by Commie Chris 27 Replies latest jw experiences
outnfree: I was a communist in my youth. I was also in a punk rock band and was known in the band, for obvious reasons, as "Commie Chris". The name stuck. If I had to label myself, I would say that I am now a libertarian socialist, or anarchist. I realize that those terms probably don't mean much to most people, and I don't want to bore you with a long explanation of my beliefs, but I'd be happy to give you the short version if you want.
- Commie Chris
outnfree: I was a communist in my youth. I was also in a punk rock band and was known in the band, for obvious reasons, as "Commie Chris". The name stuck. If I had to label myself, I would say that I am now a libertarian socialist, or anarchist. I realize that those terms probably don't mean much to most people, and I don't want to bore you with a long explanation of my beliefs, but I'd be happy to give you the short version if you want.
- Commie Chris
So sorry I didn't get to meet you in the big TO, Chris!
Yes, I would like the short version, please.... because I thought libertarians wanted minimal governmental interference and socialists love governmental social programs. So does a libertarian socialist want his highly self-sufficient local ruling group to provide social needs on an eglitarian basis? (Hmmmmmm.... did that even make sense?)
Definitions are DEFINITELY in order!
outnfree
Ever stop to think, and forget to start again?
Dear Chris
Being a lawyer as you are, I have a question. Can these turkey elders be sued? I'd really like to know
Hi Chris,
Just thought I'd let you know as a man I tend to read all the long winded posts (only kidding). Whilst I am mildly interested in the doctrinal inconsistencies of the Borg, it is the human cost in terms of broken families that gets me every time.
One of the things I required after exiting the Borg was professional counselling to put my head back together. My counsellor told me that she, despite her years of training and experience, found it difficult to assess the damage done by the Witnesses disfellowshipping policy.
So how can these elders who know jack shit about psychology and mental health being to understand what a person is going through when they facing/experiencing disfellowshipping.
All the doctrinal fallacies of the Watchtower fade into insignificance when compared with the truly appalling human cost of the Watchtowers dfing policy over the past 50 years. That alone disqualifies them from being Gods channel on earth.
Could you imagine Jesus Christ that we read of in the gospels acting in such an arrogant, stuck up, self serving way.
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
My best to you and your family
6
I am not a dub I am a free man.
outnfree:
You asked me to explain what libertarian socialists and anarchists are. Here goes, with 2 caveats:
First, “libertarian socialist” and “anarchist” are merely labels. They don’t fully describe my beliefs, which are constantly evolving, but they come closer than any other labels.
Second, I am not an intellectual. My beliefs are the result of my experience as an activist for social justice, not the result of extensive formal education or reading. I am fairly well educated (I am a lawyer) but I have not read a great deal of political theory or philosophy. I am certainly no expert on the philosophy of anarchism or libertarian socialism. I have been an activist since I was 12 (I am now 41) and have learned a few things through experience about what works and what doesn’t. There are much more intelligent and articulate exponents of these ideas than me. I would suggest reading Noam Chomsky and Murray Bookchin. You’ll find writings by and about them, and other anarchist thinkers, on the net.
That said, the terms “libertarian”, “socialism” and “anarchy” have become grossly distorted in the past few decades, especially in the U.S. and Canada. “Libertarian” has come to be identified with a right-wing philosophy promoting freedom for big business, but little else. In the U.S. and Canada there are even fringe Libertarian Parties which essentially promote laissez fair economic policies (little or no taxation on the rich, no environmental protection laws, no laws promoting substantive equality, workers’ rights etc…).
Libertarian socialism, however, has been around much longer than this new right-wing brand of “libertarianism”. It arose in the 1800s as a major branch of socialism. In fact, some people consider the terms “libertarian” and “socialist” to be virtually synonymous. Libertarian socialists and anarchists do not advocate highly centralized or authoritarian forms of government. On the contrary, they promote ownership of industry by workers, not the state, and maximum freedom of speech and other civil liberties. Anarchists and libertarian socialists believe that any authority or restriction on human freedom bears the burden of justifying itself. Any authority which cannot be justified should be abolished. Anarchy is not “chaos”, as it is sometimes defined, it is a society based on freedom and free association, where structures of governance are not imposed by the state, they are mutually agreed upon for the common good and are genuinely accountable to the people they claim to serve.
