I send you the code :D

Okay, the disagreement on “originate” definition explains a lot of the misunderstanding. I still am convinced that ‘originates’ does not mean a clear and widely spread theory, but only a coherent one. And to my eyes, having people calling themselves or other with the name of the theory, referring to all forms of communism opposed to authoritarianism as it is still today and was in the 20th, is coherent and probably more coherent than the socialism was for example.

Therefore I would claim that it was a coherent ideology contemporary to the second phase of communism (it did not exist at the very beginning of communism, before the communist manifesto and the communist ideas before, we can agree on that point. But it precisely emerged when tensions arised around the authoritarian part of first wide spread branch of communism which is marxism, this is what I called second phase, so starting around the first internationale).

Thanks a lot for your clear and constructive discussion, it feels very good to be able to pinpoint where the tension point is rather than just listing arguments in vain.

Okay, so I think we all agree on the “facts are more important than rethorics” point, especially here among fellow leftists (? I think you are) where we can take time to explain things.

So I really am confused as to where the “some kind of moral superiority” part comes from. I looked back at the previous comments and really saw nowhere where I could have been claiming moral superirity. If this is my tone that seemed condescending, I apologize.

Anyway, since you asked for examples of use of the libertarian label, I propose you a bit of the “french” history of the word Libertaire during the second half of the 19th century :

• First occurence in a writing is 1857, by Joseph Déjacque, in a letter against Proudhon. It is used to differentiate from “liberal”, which was considered by Déjacque as not enough attached to liberty. In details, he opposed the Proudhon’s conservatism on the matter of sexuality and gender.
• Déjacque then creates a newspaper that he calls Le Libertaire. This newspaper is published in New York, so that is a good example of the international aspect of philosophy. It’s not in english, however it is tied to the US. I roughly translated a part of the first article : “[Le Libertaire] has one superior ideal : the Liberty, in every matter and for everyone. It does not accept any other authority than the authority of progress. In every matter and for everyone, it seeks the abolition of all slavery in all of its shapes, the emanciaption of all flesh and of all intellect.”
• This title was used by 3 others newspaper before 1900 : in Algiers (1892), in Brussels (1893) and Paris (1895). The last version was published by Sébastien Faure, who is an important anarchist in France at that time.
• The word has been used around anarchist theories by various authors : Charles Malato associates it with Bakounin and anti-marxist communism in 1891, Elisée Reclus stands against the use of “libertaire” though “some of us are prone to call themselves that way” in 1896 and Kropotkine that says in 1896 that he “believe[s] that modern socialism is meant to take a step toward libertarian communism”.
• During the villainous laws of 1893, the word libertaire seems to have been vastly used as a synonym for anarchist, to escape censorship. It seems there has been a debate among anarchists on the use of this term, as we saw with Reclus before.

Now, this seems enough to me to say that left libertarianism originates in the second half of the 19th century, where it is mixed amongst various theories, though mostly anarchism and anti-authoritarian communism.

If we disagree, I think we in reality do not disagree on the fact but on the definition of one or more words in the sentence above, OR that the fact that it’s in french is still blocking you. I will try to prevent such disagreements but please point out what does not satisfy you if I can’t accomplish this myself.

• If we disagree on the “originates”, maybe it’s because you consider that without a kind of manifesto such as the Communist manifesto, a movment cannot be said to have “originated” or to be “born”. It is strange to me to consider that a philosophy cannot originate before an official manifesto, because not all philosophies have such a clear start (socialism for example), and communism itself started before the communist manifesto.
• If we disagree on the “second half of the 19th century”, I’m not really sure why
• If we disagree on the “mixed amongst various theories”, I can understand that you would search for a clear “libertarian” philosophy, that is clearly separated from anarchism, communism and socialism. I would argue that it is of course impossible to find such a thing, since it is still nowadays deeply tied to anarchism. I would add that anarchism and communism and socialism are themselves mixed together (or at least that anarchism is mostly communism which is a variation of socialism). If you still think that if it cannot be separated from anarchism, it should not be considered another philosophy, then just consider “left libertarianism” to be synonym for “anarchism” and everything should be fine.
• If we disagree on the french part, I would just say that we cannot skip a part of anarchist history just because it’s not in english : it existed and it should be possible to talk about it in english as well. If we disagree on that point, I would be very curious to hear why.

Sorry for this very long and late response, I tried to think of most possibilities we could disagree, because I really am confused as to why we are not on the same side since we seem to use the same methods.

