Talk:Libertarian socialism/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Vandalism and editing without explaining changes

The first thing I saw when I looked in this article was Libertarian Socialism is an oxymoron. I went to edit it but I couldn't figure out how. Intolerable! Someone please fix it. I'm sick and tired of "libertarians" vandalizing this page. 69.123.9.255 19:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


On 12 January an unregistered user cut out the following text (in bold):

Libertarian socialism includes a group of political philosophies that aims to create a society without political, economic or social hierarchies - a society within which individuals freely co-operate together as equals. This would be achieved through the abolition of private property, thereby giving direct control of the means of production and resources to the working class and other unpropertied classes.

I believe it was better before. Does anyone agree? I would like to restore it to the previous state, but before doing that I am willing to hear the arguments for the changes, if there are any. --Lynxmb 15:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major structural problem in the article

This article starts off with a discussion of the roots of "libertarian socialism" in the 19th century anarcho-syndicalist movement and the political thought of 19th century revolutionists such as Mikhail Bakunin and Peter Kropotkin. Yet "libertarian socialism" is a much newer term, and arguably a neologism. "Libertarian socialism" is a term used by much more recent authors to classify the ideologies of a set of 19th century socialists and anarchists who did not classify themselves as "libertarian socialists."

The article should begin with a discussion of the much more recent political thinkers who coined and popularized the term "libertarian socialism," and then work its way down to a discussion of why they regard 19th and early 20th century anarcho-syndicalists as their ideological predecessors. Otherwise, as the article stands right now, we are rewriting history selectively to fit the POV of the contemporary "libertarian socialists." 172 | Talk 11:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

No denying. This looks odd, too:
  • 7 Criticism of libertarian socialism
  • 8 Response to criticism
  • 9 Response to response
  • 10 Further criticism of libertarian socialism
  • 11 Response
  • 12 Freedom vs. Equality
It needs re-structuring alright. Jobjörn 11:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Yep. I forgot to add that the article is simply disorganized. 172 | Talk 12:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I just went ahead and added a "cleanup" template. I was considering adding a NPOV template; but I didn't know if that tag would be helpful, as the POV problems seem to stem more from the organization than the prose itself. 172 | Talk 00:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Ugh, the criticism "section" is indeed ugly. Has it always looked like that? I don't remember it being that ugly. In any case, as far as the "political roots" section, I do agree that it wasn't clear enough about libertarian socialism being a neologism. However I do think it is best to follow a chronological order. And while a great deal of the historical figures wouldn't have called themselves libertarian socialists, they would have called themselves libertarians, and they would have called themselves socialists. I made a clarification, although admitedly it still looks quite messy. I actually wrote most of the stuff in the political roots section prior to conflict with marxism, so feel free to blaim me for that! Any particular ideas? CJames745 21:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

And while a great deal of the historical figures wouldn't have called themselves libertarian socialists, they would have called themselves libertarians, and they would have called themselves socialists. Perhaps, but who makes that assement? That counter-factual is pure POV, even if it is reasonable... I won't blame you for the state of the article. The content of the "political roots" section is mostly fine in and of itself. It just has to be better contextualized in a more coherently organized article, making clear by whom and when these figures were classified as "libertarian socialists." As far as fixing the article, I don't think that can be done without totally reorganizing it. 172 | Talk 13:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
This article is in desperate need of reputable sources, as well. Its current state has been achieved through a series of uncivil NPOV disputes whereby personal essays and unsourced statements were splodged into the article on an ad hoc basis, under the pretense of furthering neutrality. Accordingly, the factual accuracy of some parts of the article can no longer be assumed. -- WGee 18:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Ooooookay kids, this talking is leading us nowhere. Should we together decide on a "Roadmap to Non-Shitty Article" (eg, writing a table of contents first and the contents later) and edit it together, should we delete the entire thingy and start over, or should we carefully analyze the article and point out specific problems we could fix? Jobjörn 14:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of deleting the entire thing and starting over, then writing a table of contents and waiting for the content to be filled in gradually. Your 3rd proposal ("analyze the article and point out specific problems we could fix") is too tedious. 172 | Talk 14:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
As we are as a matter of fact using a wiki format, we might just start over without deleting the old article. How does that sound? My school semester ends on thursday, and I have no job this summer. I trust we can build an article worthy of Featured Article status. Jobjörn 22:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh yeah, perhaps we should discuss the outlines of that new article on that talk page instead. I'll begin writing some stuff right away (on the talk page, that is. Heh.). Jobjörn 22:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Great plan. My only suggestion is that it may be a good idea to post the new article before the rewrite is totally done. Even a decent stub article would be an improvement over the series of personal essays that now passes as an article. 172 | Talk 23:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Granted. However, it is important that the current article is readily available in the construction of the new one, as it does contain a lot of information. We'll simply move the current one to /Old when we judge that /New is ready for publishing, I suppose. Jobjörn 23:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I must say I think we'd make a great team on this one. You're a historian, I'm a libertarian socialist. ;) Jobjörn 23:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Good idea... Thanks, but I don't know too much about this strain of socialism, at least the recent figures who explicitly use the term. 172 | Talk 00:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why oh why does it deal with Anarchism and not Libertarian socialism?

