#esoteric entity

First point I should make: that libertarian socialism is an umbrella term for a lot of positions that all believe in the voluntarily stateless society based on worker ownership (socialism) but disagree with the means to achieve and maintain it. So, the whole point of making this video is to have the viewer aware of this, and so not to conflate all libsoc thought as one as Esoteric Entity has.  

0:41 First point that esoteric makes: that socialism is not voluntarily.  

My argument: I can agree that certain strains of socialism are not voluntarily and very hierarchical (Marxism, i.e. state socialism) and tho I question certain libsoc thought (ancoms, ancols) this is something you have to present when debating saying “libertarian socialism in an oxymoron”, which thought do you mean?  Because as I said in my other video a lot of your arguments are against anarcho-communism but lump the whole of libsoc thought with it, not rebutting the ideas that are contrary to anarcho-communism.  

My first quote is Benjamin R Tucker can be found in his “Instead of a Book” and as the name implies, is actually a collection of essays from his newspaper “Liberty”, this quote can be found ‘A puppet for god’ but the debate Tucker is in this article begins in “Mr. Levy’s Maximum” where he attempts to argue that “the state is precisely the thing which the anarchist say it’s not – namely a voluntarily association of contracting individuals.”,

his argument being “When I said in my previous replies to mr perrine, that voluntarily assoications necessarily involves the right of secession, I did not deny the right of any individuals to go through the form of constituting themselves an association in which each member waives the right of secession.  My assertion was simply meant to carry the idea that such a constitution, if any should be so idle to adopt it, would be a mere FORM, which every decent man who was a party to it would hasten to violate and tread under foot as soon as he appreciated the enormity of his folly.”  Contract is a very serviceable and most important tool, but its usefulness has its limits; no man can employ it for the abdication of his manhood.  To indefinitely waive ones right of secession is to make one’s self a slave.  Now no man can make himself so much a slave as to forfeit the right to issue his own emancipation proclamation.  Individuality and its right of assertion are indestructible except by death.”  

In another quote in page 44-45 of instead of a book BRT extends this too with third parties, that third parties who did not agree to the terms and conditions of two agreeing parties are not bound to that same agreement made, so I don’t see your argument for “socialism, a system where people aren’t free to associate with others on a voluntarily basis, don’t have a right to the production of their own autonomy, or don’t have the right to exist free of free” if anything everything I have just stated agrees with your latter statement of “libertarianism a system that seeks to maximize the individual liberty of indidivuals allowing for the self ownership, autominity, and voluntairty association. “

 1: 24 – 3:17 Esoteric point “You can’t redefine arbitrarily redefine socialism”

Camreon does a poor job in defining socialism in this bit especially where it lies in common with libertarian socialism.  Socialism can be defined as “worker ownership of the means of production”, now what differs with libertarian socialism and state socialism is their goals with this definition, which Tuckers sums as AUTHOIRTY and LIBERTY.  Tucker describes state socialism as “The Doctrine that all the affairs of men should be managed by the government, regardless of individual choice.”   And then describing anarchism (libertarian socialism) as : “The doctrine that all the affairs of men should be managed by individuals or voluntarily associations, and that the state should be abolished”

 So yes, Cameron and libertarian socialist can do this as this is what happens with all philosophy, people create thoughts and disagree with those thoughts or parts of it and make up their own terms to show where they lie, especially in the realm of political philosophy, I am not saying I agree with it but that in a manner it is useful, for example, you can’t go about telling everyone you are a “classical liberal” hoping they’ll actually know you are an anarcho-capitalist, you have to explain how you are both but that the latter differs from the primary (statelessness).  And still you don’t address any of Cameron’s claims on how and why libertarian socialism differs from state socialism.