Anarchists and libertarian socialists believe that any rational, objective study of human history shows that the desire to be free is a fundamental aspect of human nature. Human history is, in a sense, a history of the struggle against oppression and exploitation. However, unlike the right-wing “libertarian” parties, libertarian socialists believe that human freedom should not merely be freedom from oppressive “big” governments, but also freedom from the oppressive power of big business, state militaries etc.
It became necessary to add the term “libertarian” to socialism when authoritarian forms of Marxism arose in the late 1800s and early 20th century. Authoritarian socialists (usually called Marxist-Leninists) believe that the working class must seize control of the state, with violence if necessary, and use the state power (police etc…) to maintain control and suppress the capitalist class. They believe that capitalists will stop at nothing to regain their power and they must be ruthlessly suppressed if the working class is to retain power for itself. Only after the capitalists’ power has been eliminated and a classless society has been achieved can the state begin to “wither away”. According to Marxist-Leninists, until the capitalists’ political power has been crushed, the state must control the economy because society remains on a sort of “war footing” (war between the classes).
Lenin and his followers called themselves “socialists”, but their first action after consolidating their power in Russia in 1918 was actually to abolish true socialism. The worker-controlled industries, which had been taken over over by workers in the early days of the 1917 revolution, were seen as a threat to the centralized power of Lenin’s Communist Party. Workers’ councils were abolished and virtually all industry was taken over by the central government in Moscow.
Libertarian socialists and anarchists such as Emma Goldman (Red Emma) correctly predicted that the authoritarian Soviet state would not “wither away”, and, everyone knows, it became further and further entrenched and more and more authoritarian. The transition to a free socialist society which was promised by the Marxist-Leninists never happened.
Nevertheless, the Soviet Union, and other authoritarian states continued to call themselves “socialist”. This suited anti-socialists very well. The western media (especially in the U.S. and Canada) have constantly pointed to the Soviet Union, China, Cuba etc… as examples of the horrors of socialism. Likewise, they now point to the demise of the Soviet Union and its allies as the “failure of socialism”. In fact, these states were not socialist at all.
BTW, for an excellent analysis of how the media, especially in the U.S., promotes capitalist ideology and suppresses any real, factual, free press, read Noam Chomsky’s “Manufacturing Consent”. Chomsky shows how the U.S. news media, which is tightly connected with other big business interests, controls the flow of information to ensure that North Americans are fed a steady diet of slanted pro-capitalist “news”. The idea that the press in the U.S., and other western countries, is “free” is a myth - it is a superb achievement of propaganda, especially in view of the fact that most people in the U.S. and Canada believe that they live in a “free society”, where there is no propaganda.
The idea that “big government” and socialism are synonymous is a myth which has been promoted both by Marxist-Leninists and by the western capitalist media. In fact, big government in the west (primarily the U.S., Canada, Japan and Europe) is very much a creation of the huge multi-national corporations which own most of the media. Do they ever complain about the evils of “big government” when these governments are subsidizing big business through massive military spending, give-aways of natural resources, or other forms of government subsidies for the rich? No, they only oppose “big government” when governments undertake public health or education programs, or environmental and public health protection regulations.
I am not “against big government” or “for big government”. I simply believe that people ought to be free to make choices, based on accurate information, about the kind of government they want. I seriously doubt that many Americans would choose to have their tax dollars spent subsidizing GM, IBM, Boeing etc… by giving them massive military contracts with guaranteed profits, to build weapons to use against 3rd world peoples. I doubt also that many Americans or Canadians would support big government programs which give public resource, such as oil and gas and minerals, to Exon, Gulf Oil etc…, and then regulate supply and demand to ensure massive profits for these corporations. Given a choice, I believe that most people would rather see their taxes spent on providing high quality health care and education and ensuring that public health and the environment are protected.