I mean, do you really think political theories, especially ones that promotes international unity, developed themselves separately in each country? If you really wanted to use words from the thinkers of communism, you should at least know that :

• a good part of them were french
• a good majority of them lived in france at some point
• a huge majority of them were from Europe and traveled across many countries to avoid political repression

In fact, terms you actually use for anarchy, socialism and communism are both directly translated from french and influenced by philosophies elaborated in France. It does not even matter that it’s France specifically. England and Germany both have a huge role in this, Switzerland has a great role in the development of anarchist theories. Spain had a lot of influence on the notion of Libertaire. Russia and China of course brought a lot to the communist theories though mostly not for the better. All of these countries influenced each other, it is still the case.

Libertaire/libertarian was never a standardized label and still isnt, but it was used and not only in France, since half the 19th century. Just because it’s english language does not mean it should only analyze the political theory of english-speaking country. Without this analysis you cannot understand half the anarchist history of at least France and Spain.

Just because a word has evolved to a specific sense does not mean we should forget its previous meaning, nor does it mean it cant evolve back.

The word “Libertaire” (french for left-wing libertarian, the amercian libertarian is called “Libertarien”) was created in 1857 to differentiate from “Libéral” (which could be seen as an equivalent to nowadays liberals). In France it is still used as a synonym for ‘Anarchist’, though it has a wider sense, since it describes any left-wing movement that opposes authority/power (so libertarian communists that do not accept the “anarchist” label are still included in the “Libertaire” label). The Wikipedia page seems well written from what I know.

@LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net Good luck in your reclaming of the word. There are parts of the world and languages in which it is still a powerful and unifying word for anti-authoritarian left, english language can still evolve this way !

Unsure why this gets downvoted.

Is OP or the newspaper known to spread Russian propaganda? Or is this Lemmy being pro-war?

Or am I missing something, which is likely?

Same in France during WWII, centrist and a good part of the socialists gave full power to far-right military dictatorship

So yeah, some people in France would need a quick recap of the past century history

Im not entirely sure i understood everything but is donation the solution you’re looking for?

That lies on the the other side of the libertarian spectrum, the anti-capitalist one, which you can call anarchy to avoid confusion. Does not really match your meme that keeps the capitalist aspect of income as a key concept. Anarchy and (capitalist) libertarianism are really incompatible, since one fights against capital and the other fights for it. In french we distinguish those two philosophies with two words, libertaire (anarchist) and libertarien (libertarian). Since it does not exist in English, i strongly recommend you use Anarchism or social Libertarianism when you want to mean anti-capitalist Libertarianism, it helps avoid the confusion.

Agree with you, depending on the anarchist theory hierarchy disappears more or less but never entirely. It depends on the system chosen and modified by peoples though, so these example may not apply to some anarchist societies, especially the part about the children if you consider what anarchist thinkers wrote and experimented about education

Yeah, sorry for the long answer mb

Agree with you on most points, especially that we should be cautious with the parallel we draw : we can and sometimes should draw them, but always keeping in mind the risk of promoting or minimizing horrors. My previous answer did not promote that enough, you’re right reminding it.

The question "is it comparable " always kinda triggers me because the answer is always yes.

Comparing does not mean saying X and Y are the same, nor are equal. It means evaluating how much X and Y are similar or different on various point. Like “Taylor Swift is a human and so is Julius Caesar. But Taylor Swift is alive, and Julius Caesar is not”. This is comparing, according to what I know of the term. So in theory, everything is comparable : when we say that something is not comparable, we mean that there is a difference on a specific point that should obfuscate all common traits we can find. In our case, it seems to be the death toll.

First I’m hoping you are in full support of Palestina and that deprecate Israel (different subject but if you value the death toll that much in political analysis, this would necessarily lead to this, which is fine by me)

Now on the subject of USA death toll, counting is kinda hard. Should we take into account the strategically kinda useless atomic bombs dropped at the end of the war? Should we take into account every war and massacre caused indirectly by the CIA? Should we take into account death caused by American weapons? Should we take into account death caused by capitalism (though obviously China “communist” dictature helped there too, so maybe this one would complicate things)?