 Esoteric entitiy in 4:00-4:50: Is it really hard for you to understand that state socialism and libertarian socialism are two different things?  I can agree with your point on “why these regimes call themselves socialist” but you’re still not attacking Cameron’s argument on how libertarian socialism & state socialism are two different socialisms.  And my problem with relying on dictionary.com to define socialism is best worded by a comrade I made through my first video who said “ I know you (ME, Agora) were like 'wtf your using the definition of socialism from a dictionary'. But to explain why you said that, that's how we feel a lot of the time because dictionaries give the simplest of definitions where-as a better understanding can be gained from encyclopedias. Maybe if you explain that, it would be better. There is a long historical tradition of libertarian socialism whether or not it "sounds right" to him. So he's literally arguing against history. When he looks up the definition of libertarianism he doesn't understand that the free will definition refers to free will vs determinism in philosophy. As in, are your decisions predetermined? He doesn't understand libertarian free will has nothing to do with politics. That shows how uninformed he is.”  

 5:38: in your point here you attack anarcho-communism and its forced collectivization and so assume that libsocs are not in favor of individual ownership which these next quotes will disproves: Paul Eltzbacher writes about Proudhon

“Proudhon calls that portion of goods which is assigned to the individual by contract, “property”. In 1840 he had demanded that INDIVIDUAL POSSESSION be substituted for property; with this one change evil would disappear from the earth. “ and continues to tumble around by his belief in INDIVIDUAL POSSESSION & PROPERTY till in 1850 he announces “What I sought for as far back as 1840, in defining property, what I am wanting now, is not a destruction; I have said it till I am tired.  That would have been to fall with Rousseau, Plato, Lousic Blanc himself, and all the adversaries of property, into COMMUNISM, against which I protest with all my might; what I ask for property is a BALANCE – that is, “justice.”

Eltzbacher explains: “In all these pronouncements property means nothing else than that portion of goods which falls to the individual on the basis of contracts, on which society is to be built up.  The property which Proudhon sanctions cannot be special legal relation, but only a possible part of the substance of the one legal relation which he approves, the relation of contract.  It can afford no protection against a group of men whose extent is determined by legal norms, but only against who have mutually secured a certain portion of goods to each other by contract.  Proudhon, therefore, is here using the word “property” in an inexact sense; in the strict sense it can denote only a portion of goods set apart in an involuntary legal relation by particular legal norms.  Accordingly, when in the name of Justice Proudhon demands a certain distribution of property, this means nothing more than that the contracts on which society is to be built should make a certain sort of provision with respect to the distribution of goods.  And the way in which they should determine it is this: that every man is to have the product of his labor.

Now for this quote on property can be found in Tucker’s “Liberty and Property”: “Man has little to gain from liberty unless that liberty to control what he produces. One of the chief purposes of equal liberty is to secure this fundamental necessity of property, and, if property is not thereby secured, the temptation is to abandon the regime of contract and return to the reign of the strongest.”

6:55 Now Cameron, being an ancom believes in “direct democracy” but this isn’t to say, all libertarian socialist believe in democracy.  Some quotes:

“Royalty is never legitimate.  Neither heredity, election, universal suffrage, the excellence of the sovereign, nor the consecration of religion and time makes royalty legitimate.  In whatever form it may appear, monarchical, oligarchic, democratic, - royalty, or government of man by man is illegal and absurd. “  

“Democracy in particular is nothing but a constitutional arbitrary power succeeding another constitutional arbitrary power; it has no scientific value, and we must see in it only a preparation for the REPUBLIC, one and indivisible.”

“Authority was no sooner begun on earth than it became the object of universal competition.  Authority, government , power, state, - these words all denote the same thing, - each man sees in it the means of oppressing and exploiting his fellows.”

“All parties without exception, in so far as they seek for power, are varieties of absolutism; and there will be no liberty for citizens, no order for societies, no union among workingmen, till in the political catechism the renunciation of authority shall have replaced faith in authority.  No more parties, no more authority, absolute liberty of man and citizen, - there, in three words, is my political and social confession.”  - Proudhon

 And then I don’t think direct democracy is necessarily  “unlibertarian” , just the fetishism with majority rule over individual, this fetishism being “because the majority agreed to it therefore it must be right”  , an example I can think of is the death sentence, just because a majority voted to enact it doesn’t change it from murder, therefore right, but direct democracy in this case would solve the problem for a society “what are we to do with violent criminals” (serial killers, serial rapist, serial pedophiles) , that ALL participators of said society would ALL have an equal vote in the matter to enact or keep inactive the death sentence.  

