維基百科

自由意志社會主義

一种左翼无政府主义
提示：此條目頁的主題不是自由社會主義或社會自由主義。

自由意志社會主義（英語：libertarian socialism），是社會主義運動中一系列反權威的政治學說[1]，其反對中央集權的國有理念[2]，是主張基層工人自治的流派。自由意志社會主義的理念與無政府主義和左翼自由意志主義的理念有所重疊[3][4]，它批判雇傭勞動制[5]，提倡工人自治[6]、參與型經濟（或地方計劃經濟）和去中心化的政治組織[7][8][9]。

自由意志社會主義旗幟

自由意志社會主義者通常會反對國家這一政治實體本身[6]，他們宣稱以工團或社區為單位，通過無產階級自下而上流動民主的社會主義制度，來建立一個基於平等和自由之上的公有制社會[10]。支持者提倡採用直接民主制以及小政府管理手段（由工會、工人委員會、基層政權、公民議會等機構構成的民主邦聯制），來達到政治權力去中心化的效果[11][12]。其目的在於建立無產階級自由聯合體[13]，保障工人們的自由[14][15]，捨棄影響人們生活種種方面的資本剝削和政治威權[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]。這些特點使得自由意志社會主義能夠跟列寧主義、布爾什維克主義、社會民主主義區分開來[24][25]。

被稱為自由意志社會主義的政治哲學包括（但不必然是）多種形式的共產主義（包括盧森堡主義、委員會共產主義等等）或無政府主義（包括無政府共產主義、集體無政府主義、無政府工團主義[26]、互助主義[27]、社會生態學[28]和自治主義等等）[29]。有些作者將自由意志社會主義作為無政府主義的同義詞[30]，特別是社會無政府主義。[31][32]

概要

 
諾姆·喬姆斯基，一位知名的自由意志社會主義者

自由意志社會主義是一種有着各式闡述的意識型態，但其中可找出一些互通的共性。其擁護者支持以工人為導向的分配製度，完全背離了資本主義經濟（社會主義）。[33]他們建議在一定程度上實行這個經濟制度，試圖達到個人自由的最大化，以及權力或管理集中的最小化（自由意志主義）。自由意志社會主義者強烈批判強制性制度，常導致他們反對國家的合法性，轉而支持無政府主義。[34]其擁護者試圖以政治和經濟分權的方式達成目標，通常會涉及到大型財產和企業的社會化。自由意志社會主義否定多數形式的私有財產合法性，因為他們將資本主義財產關係視為一種統治的形式，是與個人自由對立的。[35]

第一位自稱自由意志主義者的是早期的法國無政府共產主義者約瑟夫·迪亞契。該字來自於法文單字「libertaire」，用來規避法國對無政府主義刊物的禁止。[36]在歐洲社會主義運動中，「自由意志主義」常被用來描述反對國家社會主義的人士，如米哈依爾·巴枯寧。在美國，最常稱為自由意志主義的運動是信奉資本主義哲學。因此，「自由意志社會主義」這個名稱造成了美國人的矛盾。然而，自由意志主義結合社會主義早於結合資本主義，而且許多反權威主義者依然譴責美國的自由意志主義結合資本主義是錯誤的。[37]如同諾姆·喬姆斯基所說，一名始終如一的自由主義者「必須反對生產手段的私人所有權和這個制度中的工資奴隸（英語： Wage slavery），工資奴隸的存在不相容於勞動必須由生產者自由承擔和控制的原則。」[38]

激進經濟學家羅賓·漢內爾（英語： Robin Hahnel）講述了從自由意志社會主義擁有最大影響力的十九世紀末開始，一直到二十世紀的前四分之一這段時期的歷史：

「二十世紀初，自由意志社會主義與社會民主主義和共產主義同樣是一股強大的勢力。無政府主義國際–成立於馬克思主義者與自由意志主義者決裂的社會國際1872年海牙大會後數天–成功的與社會民主主義、共產主義一同競爭反資本主義行動者、革命者、工人、工會和政黨的忠誠，長達五十年。自由意志社會主義者在俄國1905年革命和1917年俄國革命中扮演重要的角色。自由意志社會主義者在1911年墨西哥革命中扮演支配性的角色。一戰結束後二十年，自由意志社會主義者依然有足夠實力在1936年和1937年席捲西班牙共和國的社會革命中扮演先鋒。」[39]

反資本主義

參見：反資本主義

自由意志社會主義者主張，每當權力行使時，如一個人在經濟、社會或生理上對另一人的支配，提供證據之責任是在權力主義者身上，當他反對他限制了人類自由的範圍時，會去證明他的行動是合法的。[40]合法執行權利的典型實例有以有形力拯救即將被迎面而來的車輛撞上的人，或是自我防衛。自由意志社會主義者反對死板與分層的權力，無論是政治權力、經濟權力或社會權力。[41]