I’m profoundly anti-state, so as much anti west imperialism than anti east imperialism, and maybe this is a bias for me. But to my eyes, this is comparable (not the same, sure, but comparable, even if it is to conclude that communist dictators were more cruals and usa more sneaky)

Still vote for them if you need though, just important to know who they are than blindfolding imo

Upvote for the trump point, im with you on this one Other questions are meaningless here imo, just because X did not commit the crimes Y did, does not mean they should be treated differently if they did crimes of their own

(Still better voting blue than voting red though, fuck trump)

Hello, did not understand everything so sorry in advance if i say anything dumb In France, we have a President, elected by every adult citizen. In theory, he does not lead the country, and chooses a Prime Minister for this task, who then comes up with a government. In practice though, the President (Macron for now) has a lot more power over the PM because he can revoke and name another Prime Minister. And as the Assembly also have the power to revoke PM, President generally chooses someone that the majority in the Assembly will accept, to avoid instability. So currently, Macron is the President and holds practical power over politics, Prime Minister is currently Attal, and is kinda the second in hand of Macron, and as the Assembly seems to change right now, Macron will probably choose someone else as PM, probably someone from the left.

I didn’t watch tat much movies, but maybe you’re right and this all is just me being dumb or disconnected from reality. Maybe I’m also biased by my interactions with cops and/or soldiers (which were mostly bad experiences).

I guess CAF is canadian army ? I think during time of peace, the army does not take that much violent actions against its own population (although cops do). So it’s more about the second part of spreading fear to keep control : if anyone goes against their power, they will be allowed to take these violent actions. I confess that I do not know much about canadian army, so maybe I’m wrong. But I think violence and terror are only clearly visible during periods of tension, and as Canada seems to be quite peaceful, maybe violence and terror are juste dimmed for now.

I do not consider violence and terror as goals of military : i sincerely believe that most people in armies have no interest in them, and that they are here for other reasons (patriotism, security, a sense of belonging, etc). I think violence and terror are rather aspects or consequences of military : you need them to achieve other goals, which could be positive (control, security, enforcing the State). Good actions (summarized by “capturing hearts and minds” if i understood), are also aspects/consequences/tools armies may use to reach these goals.

So, to my eyes, making good things remains compatible with using terror, because this one relies on the mere possibility of violence. It also seems compatible with violence itself, if you consider both can affect different targets at the same time. All of these are tools they may need for other goals, positive or not. But I remain quite certain that violence and terror are necessary consequences in the wide panel of actions an army can take, despite the goodwill of every person implied.

Not sure if this is clear or clever though, sorry if anything sounds dumb and bothers you.

Yeah, I can understand the initial trust in law, and maybe debatting it later. This is not my way of thinking but i admit it’s really reasonable.

For the terror, my reflexion is the following : army/cops try to maintain a specific system in place and have 2 ways to do so. For people who (more or less) actively defy their authority, they take violent actions (kidnapping, pressure, wounding, killing, etc). For people who are not (yet) actively defying their authority, they hope that their violent actions will make people afraid of them, so they do not act against authority. I refer to thz first part as killing (though it’s not only killing but more generally violent actions against people), and the second part as terror.

So, imho, though war crimes may spray more terror in a single act than usual army stuff, both spray terror in their own way.

Yeah, this is what makes one legal and the other one not. I suppose that in your opinion, being legal and following rules of war makes it better and I would agree, it seems reasonably better. But is it good though ? To my eyes, killing and spreading terror remains bad, legally or not. If we add some other parameter, it may even be worse to do it legally : the scale of destruction is far worse when a violent group is legal (and so financed and supported by whole countries).

The result of the analysis depends on what parameters you choose : is it legal ? Is it big ? What are the motives ? You can choose what you want, and that’s probably why we (I assume this here) have different opinions. My wonder is : why should we focus mostly or entirely on the legal aspect/parameter when analysing things like violence and power ?

(If i misunderstood what you said, sorry by advance)

Im with you ! I know and understand people don’t like to see things this way, but I never saw any good argument as to why this nuance between legal/legitimate and illegal/illegitimate power should be taken into account in theory (other than practical matters, like it would be kinda hard to organize any other way now)

Happy to hear this. That’s the danger of implied things, your message ends up way worse when you dont say them out loud

Okay you now have stated a correct reason. I would add two things that can help you refine your way of seeing things :

• It’s probably best to say ‘kill Russian invaders’ or even ‘kill invaders’, since the problem is invaders and not Russian (I mean, killing random civilians in Moscow wont help Ukraine, but it’s still what you said is good)
• Insisting on killing is still weird. Killing soldiers is not the goal of fighting an invasion back, it is one way to achieve the real goal : all Russians soldiers out of Ukraine. If that’s what you’re talking about, i advise you to say ‘fighting’ instead of ‘killing’, so it’s not mistaken for a random bloodlust against a country.

Now I got to apologize if we agree on all those points, I mistook your shortened thinking for blatant stupidity, which would be my bad