Grrr. The entire section on Historical origins - a quite long section indeed - refers not to libertarian socialism but instead anarchism. The entire thing seems incoherently misplaced. Proudhon knows this article is lost, lost beyond return! Jobjörn 22:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply: Because anarchism and libertarian socialism have always been synonyms, before right wing thinkers started callng themselves "libertarians" in the 1970s. Therefore the history of libertarian socialism and anarchism are the same.

[edit] Is (A) a strain of LS, is LS a strain of (A), or are (A) and LS synonyms?

Before I continue editing the new version of this article, I think this needs clearing up. What is the case;

  • is Anarchism a strain of Libertarian socialism (as stated in the article on Libertarian socialism),
  • is Libertarian socialism a strain of Anarchism (as indicated in the sections on Historical origins in the article on Libertarian socialism),
  • or are the terms Anarchism and Libertarian socialism virtually synonymous (as pointed out on the rest of the internet, such as here on flag.blackened.net)?

This is very confusing indeed.

With regards, Jobjörn 22:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism Section

It had been beginning to read like a talk page - an endless stream of "yes it is", "no it isn't" and original-researchy claims. I have reduced it to one criticism section and one response-to-criticism subsection. I don't think what is left now is a final or satisfactory form, But: in your edits, please try to maintain concision and encyclopedic tone. Here are the sections I cut out.

Cultural anthropologists have long noted that capitalism defined by private ownership and control of production and self-regulating markets for land, labour and capital is a relatively recent phenomenon in human history, implying that societies can exist and prosper without these attributes. Furthermore, as Chomsky points out, dogmatic capitalist systems based on free-market principles are a practical fallacy, evidenced by the fact that modern capitalist states require publically funded subsidies in order to avoid the inevitable onset of economic depression. Libertarian socialists also claim that the mere existence of markets in antiquity for consumer goods, or the institution of money, does not denote capitalist social relations, nor can they necessarily be regarded as its incipient forms. For example, in their historical work on the institution of money, Fikret Adaman and Pat Devine conclude that "historically money predates (market) exchange and should be seen fundamentally as a means of payment in discharge of a social obligation", in other words it was embedded in social norms rather than being regulated by an autonomous market mechanism. [1]
Libertarian socialists in conjunction with Marxists dispute the notion that capitalist economic relations arise spontaneously in the absence of suppression, but in fact require active political suppression in the form of property law that is enforced either by a state or by private force (see: Property is theft). Karl Polanyi argued in his seminal work, The Great Transformation (1944), that while markets existed for consumer goods they were invariably embedded in social norms, whereas as self-regulating markets for labour, land and money came about only as the result of the violent intervention by the state. The first instance of this violent displacement of traditional societies occurred in England with the enclosures of common land from the 15th to 18th centuries. This state-led experiment of imposing the "stark utopia" of the self-regulating market wherein the guiding motives of individuals in society are reduced to "hope of gain" and "fear of hunger" has been repeated many times since, throughout the globe, at what socialists claim is an enormous human and environmental cost, including the virtual extinction of ethnic cultures (e.g., Colonialism). It has also been a process that has elicited oppositional struggles whose thrust has been to re-embed the market in social norms that protect the human and natural substance of society.
There are few, if any, libertarian socialists who think that violence should play an institutional role in a future society. Some anarchists, who have been called anarcho-pacifists, reject violence altogether. Thus, they claim that it is a straw-man to suggest that libertarian socialists would violently restrict voluntary economic relations between individuals in the absence of a state. Rather, they believe that capitalist economic relations require public or private enforcement because they are involuntary themselves, thus resistance against private property enforcement is a form of defense.
A common libertarian response is that the only human societies that predated capitalist market structures were hunter-gatherer societies, or small agrarian societies. Libertarian Socialism therefore, libertarians say, is only possible under these conditions, and would be impossible in the modern world.
In response to Chomsky's allegation that capitalism necessarily causes economic depression, libertarians would direct the reader to the school of Austrian Economics, which asserts that economic recession and the business cycle are not innate to a capitalist economy, but rather caused by government intervention in the market.
To the statement that market structures require property law and interventionist enforcement on the part of the government, libertarians would reply that the enforcement of property law is every bit as natural as the development of market structures themselves. If such law were not formalized and enforced by the state, then it would be enforced by individuals and private security firms operating based on common law.
Libertarian socialists generally disagree that the division is specious, but agree that it in some circumstances it can be a subject of contention; thus the decision cannot be trusted to executive decisions of bureaucrats (as state socialists propose), but insofar as it is a public concern, it can be expected to be resolved in the participatory democratic body appropriate to the circumstances. Others believe that the distinction they make is not between personal and productive property, but rather between property that is "in use" or part of a broader use pattern and property that is "out of use" or used to extort labor from a second party.
Yet it is perhaps telling that those who follow Vonnegut's line of argument do not provide examples of egalitarians who actually hold the views that they are attacking.
Furthermore, libertarian socialists note that enterprise is not a right as protected by the Harm Principle of Mill, given their critiques of capitalism as a necessarily harmful institution. Freedom, they argue, would amount to semantics if the right of capitalistic enterprise were to be maintained.