7:14 You don’t know what the big fuss is about

I agree, libsocs and libcaps can stand by each other more and less but what prevents this is the conflating of each other’s philosophy.  Do you believe a libertarian socialist is interested in associating with you when you bring up the Economic calculation Problem, something only applicable to centralized (statist) economies?  

8:19 social hierarchy

I can agree with your statements on “income inequality” as Benjamin R Tucker even says “There will remain the slight disparity of products due to superiority of soil and skill.” But as Voltaire de Cleyre wrote in her dialogue “The individualist & the communist” : ““Certainly I do believe there are such differences in ability, but that they will lead to the iniquity you fear I deny. Suppose A does produce more than B, does he in anyway injure the latter so long as he does not prevent B from applying his own labor to exploit nature, with equal facilities as himself, either by self-employment or by contract with others?”‘”

But now where social hierarchy comes in is the artificial enforcement of the ability for an individual “from applying his own labor to exploit nature with equal facilities as himself, either by self-employment or contract by others”.  So, people who have made their power through the state or similar institutions of absolutism, have a social hierarchy over those who can’t achieve similar power by those same institutions.  Some people being , aristocrats, bureaucrats, , aristocrats having to rely on  a total monopoly of land to keep their subjects as peasants or whatever caste they were born into, bureaucrats often showing political and economic favoritism mimicking the aristocrats of the past with the same effects.  

 So yes, people making different life choices is not a hierarchy, but you don’t seem to realize that a system that PREVENTS individuals from making or choosing those different life choices through artificial enforcement is a social hierarchy.  That, power relations between two parties THAT are not equal, that is legitimate, voluntarily, where one party through some means has acquired a good deal of COERCIVE power, is a social hierarchy.  A good video about this is Punkonarant’s “What is power and how does it work?” I will post a link in the description, and tho a video against capitalism, I feel is good video on coercive power (statism).

 9:56 “That libsocs want to abolish the state and voluntarily association through a coup d’état”

 I don’t know where you got your “wanting to abolish voluntarily association” which I would like a source from as all libsocs, from mutualist to ancoms believe in voluntary association. I am not sure why Cameron doesn’t explain but I will. Again because libertarian socialism is an umbrella term for various thoughts that all disagree with another, they also disagree with what they call the “Social revolution” not a “coup d’état”, and yes, anarcho-communist, anarcho-collectivist, theorticans Peter Kropotkin & Mikhail Bakunin did argue for a violent revolution against the state and its cronies

But, the social revolution is not just against men, but against relations and things with it.  Bakunin wrote: “Bloody revolutions are often necessary, thanks to human stupidity; yet they are always an evil (line added by me) a monstrous evil and a great disaster, not only with regard to the victims, but also for the sake of the purity and perfection of the purpose in whose name they take place.” Bakunin, Volkssache

“The first act of the social revolution will be a destruction , which is so natural and justifiable because it is at the same time an impulse to renovation, will find its full satisfaction.  How much old trash there is to clear away!  Does not everything have to be transformed?  “ Peter Kropotkin

Now I chose to quote Bakunin first to explain his view on the Bakunin dialectic in contrast to the Hegelian, Marxist,which explains the views of Bakunin & Kropotkin on violent usurpation.  

