Libertarian Socialists believe in the world being organized in
"freely organized" collectives of some kind.
(Socialists in general vye for collectives maintained by force if need be.)
But if that were all there was to it, well, we're already there,
and everyone including all conservatives wholly approve.
The world is already organized into "natural collectives",
called families, with one-person families of bachelors being a degenerate case.
Oh, but this is certainly not what the Libertarian Socialists imagine.
They imagine large collectives made of lots of people,
that may or may not have sexual relations and children.
As a Heinlein fan, I will certainly not object to the idea of large families,
and as a libertarian, I don't think I have anything to say about
who has sex with whom and children with whom inside a family that isn't mine.
And so there again, the specificity of the socialist "collective" lies
in the political norms relating the "collective"
and its actual and potential members or non-members, and to other collectives.
Can a member have any kind of commerce with a non-member,
or do you have to be members of the same collective
so as to cooperate with each other
or otherwise go through hierarchical channels? Yay for promoting cooperation.
How does one become member of a socialist "collective"?
can one leave afterwards and divorce from his family?
or is the whole scheme some kind of an oppressive caste system?
Can members split over some issue? can they form a schism?
how do you divide existing resources?
can one make a schism of one, and which part of the resources does he get?
Can one leave for another collective?
can one enter any existing other collective?
can one found a new collective if none exists that suits him?
including a one-person collective called "invididual"?
Can a collective reject applicants
or does it have to accept the first come parasite
and treat him as well as those who work hard,
and as those who worked hard in the past to get the collective where it is?
How are conflicts settled between a collective and an individual?
is a collective politically sovereign over its members
to the point of exacting punishment and death
on those who would reject its terms?
What if the member says that he represents the collective
and all the other ones are the schismatics
who reject the proper collective will?
Is there a justice system outside of this collectivist construction?
How do collectives interact with each other?
With a collective of collectives, etc., in a hierarchical order?
If collectives cannot disassociate,
then the topmost collective is indeed a State,
and the Libertarian Socialist chimera is indeed
but another Totalitarian Socialist State in disguise
(as attempted in Spain).
If collectives can disassociate, then these collectives are with each other
in a Capitalist order, where collectives trade with each other.
If furthermore individuals can secede and become their own "collective",
we have a full Anarcho-Capitalist order,
and the Libertarian Socialist chimera is but distracting ramblings
on top of an Anarcho-Capitalist society.
If on the other hand individuals cannot secede,
then indeed each Libertarian Socialist collective is a State,
these States span the world, and Libertarian Socialism is but
distracting ramblings on top of the usual Statist Oligopoly,
to be recomposed after an optional bloody revolution.
Whichever way you split things, Libertarian Socialism
has nothing new to propose in terms of political norms.