[edit] Historical Roots and Anarchism Today section

These are mostly taken whole-cloth from the anarchism article, they partly reproduce stuff from the Political Roots section, and vast swaths of them make no reference to LS specifically. I think they should be deleted outright. Objections? Bacchiad 14:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No. You are doing a great job. Thank you! -- Jobjörn (Talk | contribs) 18:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

They're gone. Since they reduplicate material on the Anarchism page, I didn't bother pasting in here. Bacchiad 16:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time to remove the tags?

Is it time to remove the tags? I noted that the honorable mr User:Bacchiad did so, only to have this reverted by User:Bookandcoffee, and then again re-reverted by User:128.220.50.2. Not wanting to involve myself in an edit conflict, I do believe it is time to bring it here. Should we remove the tags? I think that yes, we should. And archive the talk page, to restart the discussion regarding the article. Possibly re-add the tags again if we find further problems. Jobjörn (Talk | contribs) 00:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remove the Anarchism template?

Should we remove the anarchism template? We (by we, I really mean User:Bacchiad, with at least my blessing) removed most of the anarchist content already, it feels kind of out of place, especially as Libertarian socialism isn't on the template. What do you say? Jobjörn (Talk | contribs) 00:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article is a lie

There is no such thing as libertarian socialism. It is an oxymoron. PatriotFirst 03:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey PatriotFirst. I understand your objections to libertarian socialism as a theory. But it is a theory. Please specify what you believe to be "original research" before replacing the tag at the top. Bacchiad 07:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

PatriotFirst, it is pathetically obvious that you haven't even read the article. I'll quote it for you:
In the United States, the term libertarian is usually associated with the pro-capitalist agenda libertarianism (and of the United States Libertarian Party); the term libertarian socialism therefore strikes many as incongruous. The first person to describe himself as a libertarian, however, was Joseph Déjacque[1], an early French anarcho-communist. The word stems from the French word libertaire (synonymous to "anarchist"), and was used in order to evade the ban on anarchist publications, which were banned by law in France (Wikiquote, URL accessed on June 4, 2006). In the context of the European socialist movement, libertarian has conventionally been used to describe those like Mikhail Bakunin who opposed state socialism.
That is actually the very FIRST paragraph of the article. One would think you would have read that, at least. It goes on, though:
The basic philosophy of libertarian socialism is summed up in the name: management of the common good (socialism) in a manner that attempts to maximize the liberty of individuals and minimizes concentration of power or authority (libertarianism). It attempts to achieve this through the decentralization of political and economic power, usually involving the collectivization of most large-scale property and enterprise. Libertarian socialism denies the legitimacy of most forms of economically significant private property, since, according to socialists, when private property becomes capital, it leads to the exploitation of others with less economic means and thus infringes on the exploited class's individual freedoms.
Capitalism does not have a monopoly on any of the following words: freedom, liberty, justice, libertarian, individual. Or any other words.
There's further information, by the way:
Seventeen years (1857) after Proudhon first called himself an anarchist (1840), anarchist communist Joseph Déjacque was the first person to describe himself as a libertarian[1]. Because the word "libertarian" is now commonly used by anti-state capitalists, non-authoritarian socialists often call themselves libertarian socialists to differentiate themselves.
Don't vandalize the article again. Jobjörn (Talk | contribs) 08:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wowzy

Actually, the first pargraph in the article is:

Libertarian socialism is any one of a group of political philosophies dedicated abolishing the exploitation of labor by restoring direct control of production to workers and local communities. While many varieties of socialism emphasize the role of the state or the party in promoting social justice, libertarian socialists place their hope in industrial unions, workers' councils, local municipalities, or other non-bureaucratic means of action. Many libertarian socialists, indeed, advocate doing away with the state altogether, seeing it as a bulwark of capitalism.