 In ch 1 of the introduction of the book “The Basic Bakunin” , Robert M. Cutler writes : “ For Bakunin , the resolution of the dialectical contradiction signifies the victory of the negative.  In this victory  , both parties are vanquished ; neither is superposed on the other in the outcome. The negative and positive disappear , together and totally, in the final conflagration to which their struggles lead. “  and also “In Bakunin’s vision of the contradiction, however, the Positive and the Negative mutually destroy one another leading to the transcendence of both but preserving nothing of either.  Thus Bakunin, in his revolutionary exhortation, foresees no aspects of existing society based on the institution of the state, to survive the universal insurrection. “  And so if Bakunin believed that the violence of the state (the Positive) was to not survive this violent revolution, along with the Negative (violent usurpation) , therefore the Bakunin synthesis proposes a New World free from muddle of the Old.  

Kropotkin wrote “The work of destruction will be followed by a work of re-shaping”

But, as I can tell you are not one for violent revolution, neither am I, which is why I agree more with the “reformatory theachings” (as Eltzbacher puts it) of Godwin, Proudhon, Tucker & Tolstoi.  

 “The sole requirement is to convince men that the general welfare demands the change.”

“The point is to convince men as generally as possible.  Only when this is accomplished can acts of violence be avoided.”

“The means to convince men as generally as possible of the nessecity of a change consist in “proof and persuasion. The best warrant of a happy outcome lies in free, unrestricted discussion.  In this arena truth must always be victor.  If therefore we are would improve the social insitituions of mankind, we must seek to convince by spoken and written words.” William Godwin, An Enquiry concerning political justice and is influence on general virtue and happiness

These next quotes are from Proudhon.

“Accomplish the revolution, they say, and after this everything will be cleared up.  As if the revolution could be accomplished without a leading idea!”  Apparently this had been mistranslated and Steven T Byrinton, the translator, writes “Eltzbacher finds sens “all wil be enlightended” where I translate “everything will be cleared up”.  Eltzbacher’s view of the sense – that to those who say “enlightenment must come by revolution.” Proudhon replies, “No, the revolution must come by enlightenment” – correctly gives the thought brought out in the context.”

But now don’t be spooked by the word “revolution” as Proudon said “I want the peaceable revolution.  I want you to abolish the very institutions which I charge you to abolish, and the principals of law which you will have to complete, serve toward the realization of my wishes, so that the new society shall appear as the spontaneous , natural, and necessary development of the old, and the the revolution, while abrogating the old order of things shall nevertheless be the progress of that order. “When the people, one enlightened regarding its true interests, declares its will, not to reform government but to revolutionize society, then the dissolution of government in the economic organism will follow in a way about which one at present only make guesses.”

“Nothing is requisite but to convince men that justice commands the change.” To Proudhon (Along with Tucker & Tolstoi) the Social Revolution would only be possible through education of anarchist philosophy and the development of counter institutions to show to people what is anarchism, without violating the law.  And through the establishment of these anarchist counter institutions based on non-violence, non-coercion, voluntarily order, anarchism will replace the old world of coercion, violence, and involuntarily order.

Tucker says it best : “The idea that Anarchy can be inaugurated by force is as fallacious as the idea that it can be sustained by force.  Force cannot preserve Anarchy; neither can it bring it. In fact, one of the inevitable influences of the use of force is to postpone Anarchy.” Instead of a book, A Principal of Social Therapeutics

And to play God’s advocate with the Devil, the idea of a “peaceful” transition from a stateful society to a stateless society is a bit utopic.  A historic example of this would be the early Christians and several North American Indian tribes stance to, “turn the other cheek”, and often these people would be persecuted, aggressed upon, and killed when taking this extreme nonviolent route which is the stance of Leo Tolstoi.

Again looking to North American Indians we see how repeatedly they made contracts with the U.S. government which the government did not keep, stealing land and resources from the Natives, often leaving them to resettle in the rot of dissolute lands, resulting in the Indians to fight back.

 My point being, that just because you are peaceful, non-coercive, voluntary society not breaking the law, won’t stop the state from initiating force upon you, and tho we should glorify violence, we must understand that revolution as the anarchist saw it came out of a necessity to oppose statism, hierarchy, coercion, and create the New World from the shell of the Old.