自由意志社會主義者相信，所有社會聯繫應由擁有同等協商能力的個體去發展，經濟權力累積在少數人手中與政治力量的集中化會減少社會中其他人的協商能力與自由。[42]換句話說，資本主義和右翼自由意志主義的原則是集中經濟權力在擁有最多資產的人們手上。自由意志社會主義則試圖分配權力，讓社會中的成員更為平等。自由意志社會主義和自由市場自由意志主義之間最關鍵的差異是，前者的支持者認為一個人的自由度是受到他的經濟和社會地位所影響，而後者的支持者則注重選擇的自由。這有時被描述為他們追求社會中「自由創造力」（英語： Free creativity）的最大化，優於追求「自由企業」（英語： Free enterprise）。[43]

自由意志社會主義者認為，如果自由是重要的，那麼社會必須努力完成一個「個體擁有決定經濟議題和政治議題之權力」的制度。自由意志社會主義者試圖以直接民主制、自發性聯合會和大眾自治取代生活中各方面不合理的權力[44]，包括實質社區和經濟企業。

許多自由意志社會主義者主張，應該由大規模的自發性公會管理工業生產，而工人則保有個人勞動產品的權力。[45]因此，我們可以看出「私有財產」（英語： Private property）與「個人財物」（英語： Personal possession）兩個概念之間的差別。「私有財產」授予個人對一件物品的單獨控制權，無論是否有在使用，也不考慮生產能力；而「個人財物」並不授予個人對一件不使用的物品權力。[46]

批評

2020年2月27日，擁護資本主義的政治經濟學家克里斯蒂安·尼米茲（Kristian Niemietz）博士撰文抨擊放任自由社會主義，表示他認為如果放任自由社會主義者掌權，他們最後仍然會像布爾什維主義者那樣走上極權主義的道路[47]。