Please don't accuse me of vandalism. It has such a nasty ring to it, when all I have done is disagree with you.

Like I said, there There is no such thing as libertarian socialism. It is like saying.. The wind was blowing, but it was a calm windless day. Or it is like saying a typically (socialistic) thing like the phrase positive discrimination. I love that one. If you ask me a question in a friendly tone, I will answer it thus. PatriotFirst 20:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

ps I may be new, but have been reading the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I don't know all of them yet, but I am reading and learning them. Please don't lie in encyclopedia articles. It is considered biased POV pushing, and not caring a whit for the readers of the article, and not caring a whit for Wkipedia, which has the potential for being a great thing. Thanks for reading this. PatriotFirst 20:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

No, you didn't just disagree with me. Then you would have taken it up on the talk page. You did this, which is a case of vandalism.
Further, when saying "the first paragraph of the article", I was not counting the introduction, but rather the first paragraph of the actual article, which I'd say begins AFTER the Table of contents. Yet again, I am sure you understand what I meant, but just want to point out minor faults just to... bug me. Too bad it wasn't even a fault. Jobjörn (Talk | contribs) 21:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
No, apparently you still haven't read the article. Socialism does not rule out individual freedom (liberty), and libertarian (the word, not the ideology) does not rule out socialism. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; and libertarian socialism is a well-known and widespread ideological movement. If you'd like to keep this up, you could go claim the Catholic Church is a lie: see catholic on Wiktionary. The Catholic Church is obviously not all inclusive, even though its name claims it is. (For the record: libertarian socialism is both libertarian (the word, not the ideology) and socialist, no matter what you decide what the Catholic church is.) Jobjörn (Talk | contribs) 21:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Affirmative Action: A Case-Study on Libertarian Socialism

Hi PatriotFirst,

You wrote:

Like I said, there There is no such thing as libertarian socialism. It is like saying.. The wind was blowing, but it was a calm windless day. Or it is like saying a typically (socialistic) thing like the phrase positive discrimination. I love that one. If you ask me a question in a friendly tone, I will answer it thus. PatriotFirst 20:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your position. The example you bring up - so-called affirmitive action is an excellent test case to tease out what libertarian socialists mean by socialism.

First, let's review the difference between classical socialism - that of say, Bakunin, Marx and Proudhon - and contemporary welfare-liberalism. For welfare liberalism, the problem is that wealth is distributed unequally. There are a number of axes around which inequality happens, one of them being race. Affirmative action is thus the "natural" solution to correcting the wealth-inequalities of one particular disadvantaged group.

Contrast this with classical socialism. Here, the problem is that the tools for generating wealth - factories and capital and the means of production - are held unequally. And the only real axis of struggle is class - all others, like race, are merely proxies for class struggle.

So, to offer one possible libertarian socialist respose to affirmative action: the chief result will be to form a co-opted elite within the black community, and by its "success" to paper over the essentially class-based problems of the black community.

One libertarian socialist response to the race-problem would be to organize militant unions among unskilled workers, and to push not only for higher wages, but also for greater autonomy - measures like the wobbly shop. Or, to struggle to create mutual banking systems - which current financial regulations render essentially illegal - in black communities, to allow the development of new, self-owned means of production.

Socialism in any proper sense is about the workers having control over the means of production. Trying to do this through a revolutionary vanguard party is Leninism; trying to doing this through constitutional means is social democracy. Trying to do this through militant unions and direct action is libertarian socialism. It got the name 'libertarian' because it has refused the statist, top-down approaches of other socialists.

Bacchiad 06:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Bacchiad, thanks for your input and explanation. It was very well written and explained. I'll admit it brings up points that I hadn't considered, like the possibility of actual ownership of production by the people, rather than the usual pretend one, where a small elite group does the real owning. I'll have to do some research and thinking on this. I apologize to the editors of this article for assuming stuff that wasn't true. PatriotFirst 18:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem, PatriotFirst. And, as heated as this exchange has gotten at times, your discussion on the talk page has brought out some points that could probably use clarifying in the article. Unfortunately, the term "socialism" has been distorted by its so-called advocates to the point where I think we do need to talk about this in the text. Thanks, Bacchiad 20:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Bacchiad, don't miss out on this, this, and this. Many similar threads have been archived. Posted on my talk page by Bishonen... Jobjörn (Talk | contribs) 21:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Libertarian socialism"?

oh god what a joke—(Kepin)RING THE LIBERTY BELL 00:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

