Forward the revolution!
Many anarchists, seeing the negative nature of the definition of "anarchism," have used other terms to emphasise the inherently positive and constructive aspect of their ideas. The most common terms used are "free socialism," "free communism," "libertarian socialism," and "libertarian communism." For anarchists, libertarian socialism, libertarian communism, and anarchism are virtually interchangeable. As Vanzetti put it:
"After all we are socialists as the social-democrats, the socialists, the communists, and the I.W.W. are all Socialists. The difference -- the fundamental one -- between us and all the other is that they are authoritarian while we are libertarian; they believe in a State or Government of their own; we believe in no State or Government." [Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, The Letters of Sacco and Vanzetti, p. 274]
But is this correct? Considering definitions from the American Heritage Dictionary, we find:
LIBERTARIAN: one who believes in freedom of action and thought; one who believes in free will.
SOCIALISM: a social system in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods.
Just taking those two first definitions and fusing them yields:
LIBERTARIAN SOCIALISM: a social system which believes in freedom of action and thought and free will, in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods.
(Although we must add that our usual comments on the lack of political sophistication of dictionaries still holds. We only use these definitions to show that "libertarian" does not imply "free market" capitalism nor "socialism" state ownership. Other dictionaries, obviously, will have different definitions -- particularly for socialism. Those wanting to debate dictionary definitions are free to pursue this unending and politically useless hobby but we will not).
However, due to the creation of the Libertarian Party in the USA, many people now consider the idea of "libertarian socialism" to be a contradiction in terms. Indeed, many "Libertarians" think anarchists are just attempting to associate the "anti-libertarian" ideas of "socialism" (as Libertarians conceive it) with Libertarian ideology in order to make those "socialist" ideas more "acceptable" -- in other words, trying to steal the "libertarian" label from its rightful possessors.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Anarchists have been using the term "libertarian" to describe themselves and their ideas since the 1850's. According to anarchist historian Max Nettlau, the revolutionary anarchist Joseph Dejacque published Le Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement Socialin New York between 1858 and 1861 while the use of the term "libertarian communism" dates from November, 1880 when a French anarchist congress adopted it. [Max Nettlau, A Short History of Anarchism, p. 75 and p. 145] The use of the term "Libertarian" by anarchists became more popular from the 1890s onward after it was used in France in an attempt to get round anti-anarchist laws and to avoid the negative associations of the word "anarchy" in the popular mind (Sebastien Faure and Louise Michel published the paper Le Libertaire -- The Libertarian -- in France in 1895, for example). Since then, particularly outside America, it has always been associated with anarchist ideas and movements. Taking a more recent example, in the USA, anarchists organised "The Libertarian League" in July 1954, which had staunch anarcho-syndicalist principles and lasted until 1965. The US-based "Libertarian" Party, on the other hand has only existed since the early 1970's, well over 100 years after anarchists first used the term to describe their political ideas (and 90 years after the expression "libertarian communism" was first adopted). It is that party, not the anarchists, who have "stolen" the word. Later, in Section B, we will discuss why the idea of a "libertarian" capitalism (as desired by the Libertarian Party) is a contradiction in terms.
As we will also explain in Section I, only a libertarian-socialist system of ownership can maximise individual freedom. Needless to say, state ownership -- what is commonly called "socialism" -- is, for anarchists, not socialism at all. In fact, as we will elaborate in Section H, state "socialism" is just a form of capitalism, with no socialist content whatever. As Rudolf Rocker noted, for anarchists, socialism is "not a simple question of a full belly, but a question of culture that would have to enlist the sense of personality and the free initiative of the individual; without freedom it would lead only to a dismal state capitalism which would sacrifice all individual thought and feeling to a fictitious collective interest." [quoted by Colin Ward, "Introduction", Rudolf Rocker, The London Years, p. 1]
Given the anarchist pedigree of the word "libertarian," few anarchists are happy to see it stolen by an ideology which shares little with our ideas. In the United States, as Murray Bookchin noted, the "term 'libertarian' itself, to be sure, raises a problem, notably, the specious identification of an anti-authoritarian ideology with a straggling movement for 'pure capitalism' and 'free trade.' This movement never created the word: it appropriated it from the anarchist movement of the [nineteenth] century. And it should be recovered by those anti-authoritarians . . . who try to speak for dominated people as a whole, not for personal egotists who identify freedom with entrepreneurship and profit." Thus anarchists in America should "restore in practice a tradition that has been denatured by" the free-market right. [The Modern Crisis, pp. 154-5] And as we do that, we will continue to call our ideas libertarian socialism.