註釋

  1. ^ "It implies a classless and anti-authoritarian (i.e. libertarian) society in which people manage their own affairs" I.1 Isn't libertarian socialism an oxymoron? （頁面存檔備份，存於互聯網檔案館） at An Anarchist FAQ
  2. ^ "unlike other socialists, they tend to see (to various different degrees, depending on the thinker) to be skeptical of centralized state intervention as the solution to capitalist exploitation..." Roderick T. Long. "Toward a libertarian theory of class." Social Philosophy and Policy. Volume 15. Issue 02. Summer 1998. p. 305
  3. ^ Bookchin, Murray and Janet Biehl. The Murray Bookchin Reader. Cassell, 1997. p. 170 ISBN 0-304-33873-7
  4. ^ Hicks, Steven V. and Daniel E. Shannon. The American journal of economics and sociolology. Blackwell Pub, 2003. p. 612
  5. ^ "Therefore, rather than being an oxymoron, "libertarian socialism" indicates that true socialism must be libertarian and that a libertarian who is not a socialist is a phoney. As true socialists oppose wage labour, they must also oppose the state for the same reasons. Similarly, libertarians must oppose wage labour for the same reasons they must oppose the state." "I1. Isn't libertarian socialism an oxymoron" in （頁面存檔備份，存於互聯網檔案館） An Anarchist FAQ
  6. ^ 6.0 6.1 "So, libertarian socialism rejects the idea of state ownership and control of the economy, along with the state as such. Through workers' self-management it proposes to bring an end to authority, exploitation, and hierarchy in production." "I1. Isn't libertarian socialism an oxymoron" in （頁面存檔備份，存於互聯網檔案館） An Anarchist FAQ
  7. ^ "Their analysis treats libertarian socialism as a form of anti-parliamentary, democratic, antibureaucratic grass roots socialist organisation, strongly linked to working class activism." Alex Prichard, Ruth Kinna, Saku Pinta and Dave Berry (eds) Libertarian Socialism: Politics in Black and Red. Palgrave Macmillan, December 2012. p. 13
  8. ^ " ...preferringa system of popular self governance via networks of decentralized, local voluntary, participatory, cooperative associations. Roderick T. Long. "Toward a libertarian theory of class." Social Philosophy and Policy. Volume 15. Issue 02. Summer 1998. p. 305
  9. ^ "What is of particular interest here, however, is the appeal to a form of emancipation grounded in decentralized, cooperative and democratic forms of political and economic governance which most libertarian socialist visions, including Cole's, tend to share." Charles Masquelier. Critical theory and libertarian socialism: Realizing the political potential of critical social theory. Bloombury. New York-London. 2014. p. 189
  10. ^ Mendes, Silva. 『Socialismo Libertário ou Anarchismo』 Vol. 1（1896）:「Society should be free through mankind's spontaneous federative affiliation to life, based on the community of land and tools of the trade; meaning: Anarchy will be equality by abolition of private property and liberty by abolition of authority」
  11. ^ "...preferring a system of popular self governance via networks of decentralized, local, voluntary, participatory, cooperative associations-sometimes as a complement to and check on state power..."
  12. ^ Rocker, Rudolf. Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice. AK Press. 2004: 65. ISBN 978-1-902593-92-0. 
  13. ^ "What is implied by the term 'libertarian socialism'?: The idea that socialism is first and foremost about freedom and therefore about overcoming the domination, repression, and alienation that block the free flow of human creativity, thought, and action...An approach to socialism that incorporates cultural revolution, women's and children's liberation, and the critique and transformation of daily life, as well as the more traditional concerns of socialist politics. A politics that is completely revolutionary because it seeks to transform all of reality. We do not think that capturing the economy and the state lead automatically to the transformation of the rest of social being, nor do we equate liberation with changing our life-styles and our heads. Capitalism is a total system that invades all areas of life: socialism must be the overcoming of capitalist reality in its entirety, or it is nothing." "What is Libertarian Socialism?" by Ulli Diemer. Volume 2, Number 1 (Summer 1997 issue) of The Red Menace.
  14. ^ "LibSoc share with LibCap an aversion to any interference to freedom of thought, expression or choicce of lifestyle." Roderick T. Long. "Toward a libertarian theory of class." Social Philosophy and Policy. Volume 15. Issue 02. Summer 1998. p. 305
  15. ^ "...what categorizes libertarian socialism is a focus on forms of social organization to further the freedom of the individual combined with an advocacy of non-state means for achieving this." Matt Dawson. Late modernity, individualization and socialism: An Associational Critique of Neoliberalism. Palgrave MacMillan. 2013. p. 64
  16. ^ The Soviet Union Versus Socialism. chomsky.info. [2015-11-22]. （原始內容存檔於2015-11-22）. Libertarian socialism, furthermore, does not limit its aims to democratic control by producers over production, but seeks to abolish all forms of domination and hierarchy in every aspect of social and personal life, an unending struggle, since progress in achieving a more just society will lead to new insight and understanding of forms of oppression that may be concealed in traditional practice and consciousness. 
  17. ^ "Authority is defined in terms of the right to exercise social control (as explored in the "sociology of power") and the correlative duty to obey (as explred in the "philosophy of practical reason"). Anarchism is distinguished, philosophically, by its scepticism towards such moral relations – by its questioning of the claims made for such normative power – and, practically, by its challenge to those "authoritative" powers which cannot justify their claims and which are therefore deemed illegitimate or without moral foundation."Anarchism and Authority: A Philosophical Introduction to Classical Anarchism by Paul McLaughlin. AshGate. 2007. p. 1 （頁面存檔備份，存於互聯網檔案館）
  18. ^ "The IAF - IFA fights for : the abolition of all forms of authority whether economical, political, social, religious, cultural or sexual.""Principles of The International of Anarchist Federations 互聯網檔案館的存檔，存檔日期January 5, 2012，.]"]