You may want to read below the headings above; "This article is a lie", "wowzy" and "Affirmative Action: A Case-study on...". Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 10:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
The reason why these guys are called "libertarian socialists", is because the abusive misuse of the term "libertarian" by american minimal-statist capitalists confuses people into forgetting that a libertarian is also opposed to capitalist opression. You *CANT* be a libertarian and a capitalist by definition. This is self evident. However because its not worth going in circles arguing with simpletons, people just conceed the fallacy and use the somewhat redundant term "libertarian socialist". I stand by the fact that the page "libertarian" should correctly be a redirect to "anarchism". Save the english language! 58.7.0.146 15:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but anarchists, who are socialists, were the first ones to use the word libertarian to describe themselves. Hold whatever opinions you want about liberty and socialism being incompatible, but you can't deny that fact. CJames745 16:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone here have an answer to the question already posed above: "Is (A) a strain of LS, is LS a strain of (A), or are (A) and LS synonyms?"
Basically, they're synonyms. There was a ban on explicitly anarchist publications in France at some point during the nineteenth century, so agitprop newspapers got around that by calling themselves "libertarian". It also served to distance the serious people from the indiscriminate bomb-throwers. This happened, I might add, well before Rothbard &c. started using the word. Bacchiad 04:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, in many European countries at least 'libertarian' and 'anarchist' are used interchangeably. But that still doesn't solve for me the question of 'libertarian socialism'. If it is just a synonym of anarchism, all we need to do is have this page redirect to anarchism. But I think it is the case in recent years that some people and groups have started calling calling themselves 'libertarian socialist', and distinguishing themselves in some way from anarchism. Thus, there may be a new, at least partially distinct phenomenon, which deserves its own article. But then the article has to explain and describe that, rather than just duplicating the anarchism page.Bengalski 15:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I read this article hoping for some enlightenment on this question and I don't think I'm much wiser. My vague understanding is that people use the term LS to mean something like: anarchism + some strains of autonomist-ultraleft-whatever marxism. To my mind what I'd like to see here is not just chunks from the anarchist and council communism pages - it can just link to those. But a) an explanation, with sources, of how the term came about, its history, why people would call themselves 'libertarian socialists' rather than just 'anarchists' etc. (not coming from the US, I've always thought 'anarchism' and 'libertarianism' were simple synonyms); b) praps some info on links in history and ideas between anarchism and ultra-left marxism.Bengalski 23:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Good question. Not only can I not help, I can make matters worse: many "liberarian socialists" call themselves simply "libertarians". but I suspect much of the differences can be understood/explained in terms of negative and positive rights. --Serge 23:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That's if you're interested in arguments based on rights theory, which historically most anarchist thinkers haven't been - except maybe the working man's right to the fruit of his labor (labor theory of value + labor theory of property).

In general, Anglo-American liberalism has understood freedom in terms of "what can I do or not do?" Negative and positive rights theory flows out of that question. For European radicals since at least Rousseau, the more salient question has been, "what kind of relations are there between me and other people when I do stuff." If the answer is "mastery and subordination", anarchists are against it. Hence opposition to the state and to wage labor. Hence the alternate label "libertarian socialism". Bacchiad 04:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of Libertarian Socialism

I'm not sure I'm satisfied with the definition given at the beginning of the article. It currently states "Libertarian socialism is any one of a group of political philosophies dedicated to the abolition of private property by restoring direct control of production and resources to the working class." Before a change I made, it didn't even differentiate between property and private property. I feel that this is a misrepresentation of libertarian socialism from a communist bent. I don't think anybody here disputes that mutualism is a form of libertarian socialism, and yet mutualists do not in fact seek the abolition of private property. I think that the definition given later in the article is more accurate: "The basic philosophy of libertarian socialism is summed up in the name: management of the common good (socialism) in a manner that attempts to maximize the liberty of individuals and minimizes concentration of power or authority (libertarianism)," although that doesn't so much stress the economic aspect.

Here is my suggestion. Let me know what you think so we can come to a consensus.

"Libertarian socialism is any one of a group of political philosophies dedicated to the redistribution of wealth by giving direct control of production and resources to the common people."

This definition is free of the confusing jargon involving property, private property, and the working class (I think), and it is more inclusive of all forms of libertarian socialism. I would add that the article needs an overall tuning down of jargon as well. CJames745 03:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think given the confusion over the term (see discussions above), specifically whether it's just a synonym for anarchism, we really need to get some sourcing for the definition. We could start by looking at how groups and notable individuals who self-define as libertarian socialists (not just anarchists, or libertarians, but LS specifically) use the term; also historians and published commentators etc. Anyone know any good sources?Bengalski 11:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

From a bit of googling, I get the impression there are a few different strands at work, e.g.