Do we live in a democracy? I don’t think so, and I don’t think many other people really believe we do either. Polls consistently show that around 80% of Americans and Canadians think that our governments are controlled by the wealthy and powerful, and that national elections are basically just squabbles between different factions of this ruling class. I think they’re right. Libertarian socialists and anarchists want to break this monopoly of power return it to the people - to see real democratic control over decision-making which affects our lives.
I would sum up my idea of libertarian socialism and anarchism in 2 words: people power.
I could go on and on, but this is a very simplified and personal answer to your question about the terms “libertarian” and “socialist”.
I would just note in closing that these issues are not just of historical or academic interest. There are very interesting and exciting developments occurring in the world today which are playing out these struggles between multi-national capitalism and the desire of people all over the world to be free from the incredible power of these corporations. The fight against globalization is very much a struggle between the interests of multi-national corporations, which want to use international “free trade agreements” to ensure that governments all over the world are prevented from enacting laws, such as environmental protection or workers rights protection, which would interfere with the “rights” of big business to conduct business as they see fit anywhere in the world. The protests of the past few years in Seatle, Quebec City, Genoa etc… reflect a growing movement against the globalization of the power of multi-national corporations. It’s no wonder these free trade agreements (GATT, FTAA, NAFTA etc.) are negotiated in secret, behind massive walls of security. This is democracy?
There is also an interesting thread in the academic literature of libertarian socialism, called the “ecology of freedom”, or “social ecology”. This is a philosophy which stresses the unique place of the human species in the planetary eco-system. The ecology of freedom is grounded in evolutionary theory and critiques the destructive effects of the artificial development of hierarchies in human society. According to social ecology, the idea that our fellow humans, or the natural world, can “belong” to certain classes of people, and therefore can be exploited by them, is a perversion of the “diversity of nature” . In other words, it is contrary to nature, of which we humans are a part, and therefore, not surprisingly, gives rise to all sorts of societal and personal dysfunction.
I hope some of this is interesting, and maybe even useful.
Commie Chris
Disengaged: I am not a litigation lawyer, I am a constitutional lawyer. That said, I know a little about suing individuals and organizations. However, I am not sure what you wish to sue elders for. Certainly if an elder molested, assaulted, or otherwise abused a person, he could be held liable. The more interesting question is whether elders, and the WTS, could be held liable for negligently allowing such abuse to continue and failing to protect "the flock". There is no simple answer to this question, it seems clear that the GB and other members of the hierarchy have done a pretty neat job of shielding themselves from liabilty, but I think there are some cases where they could be found liable. I am going to start a thread on the Main board suggesting that any current or pending legal actions be coordinated, in order to share information and resources about the Society's tactics in responding to such actions.
Chris: You could be me!
I was dfed a week before my wedding (for something not "porneia" related), and the only way to keep them from announcing it was to appeal, so I wasn't announced until a month after my wedding.
The appeal committee is bullshit. I don't know of a single committee that has overturned the original JC's decision. But I've been gone for a while...
I got reinstated and then walked away.
So glad you're here!
Reagan
I am the master of my fate/I am the captain of my soul.
Chris:
Thanks for sharing your experience with the Judicial Committee. I have never understood how someone who voluntarily confesses an act of "wrongdoing" could have their motives questioned, much less be disfellowshipped. But then again, I also could never understand how anyone who goes door to door, conducts bible studies, goes to Bethel or becomes a missionary could have their "VOLUNTEER" work criticized or demeaned by pompous assholes.
The organization has a long history of contemptable treatment of those to whom they claim God has asked them to care for. I wish there was such a thing as eternal torment for them. Alas, getting free of them is our only solace and will have to be sufficient for now.
CommieChris,
I am glad that you explained your ideas, because they are far different than I imagined from the terms you used. I like your ideas. I just wonder one thing. The world has become engulfed with huge organizations of all kinds. Is it possible to return to the democratic kind of system that was used, for example, in the town meetings of New England? I hope there is.