(An Anarchist FAQ)
Socialism is not at all what you described. What you described was state capitalism, and that's what the Soviet Union had. Socialism is when the means of production are commonly, or collectively owned by the people. Once again, state ownership of the means of production is state capitalism.
I am an anarchist, and a socialist. I sometimes refer to myself as a libertarian as well.
Again, and I highly recommend that you do some reading on these definitions (these are the definitions that the original poster was using for his art work), Socialism is when the means of production is owned commonly or collectively by the people.
Communism is entirely different from what you described, in fact, communism is inherently anarchistic. Communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society where the means of production are owned commonly or collectively by the people.
These are the definitions of communism and socialism. The Soviet Union hijacked these words to garner mass support from the population, to get into power. What the Soviet Union was not socialism or communism.
Communism = total government
anarchy = no government
liberty = limited government
Fascism = the merger of corporate and state power
Your opinion on what these words should mean doesn't matter. There's no in between with these words. If you have anarchy, but share your capital, it's still anarchy. You're just choosing what to do with your capital. The way you're using these words is convoluted and illogical. The way I use them is simple, easy to understand, and anyone can point to the definitions I laid out and can find where they stand and easily label the political systems of other societies. It's really senseless when you say it was a conspiracy that the USSR hijacked the word socialism, when they were literally the people who not only invented the concepts of socialism and communism, but the words themselves. Look, you seem very naive. You still have much to learn about the nature of government, economics, and human nature. Trying to explain the complexities of praxeology through pricing, the law of unintended consequences, and human incentive instincts is way too much to go over all at once. I mean, you haven't even thought of how improbable a socialist society would be without government.
Let's say that you tried to implement your stateless socialism. One day I decide, "You know what, I like the tractor the town's share croppers use to plow the fields. I think I'll steal it and sell it to the next town over." Better yet, what if I decide to convince the neighboring town to attack your town and steal all your things? What's to stop them? There's no government. You'd be helpless. Of course then another town would hear about what we did and they'd be like, "These guys have a bunch of really nice things now. We should take them for ourselves." Then those two towns go to war and then word spreads and the next thing you know there's chaos everywhere. There's a word for that. It's called anarchy. Your flaw is that you think that without any boundaries people would somehow come together and share everything, but the reality is people need incentive. Without incentive, without any assurance that their capital would be protected and that they could keep their capital for themselves so they could enrich their own lives, why the fuck would people do anything for you or anyone else? Because it's nice? If you actually believe that you are quite naive.
Land, means of production, firms, etc. not owned privately by a firm or publicly by the state but collectively. Firms organized by worker-owners, not by one boss, i.e., worker's self-management and decentralized planning by the worker-owners of the firms. This should explain it better than I could. [link]
Basically how people lived for most of human history, the mindset emphasizing cooperation over competition.
I think I sent you this article before, but it explains how a free-market economy could work in all of this. [link]
Regardless, in a free market, people can run their business where one person or group of people own the company, there's nothing stopping them from doing so. The only way such can be stopped is if it's more efficient for corporations to divide the company so that everyone owns an equal share of it, which is possible I suppose.
Land, not owned by individuals? What's stopping people from owning land? Other people or agencies?
Also, I believe most of recorded human history relied on some form of market that we are currently using. I don't think humans really lived the way you described for very long. The only exceptions would be very primitive tribes, and even they would "own" some form of property (even if they shared land). The reason they could share land is because they were a tight knit community in which people who didn't conform were exiled from the group. Private property allows people who share different views to live amongst one another.
Libertarians believe in private property. What you suggested is anarcho-communism.
The process became a whole lot easier, and I got much better results after I turned on the grid function, which allowed me to get a much higher level of precision than I would without the grid function.