1) (more or less) anarchists using it as a simple synonymn, or a more polite term to dissociate themselves from bomb-throwing;

what daniel guerin says;

Chomsky - 'libertarian socialism is just anarchism'

Robert Hahnel - libertarian socialism: participatory planning

an Argentinian anarchist group

an italian anarchist mag called SL

and a Brazilian one

2) ex-trots and other authoritarian marxist parties relaunching themselves now that authoritarian marxism is discredited;

Toronto Libertarian socialist collective;

Spanish ex-trots

3)oh no it seems recently even mainstream ruling 'socialist' parties are picking up the term:

looks like spanish president Zapatero started it

and now UK 'New Labour' is libertarian socialist too?

but that's not all, e.g.:

Sandino was a LS?

a US 'Libertarian socialist league' in the 1950s


Bengalski 12:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

"Libertarian socialism is any one of a group of political philosophies dedicated to the redistribution of wealth by giving direct control of production and resources to the common people."
That's an incorrect definition. Most schools of libertarian socialism/anarchism advocate the abolition of money entirely, and instead propose a communal gift economy. Thus, there would be no wealth to (re)distribute, because everything would belong to everybody. -- WGee 01:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
As your sources indicate, libertarian socialism is indeed a synonym for anarchism. For further evidence, one only needs to glance at some of the headings: Anti-capitalism; Opposition to the State; Conflict with Marxism; Anarchist communism; Anarcho-syndicalism; Mutualism. All of these sections, and their contents, accordingly, are perfectly pertinent to the anarchism article. Furthermore, by comparing this article's lead to the lead of the anarchism article, one realizes that these two ideologies are essentially one and the same.
Read this expert from the Political roots section, as well:
"As Albert Meltzer and Stuart Christie stated in their book The Floodgates of Anarchy, anarchism has:
...its particular inheritance, part of which it shares with socialism, giving it a family resemblance to certain of its enemies. Another part of its inheritance it shares with liberalism, making it, at birth, kissing-cousins with American-type radical individualism, a large part of which has married out of the family into the Right Wing and is no longer on speaking terms. (The Floodgates of Anarchy, 1970, page 39.)
That is, anarchism arose as a cross between socialism and liberalism, incorporating the anti-capitalist attitude of socialists and the anti-statist, what would today be called libertarian, attitude of liberalism. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, who is often considered the father of modern anarchism, coined the phrase "Property is theft" to describe his affinity for the labor theory of value, a socialist value."
By discussing anarchism in lieu of libertarian socialism, the article itself equates the two ideologies. Thus, I propose that this article be merged with anarchism.
--WGee 02:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Merge with anarchism? I wish. That article is being beaten to death by "anarcho"-capitalist POV-pushers, as we all know.
However, howabout reworking this article to basically describe it as classical, anti-capitalist (true) anarchism, and have a sentence in the anarchism article saying that "socialist anarchists" have also been known as libertarians or libertarian socialists? -203.208.72.234 09:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I can only give my subjective perspective fwiw. I prefer to use the term libertarian socialist to describe myself because for me it sugggests a contemporary forward looking form of anti-authoritarian socialism. I think of the term's slight dissociation from anarchism as a virtue. First I like the fact that there is no immediately apparent connection between libertarian socialism and what I consider the frivolous and reactionary strains of anarchism. Also though I have some respect for the classical anarchists, I tend to think their work has been overrated even among modern anarchists. In terms of their value for building a movement for a participatory society, the work of the classical anarchists has already been surpassed by modern theorists. Moreover though it is better and more useful than classical anarchism, modern libertarian socialist theory is still in its early developmental stages. I think of classical anarchism more as an interesting relic than a guide, even at the level of articulation of the basic values on which to build a self-managing society without illegitimate hierarchies. I think that, at least ideally, modern libertarian socialism is distinguished by more diversity and less dogma in its activism, a rational and scientific bent, the experience of the new left, green, anti-nuclear, and new social movements, a diversity in its critical theory that extends to all forms of oppression, and a less dogmatic attitude towards pragmatic reform within the context of the state, while realizing the fundamental injustice of the state. I have observed that an increasingly significant number of folks (grassroots and academics) prefer to use the term to describe themselves. I think that libertarian socialism may be emerging as a higher form of social anarchism for the 21st century, with notable distinctions from its classical variant, therefore an article under the title of libertarian socialism that reflects its forward looking outlook and diverse strategies should appear here in wikipedia.BernardL 12:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Murray Bookchin:Libertarian socialist

The libertarian socialist is at base a quiet yet diligent person, always amiable; an ethical person, a leader through practice, clear observation and lucid analysis, who knows when,where and how to shout; and who to shout at; and who probably has a strong tendency to hug trees, animals, people, and the sun and stars.BernardL 01:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-capitalist individualism too reductionist

I have removed the following sentence to talk for discussion.