  19. ^ "Anarchism, then, really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government. Anarchism stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals for the purpose of producing real social wealth; an order that will guarantee to every human being free access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life, according to individual desires, tastes, and inclinations." Emma Goldman. "What it Really Stands for Anarchy" in Anarchism and Other Essays.
  20. ^ Individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker defined anarchism as opposition to authority as follows "They found that they must turn either to the right or to the left, – follow either the path of Authority or the path of Liberty. Marx went one way; Warren and Proudhon the other. Thus were born State Socialism and Anarchism...Authority, takes many shapes, but, broadly speaking, her enemies divide themselves into three classes: first, those who abhor her both as a means and as an end of progress, opposing her openly, avowedly, sincerely, consistently, universally; second, those who profess to believe in her as a means of progress, but who accept her only so far as they think she will subserve their own selfish interests, denying her and her blessings to the rest of the world; third, those who distrust her as a means of progress, believing in her only as an end to be obtained by first trampling upon, violating, and outraging her. These three phases of opposition to Liberty are met in almost every sphere of thought and human activity. Good representatives of the first are seen in the Catholic Church and the Russian autocracy; of the second, in the Protestant Church and the Manchester school of politics and political economy; of the third, in the atheism of Gambetta and the socialism of Karl Marx." Benjamin Tucker. Individual Liberty. （頁面存檔備份，存於互聯網檔案館）
  21. ^ Ward, Colin. Anarchism as a Theory of Organization. 1966 [1 March 2010]. （原始內容存檔於25 March 2010）. 
  22. ^ Anarchist historian George Woodcock report of Mikhail Bakunin's anti-authoritarianism and shows opposition to both state and non-state forms of authority as follows: "All anarchists deny authority; many of them fight against it." (p. 9)...Bakunin did not convert the League's central committee to his full program, but he did persuade them to accept a remarkably radical recommendation to the Berne Congress of September 1868, demanding economic equality and implicitly attacking authority in both Church and State."
  23. ^ Brown, L. Susan. Anarchism as a Political Philosophy of Existential Individualism: Implications for Feminism. The Politics of Individualism: Liberalism, Liberal Feminism and Anarchism. Black Rose Books Ltd. Publishing. 2002: 106. 
  24. ^ "It is forgotten that the early defenders of commercial society like [Adam] Smith were as much concerned with criticising the associational blocks to mobile labour represented by guilds as they were to the activities of the state. The history of socialist thought includes a long associational and anti-statist tradition prior to the political victory of the Bolshevism in the east and varieties of Fabianism in the west. John O'Neil." The Market: Ethics, knowledge and politics. Routledge. 1998. p. 3
  25. ^ "In some ways, it is perhaps fair to say that if Left communism is an intellectual- political formation, it is so, first and foremost, negatively – as opposed to other socialist traditions. I have labelled this negative pole 'socialist orthodoxy', composed of both Leninists and social democrats...What I suggested was that these Left communist thinkers differentiated their own understandings of communism from a strand of socialism that came to follow a largely electoral road in the West, pursuing a kind of social capitalism, and a path to socialism that predominated in the peripheral and semi- peripheral countries, which sought revolutionary conquest of power and led to something like state capitalism. Generally, the Left communist thinkers were to find these paths locked within the horizons of capitalism (the law of value, money, private property, class, the state), and they were to characterize these solutions as statist, substitutionist and authoritarian." Chamsy el- Ojeili. Beyond post-socialism. Dialogues with the far-left. Palgrave Macmillan. 2015. p. 8
  26. ^ Sims, Franwa. The Anacostia Diaries As It Is. Lulu Press. 2006: p.160. 
  27. ^ A Mutualist FAQ: A.4. Are Mutualists Socialists? 互聯網檔案館的存檔，存檔日期2009-06-09.
  28. ^ Bookchin, Murray. Post-Scarcity Anarchism AK Press (2004) p.xl
  29. ^ Chomsky, Noam. Chomsky on Democracy and Education Routledge (2002) p.133
  30. ^ Ross, Dr. Jeffery Ian. Controlling State Crime Transaction Publishers (200) p.400
  31. ^ Ostergaard, Geoffrey. "Anarchism". A Dictionary of Marxist Thought. Blackwell Publishing, 1991. p. 21.
  32. ^ Noam Chomsky, Carlos Peregrín Otero. Language and Politics. AK Press, 2004, p. 739
  33. ^ Brooks, Frank H. The Individualist Anarchists: An Anthology of Liberty Transaction Publishers (1994) p. 75
  34. ^ Spiegel, Henry. The Growth of Economic Thought Duke University Press (1991) p.446
  35. ^ Paul, Ellen Frankel et al. Problems of Market Liberalism Cambridge University Press (1998) p.305
  36. ^ Wikiquote, URL accessed on June 4, 2006
  37. ^ Bookchin, Murray. The Modern Crisis Black Rose Books (1987) p.154–55
  38. ^ Chomsky, Noam. Otero, Carlos. Radical Priorities （頁面存檔備份，存於互聯網檔案館） AK Press (2003) p.26
  39. ^ Hahnel, Robin. Economic Justice and Democracy, Routledge Press, 138
  40. ^ Chomsky, Noam. 'Language and Politics' AK Press (2004) p.775
  41. ^ Ed, Andrew. 'Closing the Iron Cage: The Scientific Management of Work and Leisure' Black Rose Books (1999) p. 116
  42. ^ Brown, Susan. 'The Politics of Individualism' Black Rose Books (2003) p.117
  43. ^ Otero,C.P. in Chomsky, Noam. Radical Priorities, Black Rose Books,1981, 30-31)
  44. ^ Harrington, Austin, et al. 'Encyclopedia of Social Theory' Routledge (2006) p.50
  45. ^ Lindemann, Albert S. 'A History of European Socialism' Yale University Press (1983) p.160
  46. ^ Ely, Richard et al. 'Property and Contract in Their Relations to the Distribution of Wealth' The Macmillan Company (1914)
  47. ^ Niemietz, Kristian. The myth of "Libertarian Socialism". Institute of Economic Affairs. 2020-02-27 [2023-07-22]. （原始內容存檔於2023-07-22） （英國英語）. 
取自 "https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=自由意志社會主義&oldid=84560251"