowka JoeG at ieee.org Anarchist FAQ - http://www.infoshop.org/faq
"I have never read Marx. Well, I read a few pages then decided he was a bore. Karl didn't invent the class struggle, he merely wrote about it in a way that impressed some people, using lots of big words. While it can certainly be useful to know about the history of the working class, you don't need to have studied Marxist theory to know that being bossed around is degrading" - Dave Coull