"Libertarian socialism has been described as anti-capitalist individualism."

Because of the following problems I do not think it should be included in a paragraph defining libertarian socialism:

1. it says lib-soc "has been described" but no reference is provided for this statement.

2. It is much too narrow a definition because libertarian socialism has traditionally meant opposition to all forms of illegitimate oppression whether in the socio-economic sphere (capitalism), the cultural sphere (organized religion, racism), the kinship sphere (patriarchy) or importantly in the political sphere (illegitimate state hierarchies). For example Bakunin made strenuous efforts not only to oppose capitalism, but also organized religion and the state. As libertarian socialism evolved in the 20th century, it was typically described as a tendency of thought opposing all forms of illegitimate oppression and therefore the project of libertarian socialism had a limitless future extending beyond the historical boundaries of capitalism. There are also numerous expressions of libertarian socialism as exemplifying the transcendance of the individualist/collectivist dichotomy (cf: Castoriadis) rather than merely an anti-capitalist embracing of individualty. BernardL 20:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Lots of the ext links are about anarchism rather than specifically about libertarian socalism. I am removing the former and ading more of the latter. However, I am archiving those I'm removing here, so people can put all/some back after reflection/debate.

BobFromBrockley 12:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why don't we

I don't know. You tell me. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 02:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Don't what?Sjeng 20:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anarcho-Communism?

Two quick questions: 1. Isn't Libertarian Socialism just a less extreme ideological standpoint akin to Anarcho-Communism? 2. Why isn't the section entitled, "Part of the Politics series on Anarchism?" Signed, 70.51.249.132 07:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC) ~A Vigilante

1. Not entirely. Libertarian socialism includes anarchist communism, but also other forms of anarchism (mutualism, individualist anarchism not including "anarcho"-capitalism, collectivist anarchism, anarcho-primitivism, anarcho-syndicalism) and, depending on whose definition you use, possibly forms of libertarian Marxism including autonomism and council communism.
2. It isn't part of the series on Anarchism because it isn't used only to refer to anarchists. It can also apply to other forms of anti-authoritarian socialism. Interesting though. ~Switch t 09:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Huge edits to "Criticism"

What does everyone think of the recent huge edits to the Criticism section? Detail is always good, but this is written in essay form and borders on a treatise of "Why libertarian socialism is bad." I'm removing now, but discussion is open. ~Switch t 05:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm the actual writer of that edit. Isn't pointing out how something is bad sort of the point of criticiscm? Anyhow, I agree that my contribution might border on original research. It's hard to just find a source for this sort of thing and cite it. Most decently argued criticism of collectivism focuses on either democratic socialism or authoritarian dictatorship-of-the-proletariat style Soviet communism. Libertarian socialism and other theories that combine disapproval of coercion with an egalitarian ideal are taken seriously much less frequently by critics I've read. Still, I would prefer to see my contribution edited rather than deleted all at once. The criticism section as it stands is a bit unfair, and seems to based on imagined ("straw man") criticism more than on an actual understanding of anti-collectivist thought.
For one thing, it misrepresents the criticism from human nature, suggesting that critics think of altruism as always "unrealistic" rather than simply preferring not to rely on it too much, lest even small resurgences of greed might break the system. The more cynical POV may be common with casual critics of collectivist theories, but the more sophisticated free market thinkers distance themselves from it explicitly. I could probably dig up citations to a number of economists and philosophers given some time. The biologist, E.O. Wilson has actually gone further and suggested that a certain very particular form of altruism may be undesirable, and Adam Smith, I believe, once said something nasty about do-gooders, more or less on the order of Virgil's "beware of Greeks and those bearing gifts". The only major author I can think of who is sorta-kinda in the Western liberal tradition and who actually disapproves of altruism is Ayn Rand, who probably gets the idea from Nietzsche, although she characteristically rarely admits getting anything from anyone but Aristotle Himself. Please draw your own conclusions about my opinion of Ayn Rand ;-)
More importantly, the current version ignores the subtle but historically very important Hayekian socialist calculation criticism. The Hayekian socialist calculation argument is very important, because it is pretty much devoid of value judgments or assumptions about human nature, relying instead on the role of private property and the free market in providing a system that aggregates data like a distributed computer program and provides the inputs required for each agent to make proper decisions. While a society of perfectly benevolent agents might try to communicate all relevant information openly, the communication and computation requirements rapidly get out of hand when it turns out that agents now no longer even have a good guide as to what information to go gather. The socialist calculation argument is usually applied against central planning, but it would hold equally against systems based on democratic planning or even on everybody voluntarily following a self-evident idea of the common good. Whatever you think about this argument, it is a staple of anti-collectivist thought in the 20th century.
I apologize for the rant about the meaning of the word capitalism. I think it's an important misunderstanding that needs clearing up for anyone to understand the debate, but I cannot honestly claim it does not contain some amount of interpretation. Maybe some amount of scholarly dressing up might save it. We could do something like a separate page on "capitalism (disambiguation)", but even that might be too much novelty for the more conservative among libertarian socialist Wikipedians. (Do such creatures exist? I'd like to meet a conservative libertarian socialist some day. It would be the pinnacle of political identity confusion.) Sjeng 20:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely feel free to add the criticism back in, but keep in mind that Wikipedia articles should always be written from a neutral point of view, that original research is not allowed, and that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Additions are always welcome, but should be written in an encyclopaedic style. If you could revise the edits in accordance with policy, especially regarding essay form versus article form, and then add them again, that would be great. ~Switch t 23:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sjeng- it was your libertarian confreres who made the criticisms that are there not libertarian socialists. Also it should not be assumed that a libertarian socialist institutional structure relies on an altruistic conception of human nature. Most of them presuppose that propensities within variegated human nature for mutual reciprocity, cooperation,solidarity, and especially self-management can be brought forth by the proposed institutions. Having read plenty of Hayek I also think that you misrepresented his views on emergent order which was not that several property will arise automatically in the abscence of regulating factors so much as it did arise (in graeco-roman culture often in opposition to the regulatory factors of tribal tradition- see Fatal Conceit) and having done so he argues that these institutions augmented the fitness of the species becoming inscribed in cultural tradition and founded the civilization based upon the extended order. (Personally, I think his pseudo-historical claims have been proven quite bogus. [2]) In any case your treatise did not refer to any specific libertarian socialist thinker and thus far you have not displayed any evidence of having mindfully read a substantial sample of libertarian socialist literature. These deficiencies were glaringly evident in your critique. The libertarian socialist doctrine that I know was unrecognizable in what you described as libertarian socialism. By the way, roughly 96.2 % of all Hayekians are not aware that there is now a substantial body of literature written from libertarian socialist perspectives that critique Hayek,right-wing libertarian tendencies, Austrian and neo-Austrian economics, etc. If you wish to learn something of this perspective have a gander at Pat Devine's analysis of the Economic Calculation Debate. [3] BernardL 23:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mainstream politicians

That little run of not-signed-in edits adding mainstream politicians described as "libertarian socialists" was me. I thought it important to show that the term existed in this context. I know it sucks that only have UK examples. I don't know if other centre-left parties have a comparable "libertarian" tendency or not. I thought maybe Joska Fischer would have been described in these terms but couldn't find anything through Google. I think the libertarians in the Labour Party trace there roots back to the co-op movement but I really don't know enough to write more. A Geek Tragedy 14:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I think this maybe is another reason to create a Libertarian (word) article. The article, obviously, would discuss the word's origins in philosophy, its use by Dejacque and subsequently as a synonym for anarchism, its recent use by minarchist capitalists, and everything in between, including terms like libertarian socialism that have sprung from it. It would help to make this much clearer.
For the time being though, how about an Etymology section here, discussing the way the term has been applied? ~Switch t 14:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] criticism section

The problem with "libertarian socialism" (the article, not the concept) is that people are very keen to discover that the word is an oxymoron (this seems to be the genesis of one of the "lamest edit wars ever", which brought me to this page.) We really, really need to find some sources for the criticism here. Sdedeo (tips) 01:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Libertarians are NOT anticapitalists

I cannot believe people are trying to say that libertarians oppose capitalism. Are you kidding me? One of the biggest aspects of libertarianism is the desire fore laissez-faire capitalism. If you don't believe me, just go to www.lp.com or www.libertarian.ca and take a look at their platforms. Also libertarianism is NOT a synonym for anarchism. Libertarians generally hold contempt over anarchism as much as say, communism. Finally, libertarian socialism is a contradiction, as libertarians hold property rights as VERY important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.251.232 (talk) March 19, 2007

Wikipedia is NOT a discussion forum. Do you have any complaints about the article itself? See WP:NOT (Original Thought) for policy on discussion forums. You may disagree with the ideology, but that has no concerns in Wikipedia. If you have references to prominent qualified individuals who feel Libertarian Socialism is a contradiction of terms then feel free to add mention of them, along with a reference. Here is the Wikipedia policy for citing sources: Citing Sources on Wikipedia. But they have to be prominent (scholarly, credible) libertarians, economists, political scientists, or another similar field. Don't quote your friends blogs. I also recommend creating an account - it will give you more credibility when adding to articles. --Jelligraze 14:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)